[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 87 (Thursday, June 10, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H4342-H4365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FHA REFORM ACT OF 2010
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for further consideration of the bill, H.R.
5072.
{time} 1125
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5072) to improve the financial safety and soundness of
the FHA mortgage insurance program, with Mr. Pastor of Arizona in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday
June 9, 2010, all time for general debate had expired.
[[Page H4343]]
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 5072
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``FHA Reform Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
Subparagraph (B) of section 203(c)(2) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)(B)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
(A) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''; and
(B) by striking ``0.50 percent'' and inserting ``1.5
percent''; and
(2) in clause (ii), by striking ``shall be in an amount not
exceeding 0.55 percent'' and inserting ``may be in an amount
not exceeding 1.55 percent''.
SEC. 3. INDEMNIFICATION BY MORTGAGEES.
Section 202 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Indemnification by Mortgagees.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a
mortgage executed by a mortgagee approved by the Secretary
under the direct endorsement program or insured by a
mortgagee pursuant to the delegation of authority under
section 256 was not originated or underwritten in accordance
with the requirements established by the Secretary, and the
Secretary pays an insurance claim with respect to the
mortgage within a reasonable period specified by the
Secretary, the Secretary may require the mortgagee approved
by the Secretary under the direct endorsement program or the
mortgagee delegated authority under section 256 to indemnify
the Secretary for the loss.
``(2) Fraud or misrepresentation.--If fraud or
misrepresentation was involved in connection with the
origination or underwriting, the Secretary may require the
mortgagee approved by the Secretary under the direct
endorsement program or the mortgagee delegated authority
under section 256 to indemnify the Secretary for the loss
regardless of when an insurance claim is paid.
``(3) Requirements and procedures.--The Secretary shall
issue regulations establishing appropriate requirements and
procedures governing the indemnification of the Secretary by
the mortgagee.''.
SEC. 4. DELEGATION OF INSURING AUTHORITY.
Section 256 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-
21) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c);
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``, including'' and all
that follows through ``by the mortgagee''; and
(3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE MORTGAGEE ORIGINATION AND
UNDERWRITING APPROVAL.
Section 533 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1735f-
11) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by inserting
``or areas or on a nationwide basis'' after ``area'' each
place such term appears; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``(c)'' and all that
follows through ``The Secretary'' in the first sentence of
paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(c) Termination of Mortgagee Origination and Underwriting
Approval.--
``(1) Termination authority.--If the Secretary determines,
under the comparison provided in subsection (b), that a
mortgagee has a rate of early defaults and claims that is
excessive, the Secretary may terminate the approval of the
mortgagee to originate or underwrite single family mortgages
for any area, or areas, or on a nationwide basis,
notwithstanding section 202(c) of this Act.
``(2) Procedure.--The Secretary''.
SEC. 6. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF FHA FOR RISK MANAGEMENT
AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS.
(a) Establishment of Position.--Subsection (b) of section 4
of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42
U.S.C. 3533(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) There shall be in the Department, within the Federal
Housing Administration, a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Risk
Management and Regulatory Affairs, who shall be appointed by
the Secretary and shall be responsible to the Federal Housing
Commissioner for all matters relating to managing and
mitigating risk to the mortgage insurance funds of the
Department and ensuring the performance of mortgages insured
by the Department.''.
(b) Termination.--Upon the appointment and confirmation of
the initial Deputy Assistant Secretary for Risk Management
and Regulatory Affairs pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, as amended
by subsection (a) of this section, the position of chief risk
officer within the Federal Housing Administration, filled by
appointment by the Federal Housing Commissioner, is
abolished.
SEC. 7. USE OF OUTSIDE CREDIT RISK ANALYSIS SOURCES.
Section 202 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(j) Use of Outside Credit Risk Analysis Sources.--The
Secretary may obtain the services of, and enter into
contracts with, private and other entities outside of the
Department in--
``(1) analyzing credit risk models and practices employed
by the Department in connection with such mortgages;
``(2) evaluating underwriting standards applicable to such
mortgages insured by the Department; and
``(3) analyzing the performance of lenders in complying
with, and the Department in enforcing, such underwriting
standards.''.
SEC. 8. REVIEW OF MORTGAGEE PERFORMANCE.
Section 533 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1735f-
11) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting after the period at the
end the following: ``For purposes of this subsection, the
term `early default' means a default that occurs within 24
months after a mortgage is originated or such alternative
appropriate period as the Secretary shall establish.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting after the period at the
end of the first sentence the following: ``The Secretary
shall also identify which mortgagees have had a significant
or rapid increase, as determined by the Secretary, in the
number or percentage of early defaults and claims on such
mortgages, with respect to all mortgages originated by the
mortgagee or mortgages on housing located in any particular
geographic area or areas.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(d) Sufficient Resources.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary for each of fiscal years 2010
through 2014 the amount necessary to provide additional full-
time equivalent positions for the Department, or for entering
into such contracts as are necessary, to conduct reviews in
accordance with the requirements of this section and to carry
out other responsibilities relating to ensuring the safety
and soundness of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.
``(e) Reporting to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of the FHA Reform Act of 2010 and not
less often than annually thereafter, the Secretary shall make
available to the Committee on Financial Services of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate any information and conclusions
pursuant to the reviews required under subsection (a). Such
report shall not include detailed information on the
performance of individual mortgages.''.
SEC. 9. USE OF NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE LICENSING SYSTEM AND
REGISTRY.
(a) Use by Mortgagees, Officers, and Owners; Use for
Insured Mortgages.--
(1) Mortgagees, officers, and owners.--Section 202 of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708), as amended by the
preceding provisions of this Act, is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(k) Use of Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and
Registry for Mortgagees, Officers, and Owners.--The Secretary
may require, as a condition for approval of a mortgagee by
the Secretary to originate or underwrite mortgages on single
family that are insured by the Secretary, that the
mortgagee--
``(1) obtain and maintain a unique company identifier
assigned by the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and
Registry, as established by the Conference of State Bank
Supervisors and the American Association of Residential
Mortgage Regulators; and
``(2) obtain and maintain, as relates to any and all
officers or owners of the mortgagee who are subject to the
requirements of the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008,
or are otherwise required to register with the Nationwide
Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, the unique identifier
assigned by the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and
Registry, as established by the Conference of State Bank
Supervisors and the American Association of Residential
Mortgage Regulators.''.
(2) Insured mortgages.--Section 203 of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1709) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(y) Use of Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and
Registry for Insured Loans.--The Secretary may require each
mortgage insured under this section to include the unique
identifier (as such term is defined in section 1503 of the
S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5102)) and
any unique company identifier assigned by the Nationwide
Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, as established by the
Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the American
Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators.''.
(b) Coordination With State Regulatory Agencies.--Section
202 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708), as amended
by the preceding provisions of this Act, is further amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(l) Information Sharing With State Regulatory Agencies.--
``(1) Joint protocol on information sharing.--The Secretary
shall, through consultation with State regulatory agencies,
pursue protocols for information sharing, including the
appropriate treatment of confidential or otherwise restricted
information, regarding either actions described in subsection
(c)(3) of this section or disciplinary or enforcement actions
by a State regulatory agency or agencies against a mortgagee
(as such term is defined in subsection (c)(7)).
``(2) Coordination.--To the greatest extent possible, the
Secretary and appropriate State
[[Page H4344]]
regulatory agencies shall coordinate disciplinary and
enforcement actions involving mortgagees (as such term is
defined in subsection (c)(7)).''.
SEC. 10. REPORTING OF MORTGAGEE ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST OTHER
MORTGAGEES.
Section 202 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1708(e)), as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act,
is further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(m) Notification of Mortgagee Actions.--The Secretary
shall require each mortgagee, as a condition for approval by
the Secretary to originate or underwrite mortgages on single
family or multifamily housing that are insured by the
Secretary, if such mortgagee engages in the purchase of
mortgages insured by the Secretary and originated by other
mortgagees or in the purchase of the servicing rights to such
mortgages, and such mortgagee at any time takes action to
terminate or discontinue such purchases from another
mortgagee based on any determination, evidence, or report of
fraud or material misrepresentation in connection with the
origination of such mortgages, the mortgagee shall, not later
than 15 days after taking such action, shall notify the
Secretary of the action taken and the reasons for such
action.''.
SEC. 11. ANNUAL ACTUARIAL STUDY AND QUARTERLY REPORTS ON
MUTUAL MORTGAGE INSURANCE FUND.
Subsection (a) of section 202 of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1708(a)) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence of paragraph (4), by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``, any changes
to the current or projected safety and soundness of the Fund
since the most recent report under this paragraph or
paragraph (5), and any risks to the Fund''; and
(2) in paragraph (5)--
(A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and'';
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) any other factors that are likely to have an impact
on the financial status of the Fund or cause any material
changes to the current or projected safety and soundness of
the Fund since the most recent report under paragraph (4).
The Secretary may include in the report under this paragraph
any recommendations not made in the most recent report under
paragraph (4) that may be needed to ensure that the Fund
remains financially sound.''.
SEC. 12. REVIEW OF DOWNPAYMENT REQUIREMENTS.
Section 205 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1711) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Review of Downpayment Requirements.--If, at any time
when the capital ratio (as such term is defined in subsection
(f)) of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund does not comply
with the requirement under subsection (f)(1), the Secretary
establishes a cash investment requirement, for all mortgages
or mortgagors or with respect to any group of mortgages or
mortgagors, that exceeds the minimum percentage or amount
required under section 203(b)(9), thereafter upon the capital
ratio first complying with the requirement under subsection
(f)(1) the Secretary shall review such cash investment
requirement and, if the Secretary determines that such
percentage or amount may be reduced while maintaining such
compliance, the Secretary shall subsequently reduce such
requirement by such percentage or amount as the Secretary
considers appropriate.''.
SEC. 13. DEFAULT AND ORIGINATION INFORMATION BY LOAN SERVICER
AND ORIGINATING DIRECT ENDORSEMENT LENDER.
(a) Collection of Information.--Paragraph (2) of section
540(b) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1712 U.S.C.
1735f-18(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(C) For each entity that services insured mortgages, data
on the performance of mortgages originated during each
calendar quarter occurring during the applicable collection
period, disaggregated by the direct endorsement mortgagee
from whom such entity acquired such servicing.''.
(b) Applicability.--Information described in subparagraph
(C) of section 540(b)(2) of the National Housing Act, as
added by subsection (a) of this section, shall first be made
available under such section 540 for the applicable
collection period (as such term is defined in such section)
relating to the first calendar quarter ending after the
expiration of the 12-month period that begins on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 14. THIRD PARTY SERVICER OUTREACH.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development may, to the extent any amounts for fiscal year
2010 or 2011 are made available in advance in appropriation
Acts for reimbursements under this section, provide
reimbursement to servicers of covered mortgages (as such term
is defined in subsection (e)) for costs of obtaining the
services of independent third parties meeting the
requirements under subsection (b) of this section to make in-
person contact with mortgagors under covered mortgages whose
payments under such mortgages are 60 or more days past due,
solely for the purposes of providing information to such
mortgagors regarding--
(1) available counseling by housing counseling agencies
approved by the Secretary ; and
(2) available mortgage loan modification, refinance, and
assistance programs.
(b) Qualified Independent Third Parties.--An independent
third party meets the requirements of this subsection if the
third party--
(1) is an entity, including a housing counseling agency
approved by the Secretary, that meets standards,
qualifications, and requirements (including regarding
foreclosure prevention training, quality monitoring,
safeguarding of non-public information) established by the
Secretary for purposes of this section for in-person contact
about available mortgage loan modification, refinance, and
assistance programs; and
(2) does not charge any fees or require other payments,
directly or indirectly, from any mortgagor for making in-
person contact and providing information and documents under
this section.
(c) Treatment of Personal, Non-public, and Confidential
Information.--An independent third party whose services are
obtained using amounts made available for use under this
section and the mortgage servicer obtaining such services
shall not use, disclose, or distribute any personal, non-
public, or confidential information about a mortgagor
obtained during an in-person contact with the mortgagor,
except for purposes of engaging in the process of
modification or refinance of the covered mortgage.
(d) Date of Contact and Disclosures.--Each independent
third party whose services are obtained by a mortgage
servicer using amounts made available for use under this
section shall--
(1) initiate in-person contact with a mortgagor not later
than 10 days after the date upon which payments under the
covered mortgage of the mortgagor become 60 days past due;
and
(2) upon making in-person contact with a mortgagor, provide
the mortgagor with a written document that discloses--
(A) the name of, and contact information for, the
independent third party and the mortgage servicer;
(B) that the independent third party has contracted with
the mortgage servicer to provide the in-person contact at no
charge to the mortgagor;
(C) that the independent third party is an agent of the
mortgage servicer;
(D) that the in-person contact with the mortgagor consists
of providing information about available counseling by a
housing counseling agency approved by the Secretary and
available mortgage loan modification, refinance, and
assistance programs;
(E) that the independent third party and the mortgage
servicer are prohibited from the use, disclosure, or
distribution of personal, non-public, and confidential
information about the mortgagor, obtained during the in-
person contact, except for purposes of engaging in the
process of modification or refinance of the covered mortgage;
(F) any other information that the Secretary determines
should be disclosed.
(e) Definition of Covered Mortgage.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``covered mortgage'' means a mortgage on a
1- to 4-family residence insured under the provisions of
subsection (b) or (k) of section 203, section 234(c), or 251
of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709, 1715y, 1715z-
16).
SEC. 15. GAO REPORTS ON FHA AND GINNIE MAE.
Not later than the expiration of the 12-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the
Congress the following reports:
(1) FHA report.--A report on the single family mortgage
insurance programs of the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development and the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund
established under section 202(a) of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1708(a)) that--
(A) analyzes such Fund, the economic net worth, capital
ratio, and unamortized insurance-in-force (as such terms are
defined in section 205(f)(4) of such Act (12 U.S.C.
1711(f)(4))) of such Fund, the risks to the Fund, how the
capital ratio of the Fund affects the mortgage insurance
programs under the Fund and the broader housing market, the
extent to which the housing markets are more dependent on
mortgage insurance provided through the Fund since the
financial crisis began in 2008, and the exposure of the
taxpayers for obligations of the Fund;
(B) analyzes the methodology of the capital ratio for the
Fund under section 205(f) of such Act and examines other
alternative methodologies with respect to which methodology
is most appropriate to meet the operational goals of the Fund
under section 202(a)(7);
(C) analyzes the effects of the increases in the limits on
the maximum principal obligation of mortgages made by the FHA
Modernization Act of 2008 (title I of division B of Public
Law 110-289), section 202 of the Economic Stimulus Act of
2008 (Public Law 110-185; 122 Stat. 620), section 1202 of
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 225), and section 166 of
the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (as added by
section 104 of division B of Public Law 111-88; 123 Stat.
29723) on--
(i) the risks to and safety and soundness of the Fund;
(ii) the impact on the affordability and availability of
mortgage credit for borrowers for loans authorized under such
higher loan limits;
(iii) the private market for residential mortgage loans
that are not insured by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development; and
(iv) the Federal National Mortgage Association and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; and
(D) analyzes the impact on affordability to FHA borrowers,
and the impact to the Fund, of seller concessions or
contributions to a borrower purchasing a residence using a
mortgage that is insured by the Secretary.
(2) Ginnie mae.--A report on the Government National
Mortgage Association that identifies--
(A) the volume and share of the residential mortgage market
that consists of mortgages that
[[Page H4345]]
back securities for which the payment for principal and
interest is guaranteed by such Association and how the
Association has been affected by the economic recession,
credit crisis, and downturn in the housing markets occurring
during 2008, 2009, and 2010;
(B) the capacity of the Association to manage the volume of
business it conducts and securities it guarantees,
particularly with regard to the recent dramatic increase in
such volume, including the ability of the Association to
conduct appropriate oversight of contractors and issuers of
securities for which the payment of principal and interest is
guaranteed by the Association and to determine whether the
characteristics of various mortgage products constitute
appropriate collateral for the federally guaranteed
securities for which payment of principal and interest is
guaranteed by such Association;
(C) the impacts, if any, resulting from such increased
volume of business conducted by the Association and
securities it guarantees and the challenges such increased
volume poses to the internal controls of the Association; and
(D) the existing capital net worth requirements for
aggregators of mortgages that issue securities that are based
on or backed by such mortgages and payment of principal and
interest on which is guaranteed by such Association and
recommends an appropriate required level of net worth for
such aggregators and issuers to protect the financial
interests of the Federal Government and the taxpayers.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 111-503. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered 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.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Waters
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 111-503.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in
order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Waters:
Page 9, line 19, after ``single family'' insert
``residences''.
Page 18, line 24, strike ``12-month'' and insert ``18-
month''.
Page 14, after line 16, insert the following new section:
SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ORIGINATION OF
FHA-INSURED LOANS.
(a) Single Family Mortgages.--Section 203(b) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)) is amended by
striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following new
paragraph:
``(1) Have been made to a mortgagee approved by the
Secretary or to a person or entity authorized by the
Secretary under section 202(d)(1) to participate in the
origination of the mortgage, and be held by a mortgagee
approved by the Secretary as responsible and able to service
the mortgage properly.''.
(b) Home Equity Conversion Mortgages.--Section 255(d) of
the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(d)) is amended
by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following new
paragraph:
``(1) have been originated by a mortgagee approved by, or
by a person or entity authorized under section 202(d)(1) to
participate in the origination by, the Secretary;''.
Page 14, line 17, strike ``13'' and insert ``14''.
Page 15, line 14, strike ``14'' and insert ``15''.
Strike line 23 on page 18 and all that follows through page
22, line 20, and insert the following:
SEC. 16. GAO REPORT ON FHA.
Not later than the expiration of the 12-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the
Congress a report on the single family mortgage insurance
programs of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
and the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund established under
section 202(a) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1708(a)) that--
(1) analyzes such Fund, the economic net worth, capital
ratio, and unamortized insurance-in-force (as such terms are
defined in section 205(f)(4) of such Act (12 U.S.C.
1711(f)(4))) of such Fund, the risks to the Fund, how the
capital ratio of the Fund affects the mortgage insurance
programs under the Fund and the broader housing market, the
extent to which the housing markets are more dependent on
mortgage insurance provided through the Fund since the
financial crisis began in 2008, and the exposure of the
taxpayers for obligations of the Fund;
(2) analyzes the methodology for determining the Fund's
capital ratio under section 205(f) of such Act and examines
alternative methods for assessing the Fund's financial
condition and their potential impacts on the Fund's ability
to meet the operational goals under section 202(a)(7) of such
Act;
(3) analyzes the potential effects of the increases in the
limits on the maximum principal obligation of mortgages made
by the FHA Modernization Act of 2008 (title I of division B
of Public Law 110-289), section 202 of the Economic Stimulus
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-185; 122 Stat. 620), section 1202
of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 225), and section 166 of
the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (as added by
section 104 of division B of Public Law 111-88; 123 Stat.
29723) on--
(A) the risks to and safety and soundness of the Fund;
(B) the impact on the affordability and availability of
mortgage credit for borrowers for loans authorized under such
higher loan limits;
(C) the private market for residential mortgage loans that
are not insured by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development; and
(D) the Federal National Mortgage Association and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; and
(4) analyzes the impact on affordability to FHA borrowers,
and the impact to the Fund, of seller concessions or
contributions to a borrower purchasing a residence using a
mortgage that is insured by the Secretary.
At the end of the bill, add the following new sections:
SEC. 17. INCREASED LOAN LIMITS FOR DESIGNATED COUNTIES.
(a) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (in this
section referred to as the ``Secretary'') may increase the
dollar amount limitations on the principal obligation of
mortgages otherwise determined under section 203(b)(2) of the
National Housing Act for any county that is designated under
this section.
(b) Procedure.--
(1) Federal register notice.--Any designation of a county
under this section shall be made only pursuant to application
by the county for such designation, in accordance with
procedures that the Secretary may establish. The Secretary
may establish such procedures only by publication in the
Federal Register not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Final determination.--If the Secretary establishes
procedures for applications under paragraph (1) and receives
a completed application for designation under this section of
a county in accordance with such procedures, the Secretary
shall issue a final determination regarding such application
for designation, based on the criteria under subsection (c),
not later than 60 days after such receipt.
(c) Determination Criteria.--The Secretary may designate an
applicant county under this section only if the county is
located within a micropolitan area (as such term is defined
by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget) and
meets the following criteria:
(1) More than 70 percent of the border of the applicant
county abuts two or more metropolitan statistical areas (as
such term is defined by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget) for which each dollar amount
limitation on the principal obligation of a mortgage that may
be insured under section 203 of the National Housing Act, in
effect at the time of such determination, is at least 40
percent greater than the dollar amount limitation for the
same size residence for the applicant county. For purposes of
such calculation, the dollar amount limitations of such
abutting counties shall not include any increase attributable
to the authority under this section.
(2) The applicant county has experienced significant
population growth, as evidenced by an increase of 15 percent
or more during the 10 years preceding the application,
according to statistics of the United States Census Bureau or
such other appropriate criteria as the Secretary shall
establish.
(3) The dollar amount limitation on the principal
obligation of a mortgage on housing in the applicant county
that may be insured under section 203 of the National Housing
Act, in effect at the time of such application, is the
minimum such dollar amount limitation allowable under the
matter that follows clause (ii) in section 203(b)(2)(A) of
the National Housing Act.
(d) Establishment of Loan Limits.--For a county designated
under this section, the Secretary may increase the maximum
dollar amount limitations on the principal obligation of
mortgages otherwise determined under section 203(b)(2) of the
National Housing Act to such levels as are appropriate,
taking into consideration the criteria established for such
designation, but not to exceed the dollar amount limitations
for the abutting metropolitan statistical area meeting the
requirements of subsection (c)(1) that has the lowest such
dollar amount limitations.
(e) Effective Date and Term of Designation of New
Countywide Loan Limits.--A designation of a county under this
section, and the maximum dollar amount limitations for such
county pursuant to subsection (d), shall--
(1) take effect upon the expiration of the 60-day period
that begins upon the final determination for the county
referred to in subsection (b)(2); and
(2) remain in effect until the end of the calendar year in
which such designation takes effect.
(f) Loan Limits for Succeeding Years.--With respect to each
calendar year immediately following the calendar year in
which
[[Page H4346]]
a county is designated under this subsection, the Secretary
may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, continue or
adjust the dollar amount limitations in effect pursuant to
this section for such designated county for such preceding
year, as appropriate, consistent with the criteria under this
section.
SEC. 18. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BORROWERS.
Section 203 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(z) Identification Requirements for Borrowers.--No
mortgage on a 1- to 4-family dwelling may be insured under
this title unless the mortgagor under such mortgage--
``(1) provides a valid Social Security Number; and
``(2) is (A) a United States citizen, (B) a lawful
permanent resident alien, or (C) a non-permanent resident
alien who legally resides in and is authorized to work in the
United States.
The Secretary shall establish policies under which mortgagees
verify compliance with the requirements under this
subsection.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment would make technical
corrections to the underlying FHA Reform Act of 2010 and would respond
to a GAO request for more time to complete the mandated study on FHA.
This amendment would also facilitate HUD's implementation of a
recently finalized rule whereby FHA will no longer directly approve
loan correspondents or mortgage brokers but will require lenders to
approve brokers.
Under the language proposed in this amendment, loan correspondents
would be permitted to continue closing loans in their own name, a
critical business function, and continue to utilize table funding
arrangements.
This amendment also addresses eligibility for FHA loans by requiring
FHA borrowers to have a valid Social Security number and limiting FHA
loans to only U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. This language ensures
that undocumented immigrants or other individuals who are in the
country unlawfully cannot get FHA mortgages, while still providing that
lawful immigrants can continue to stimulate demand in the U.S. housing
market through the purchase of homes.
Finally, this amendment provides that the Secretary may increase loan
limits for micropolitan counties surrounded by higher-cost areas that
are experiencing significant growth.
Again, this amendment strengthens an already strong bill, and I urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1130
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am
not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank the chairwoman of the Housing
Subcommittee for her good work on this bill and for this manager's
amendment. We have worked together on this amendment, as we have with
the rest of the bill.
As she summarized in her statement, this provides provisions that
drops out a few provisions that were problematic, but it also increases
the requirements for identification, for a valid Social Security number
and to be a U.S. citizen to be able to have access to FHA programs. I
think it goes to the core of a lot of discussion that we've had on this
floor, and certainly we want to make certain that those who are
eligible for programs are able to access them and those that are
ineligible are unable to access them.
So as I said, we've worked together on this amendment, and I plan to
support the manager's amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time on this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cardoza
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Cardoza:
Page 15, line 20, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 18, after line 16, insert the following new
subsection:
(e) Priority.--In providing reimbursements under this
section, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall
provide priority to independent third parties serving
mortgagors under covered mortgages in areas experiencing a
mortgage foreclosure rate and unemployment rate higher than
the national average for the most recent 12-month period for
which satisfactory data are available.
Page 18, line 17, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cardoza) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CARDOZA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In recent weeks we have seen a small but slow and steady improvement
in the national housing market while other parts of the country, like
my congressional district in the San Joaquin Valley, have continued to
deteriorate. I have repeatedly explained to the administration that
their programs are not doing enough to stem the problems of the rising
tide of foreclosures in areas like the Central Valley in California.
As this economic devastation continues, we must redouble our efforts
to help our constituents as we work to improve the fundamentals of the
economy and hopefully eventually pull ourselves out of this situation.
We must ensure that we are doing everything that we can to help those
who are suffering the most.
Counseling services are just one component of this comprehensive
approach that we need to deal with this ongoing crisis. People must
know their options when faced with foreclosure so that they can make
informed decisions based on their own personal circumstances.
Navigating these options is often difficult, stressful, and confusing
to those who have never had to deal with such issues. Counseling can
help some people find ways to stay in their homes while it offers
others a path to resolve an impending foreclosure and get back on their
feet.
If we are going to incentivize mortgage servicers to provide third-
party counselors to borrowers who are behind on their mortgage
payments, then we ought to make sure we give priority to those areas
who are hurting the most. My amendment would prioritize foreclosure
counseling services to areas of the country that have been the hardest
hit by the housing crisis.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment and to refocus our efforts on those who need the help the
most.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to claim the time in opposition, although I
am unopposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California.
As my colleague from California knows all too well, rising
foreclosure and delinquency rates continue to affect all areas of the
mortgage market. Secondary markets for mortgages have seen a
significant drawback that has led to a reduction in the availability of
credit. Lenders have tightened credit
[[Page H4347]]
standards making it more difficult for delinquent borrowers to
refinance.
At the same time, because of falling home prices and certainly in
many parts of the country, like the gentleman's home district,
borrowers are finding themselves unable to refinance into more
affordable or fixed-rate products because their outstanding mortgage
loan balances exceed their homes' values.
States such as California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada continue to
dominate the national delinquency and foreclosure markets. The Cardoza
amendment prioritizes assistance to the areas that have been hardest
hit by foreclosure and unemployment compared to the rest of the
country.
I am prepared to support the gentleman's amendment, and I would like
to say that one area of the gentleman's amendment that I particularly
am in favor of--because we kind of go through this discussion on a lot
of different bills, where to put the greater emphasis, and I think the
greater emphasis and the greater dollar assistance need to go to the
places that are the hardest hit and do have the most difficult
problems. And so I think this is well-intentioned, and I would support
the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for her comments
and her support of my amendment. It is very important that we do move
in this direction.
At this time, I yield 1 minute to the chairwoman of the subcommittee,
a true champion for those who are trying to remain in their homes, and
she's done so much to try to help us alleviate the challenges that we
face in my district and throughout our State, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank my colleague from California. I
certainly support this amendment.
The gentleman from California has been one of the most active Members
of this Congress in bringing attention to the economic fallout of the
foreclosure crisis. I am well aware that his district located in my
home State of California has one of the highest foreclosure rates in
the country. California has the Nation's fourth highest foreclosure
rate with one in every 192 housing units receiving a foreclosure filing
last April.
Unfortunately, due to the economic impacts of foreclosures on
communities, high foreclosure rates are sometimes accompanied by high
unemployment rates. At 13 percent, California's unemployment rate is
higher than the national unemployment rate of 9.5 percent. By
prioritizing foreclosure counseling services to the hardest hit areas,
this amendment would ensure that the homeowners most in need of these
services would receive them, helping to stabilize communities that are
already facing economic troubles.
I support this amendment, and I certainly thank the gentleman for
offering it. I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes.''
Mrs. CAPITO. Again, I voice my support for the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. This amendment is straightforward and common sense. I
believe that Congress must ensure that all efforts to provide
assistance during these difficult times actually help those that need
it the most.
I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Cao
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. CAO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Cao:
Page 16, line 4, strike ``and''.
Page 16, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 16, after line 6, insert the following:
(3) available counseling regarding financial management and
credit risk.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Cao) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. CAO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to
H.R. 5072, the FHA Reform Act of 2010. The bill we are considering
today is a much-needed piece of legislation to help bolster the Federal
Housing Administration and help prevent another housing crisis.
As someone from a district that is both in recovery and one with
incredible housing needs, I especially appreciate this bill. I
congratulate Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for bringing this
important legislation to the floor.
I think the portion of the bill which provides information about loan
modification and housing counseling to a mortgager at risk of early
default is important. The amendment that I propose slightly expands
this requirement by including language that includes credit risk and
financial management counseling information.
I know that many times, especially in the current economic downturn,
people headed for foreclosure have many other debt issues. Low- and
middle-income families, those most likely to have FHA loans, often
don't know that there is counseling available to help them understand
the credit risk associated with foreclosure and loan modification. Many
do not have the skills to manage this risk. They don't know that there
is often free or low-cost financial management information available to
them for help. That is why I have drafted the additional language to
help these families get information about the full range of services
available to them. This is good policy from which any constituent in my
district can benefit.
This is about giving people the information they need to be
successful. As policymakers, we should not only aim to preserve
homeownership but to encourage responsible homeownership. By empowering
people, we are taking a proactive stance towards aborting another
financial crisis.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not
opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman for this amendment which would
ensure that FHA borrowers who are having difficulty paying their loans
would receive counseling about credit risk and financial management in
addition to information about loan modification assistance and the
availability of housing counseling.
Financial literacy is an important tool for empowering consumers,
especially those consumers who are having difficulty making mortgage
payments. The gentleman's amendment would enhance the housing
counseling resources provided by the bill. By allowing borrowers to
learn about how to manage their non-mortgage debt, they could be
helpful in ensuring that they are able to remain current in their
mortgages after modification.
I support this amendment, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAO. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cao).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Bean
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 111-503.
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Bean:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH HIGHER MINIMUM CASH
INVESTMENT REQUIREMENT.
(a) Authority.--Paragraph (9) of section 203(b) of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(9)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Authority to establish higher minimum requirement.--
The Secretary may establish a higher minimum cash investment
requirement than the minimum requirement under subsection
(a), for all mortgagors or a
[[Page H4348]]
certain class or classes of mortgagors, which may be based on
criteria related to borrowers' credit scores or other
industry standards related to borrowers' financial soundness.
In establishing such a higher minimum cash investment
requirement, the Secretary shall take into consideration the
findings of the most recent annual report to the Congress on
minimum cash investments pursuant to section 16(b) of the FHA
Reform Act of 2010.''.
(b) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 12-month
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and
annually thereafter, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall submit to the Committee on Financial
Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report
detailing the implementation of the minimum cash investment
requirements under section 203(b)(9) of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(9)) and discussing and analyzing
options for proposed changes to such requirements, including
changes that would take into account borrowers' credit scores
or other industry standards related to borrowers' financial
soundness. Such report shall--
(1) analyze the impacts that any actual or proposed such
changes are projected to have on--
(A) the financial soundness of the Mutual Mortgage
Insurance Fund;
(B) the housing finance market of the United States; and
(C) the number of borrowers served by the Federal Housing
Administration;
(2) explain the reasons for any actual or proposed such
changes in the such requirements made since the last report
under this subsection;
(3) evaluate the impact of any actual or proposed such
changes in such requirements on the Mutual Mortgage Insurance
Fund;
(4) evaluate the impacts of any actual or proposed such
changes on potential mortgagors under mortgages on one- to
four-family dwellings insured by the Secretary under the
National Housing Act; and
(5) evaluate the impact of any actual or proposed such
changes on the soundness of the housing market in the United
States.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Ms. Bean) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am here to talk to my colleagues about
today protects taxpayers and increases government accountability while
preserving a critical program that has helped 37 million Americans
become homeowners since 1934.
My amendment requires HUD and the FHA to conduct annual comprehensive
assessments and considerations for increased minimum down payment
requirements in the FHA mortgage guarantee program and grants the FHA
greater authority to do so.
Currently, the minimum cash investment requirement, commonly referred
to as the ``down payment requirement,'' is set at 3.5 percent. HUD has
used its existing authority to propose a 10 percent down payment
requirement for borrowers with credit scores below 580, and I applaud
FHA Commissioner Stevens and HUD for this important step to protect
taxpayer dollars.
However, it's important for HUD to be given clear direction on
evaluating future down payment increases as data suggests that the
foreclosure crisis is not yet over.
According to core logic, approximately one in four borrowers are
underwater in their mortgages, which means they owe more than their
house is currently worth. As borrowers become increasingly underwater,
they lose incentive to continue to pay their mortgage, which can lead
to delinquency and further foreclosures.
While it is difficult for individual homeowners to guard against
large swings in the housing market, one important tool for preventing
negative equity is to require a meaningful down payment. To make sure
HUD is setting down payment requirements for the FHA program that will
sufficiently protect the Federal Government from excessive defaults, my
amendment requires HUD to submit an annual report to Congress regarding
proposed or actual increases. The report would require HUD to analyze
the impacts that they would have on the financial soundness of the
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund--which is the reserve fund referenced
frequently in today's debate--also the effect on the housing finance
market of the United States and the number of borrowers served by the
FHA program.
{time} 1145
The amendment requires HUD to consider the findings of these annual
reports in determining whether higher down payment requirements are
warranted. In addition, it grants authority to HUD to establish
requirements for all borrowers or a class or classes of borrowers, and
it directs HUD to consider a borrower's credit score when making these
decisions.
Combined, this amendment will mandate HUD to evaluate resetting down
payment requirements every year, and it will ensure the Federal
Government is effectively protected from unnecessary risk. This
amendment allows Congress to protect taxpayers without being overly
prescriptive or handcuffing the FHA with specific terms. Instead, it
provides the FHA the authority to make fact-based decisions based on
the level of defaults and market conditions.
We learned from the current mortgage crisis that the FHA needs the
data and the flexibility to address changes in today's more dynamic and
diverse mortgage market and to protect taxpayers. We also recognize the
importance of preserving access to affordable mortgages for millions of
American families. FHA has helped Americans attain home ownership and
has provided crucial mortgage insurance at times when the private
market has pulled back from the mortgage market.
This legislation well-complements the consumer and taxpayer
protections in the Wall Street reforms Congress is moving towards final
passage.
I urge my colleagues to support the Bean amendment and the underlying
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I rise to claim time in opposition, although I'm not
opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. As the gentlewoman from Illinois stated, this gives HUD
the authority to increase FHA down payments and would require an annual
report. I'd like to ask the gentlelady, if I could, a question about
her amendment, if she would be willing to help me out with some
clarification.
You mentioned in your statement that HUD had already raised the down
payment requirements with those of credit scores of 580 and below up to
10 percent. So my question is, it seems apparent to me that HUD already
has the authority that you are granting in this amendment. HUD can
already now go in and raise down payments. I would like to know what
the distinction is or what the difference of the authority is that
you're granting in your amendment from the authority that HUD already
has.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Ms. BEAN. Well, first of all, it's mandating it. They have to
evaluate the facts every year and then propose to Congress why they are
or aren't making changes. So that's different than what they've been
required to do in the past.
Mrs. CAPITO. But still, the authority they have to raise down payment
requirements is already existing in current law.
Ms. BEAN. They do have the authority to make changes.
Mrs. CAPITO. Basically, the change is more in the annual report and
the requirement that HUD has to look at those reports and make a
statement to the committee and to Congress?
Ms. BEAN. That's correct.
Mrs. CAPITO. I thank the gentlelady for clarification, and as I said
previously, I am prepared to support this amendment.
I don't believe I have any further requests for time; so I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. BEAN. I yield such time as she may consume to Congresswoman
Waters.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reiterates the existing
authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to raise
down payment standards if he deems it necessary to ensure the financial
health of FHA, and that is exactly what Secretary Donovan, with the
help of Commissioner Stevens is doing because data indicates it is the
best thing to do for the current economic environment. In addition, the
Secretary has the authority to reduce this down payment
[[Page H4349]]
should economic conditions change and data indicates that it can be
done while preserving the health of the capital reserves.
This amendment also calls for the Secretary to provide an annual
report on the implementation of the minimum down payment requirement,
the impact on FHA's capital reserves, the housing market generally, all
the number of FHA borrowers, and the impact of any proposed changes on
borrowers on the fund.
I believe this is a sensible amendment that increases transparency
and accountability and should receive strong, bipartisan support, and I
thank Congresswoman Bean for all of the work that she's done on this
committee and for this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
Page 3, after line 16, insert the following new section:
SEC. 3. DOWNPAYMENT REQUIREMENT OF 5 PERCENT AND PROHIBITION
OF FINANCING OF CLOSING COSTS.
Section 203 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(9)(A), by striking ``3.5 percent''
and inserting ``5.0 percent''; and
(2) in subsections (b)(2) and (k)(3)(A), by striking
``(including such initial service charges, appraisal,
inspection, and other fees as the Secretary shall approve)''
each place such term appears and inserting ``(which may not
include any initial service charges, appraisal, inspection,
or other fees or closing costs as the Secretary shall
prohibit)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield myself 3 minutes.
I want to begin by restating the obvious, and that is, the FHA right
now is in serious financial trouble. Their book of business during 2005
and 2006 and 2007 was really pretty small back then, and in 2008, FHA's
lending took off to really high levels and currently is around 30
percent of the market. Typically, the default from mortgages occurs not
in the first couple of years but in three, four, five, six, and seven
years.
So we've already seen a sharp increase in delinquency and defaults
with the FHA book, and we've not even gotten into the typically bad
areas, the problem years for 2008 and 2009 so we're probably going to
see those numbers go off the track.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say that
there isn't going to be a problem because underwriting standards have
tightened up some and the average FICO score has gone up. If you think
about it, that really misses the point. In the mortgage business, you
make pennies and you lose dollars. Because of the tremendous increase
in volume, the FHA has insured thousands of more loans from higher
credit borrowers but they insured thousands of more loans from more
credit risky borrowers, too. Those numbers just aren't going to balance
out. So, when the FHA has to pay a claim on default, it costs
significantly more than the proceeds, than the few extra pennies they
get by issuing more loans. For example, the premiums from 10 additional
good loans would not cover the losses from 10 additional riskier loans
in default. In fact, I doubt it would cover even one.
This point also debunks the claim that if you raise the down payment
you will hurt the FHA because the accompanying reduction in volume will
not allow them to collect as many fees. Why is that? The more loans you
insure, the more defaults you will experience and you will not be able
to recoup the losses with those additional premiums.
A second point. Another argument they will make is that the FHA's LTV
ratio, the loan-to-value ratio, above 95 percent are a lower percentage
of the books today than they were just a few years ago, but this fails
to acknowledge that it's because their book has grown so much over the
last few years. So I would argue this, that of the total numbers, there
are significantly more loans over there that are above 95 percent LTV
and over 96.5 which is a critical number simply because of their
ability to finance the up-front premiums now. And with more loans with
higher LTVs means what? More riskier loans.
FHA's own actuarial report says this: ``Based on previous econometric
studies of mortgage behavior, a borrower's equity position in the
mortgaged house is one of the most important drivers of default
behavior. The larger the equity position a borrower has, the greater
the incentive to avoid default on the loan.''
So that's why I've come up with this amendment. It's not a 20 percent
down payment or 15 percent or even a 10 percent, which many private
lenders right now require, but we go for the reasonable one, the
compromise, 5 percent down payment. I support home owners as much as
the next guy, and I want everybody to be able to afford their own home
if they could. But we have to learn something from our past history,
and we have to be responsible here in this House.
I find the debate over the problems with the FHA eerily similar to
the debates we've had leading up to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As
taxpayers now are pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into Fannie
and Freddie now, history has shown that we were on the right side of
the debate then with Fannie and Freddie then, and I want to make sure
that when this FHA bill goes through this House now, and at the
conclusion of this debate as well, I want to make sure that myself and
all of my colleagues are on the right side of this debate as well.
So I urge my colleagues to be all on the right side of this, this
debate in history and to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, there were several aspects of the debate over housing
during the period that led up to the crisis. Part of it was over Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, but an even bigger part--because it involved
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--was over sub-prime loans being made
largely, although not entirely, on the unregulated banking system, and
there were those who defended that. There were those who opposed
efforts to rein it in.
In fact, with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I changed my own
position with regard to them when in 2004 the administration, without
congressional input, ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more
loans from people below the median income. We tried, many of us, during
the period of 2004, 2005, and 2006 to get legislation adopted to ban
sub-prime loans being granted imprudently. We had, the Congress, given
the Federal Reserve the authority to do that in 1994, but Mr. Greenspan
refused to do that. He since has apologized for that error.
So the question was not whether or not there was a general lack of
discipline but whether there was a particular lack of discipline in
containing sub-prime mortgages. The relevance of that is that the FHA
doesn't do that. In fact, at a time of general ideological opposition
of regulation of the mortgage market outside the banking system, there
was very little regulation of sub-prime mortgages being granted to
people who couldn't afford them, who made no down payment, who didn't
have to document their income. Because of all that, we ran into these
problems, and the FHA's percentage went down. That's a major reason why
the FHA went down. The FHA has never been guilty of that laxity of
practice.
So, part of the reason for the increase in the FHA share is that we
have been able finally to cut back on the sub-prime mortgages being
granted imprudently, and the FHA has much stricter standards. Yet, I
want to stress--and this is a major cause of the Fannie and Freddie
problem is that they were pushed into buying sub-
[[Page H4350]]
prime mortgages that never should have been given in the first place.
That's not the FHA.
It's also the case that the FHA has stepped up in recent years,
probably at congressional urging. The down payment has gone up. The up-
front fee has gone up. The FHA has power now to go up to a 10 percent
and has done this, a 10 percent down payment for people with a weak
credit score. That's already part of the FHA's proposal.
The gentlewoman from Illinois' amendment just adopted makes it clear
they can do even more, but to go beyond that, to the degree the
gentleman from New Jersey wants to do, would undercut the ability of
people who are capable of paying their mortgages from getting mortgage
loans. That's why we have an unusual coalition opposing this amendment.
It actually included a majority of the Republicans on the Committee on
Financial Services who voted against this amendment, but it includes
people on all sides of the housing market.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
We have the Consumer Federation, the Center for Responsible Lending,
the people who have distinguished themselves by being opposed to sub-
prime lending when others in this Chamber didn't want any restriction,
and the Realtors and the home builders, those who are in the business
of providing housing, those who are advocates for consumers come
together to say this goes too far and would go beyond what is needed
for responsible lending.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of the amendment.
We can learn from history but we really can't revise it as much as we
want to try. We're hearing the same arguments now that we heard about
Fannie and Freddie, that there's no trouble, they're solvent,
everything's fine. We're hearing the same thing with FHA now, but I can
tell you, when FHA insured simply, what was it one in fifty homes, now
it's one in four, or guarantees the loan on that amount, we're going to
face trouble here unless we make additional changes to the ones that
are being proposed to this bill. This is a prudent amendment.
It would raise from 3.5 to 5 percent the minimum down payment. It
gives more individuals more skin in the game for their home and fewer
individuals will walk away. They will try to work it out and try to
make their mortgages go on.
{time} 1200
We cannot afford to ignore history, and if we reject this amendment,
we are ignoring history.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, to close, I take, to begin
with, the words of the gentlewoman from Illinois who really makes my
case in her amendment which, really, unfortunately, does not go far
enough. She says, on the floor, that the FHA does need clear direction
what to do in this area of downpayments. Unfortunately, they have not
done the job up to this point in time, and now she says we have to give
them that clear direction. That is what my amendment would do.
In no uncertain terms, we would say that those people who are not the
best risks out there should have a minimum of 5 percent down. I also
take from her very own words, she points out the fact that one out of
four homes right now are under water. Well, do we want to find
ourselves in this situation again 4 or 5 years from now from those very
same people when one out of four homeowners are under water when they
only have a few couple of percentage points down on their house that
they are going to say, I can simply walk away from this house because
there is really not much of an investment in it.
I don't think we want to rehash this argument again. I don't think we
want to be in this situation again where the American taxpayer is put
on the hook, just as it is now, to the tune of $400 billion over the
life of the GSAs. We don't want to have to come out and bail out FHAs.
Let's do the prudent thing right now. Let's be on the right side of
history and make sure we have a prudent downpayment for FHA loans.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time
remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, the
FHA has gone beyond the gentleman from New Jersey with regard to
borrowers who are risky. For borrowers with a 580 or below credit
score, the FHA has already used the authority we have given them to
raise the downpayment to 10 percent, so we are talking about people
above the 580 credit score.
Secondly, there was a total misreading of history with Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. Yes, some of us thought earlier there wasn't a problem.
After it was in order by the Bush administration in 2004 for them to
get to more than 50 percent of purchases or mortgages for people below
the median income, many of us changed our position and pushed for
reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Unfortunately, that didn't happen, because of a dispute between the
Republican House and the Republican Senate, until 2007, when this House
took the lead and finally got it done in 2008. But the problem was that
throughout that, we had ideological opposition from the deregulators
against restricting subprime loans of the sort that led to trouble, and
the FHA doesn't do that.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit for the Record letters from the Mortgage
Bankers Association, National Association of Home Builders, National
Association of REALTORS, Centers for Responsible Lending, the National
Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Council of La Raza,
Consumer Federation of America who point out not that we don't need
restriction but that the FHA already has them. Again, to confuse this
with the situation in which ideological opposition to sensible
regulation allowed subprime loans to predominate outside the FHA is a
confusion of the reality.
June 9, 2010.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Chair, House Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Frank: The Federal Housing
Administration's mortgage insurance program has never been
more important to our housing markets than it is today.
During this period of prolonged stress in our markets,
Congress should avoid making any program changes that would
further harm consumers and stall our economic recovery. The
organizations listed below strongly oppose amendments to H.R.
5072, the FHA Reform Act, which would increase FHA's
downpayment requirement, decrease FHA's loan limits, or
otherwise limit FHA's ability to insure loans.
Raising FHA's downpayment requirement will do little to
strengthen FHA's capital reserve ratio. Rather, it will put
homeownership out of reach for many families and for others
could deplete their cash reserves for home and other
emergencies. Increasing FHA's downpayment could
disenfranchise more than 300,000 responsible homeowners. We
strongly oppose this amendment offered by Rep. Garrett (R-
NJ).
We also oppose an amendment offered by Rep. Price (R-GA)
that would limit FHA's market share to 10 percent of the
housing finance market. We all welcome the return of private
lending and corresponding reduction in FHA's market share, as
that will indicate a return to a healthy housing market. But
today, FHA is appropriately serving its countercyclical role
of providing credit and needed liquidity when the private
market is not available to many homebuyers. Legislating an
arbitrary reduction in market share in the midst of a housing
downturn will have a negative impact on homeownership. We
strongly oppose this amendment which will dramatically harm
our nation's economic recovery.
Lastly, we ask you to oppose an amendment by Rep. Turner
(R-OH) that would reduce the FHA loan limits. FHA's loan
limits were temporarily increased in the Economic Stimulus
Act of 2008. These higher limits allow American families in
communities nationwide to obtain safe, affordable mortgage
financing. Decreasing these limits would have a significant
impact on the recovery of many housing markets and the
overall liquidity of the mortgage industry. Today the private
market for loans above the existing limits is small. Reducing
the FHA limits will paralyze home sales above the cap, and
hurt our housing recovery.
FHA is a critical part of our housing economy. Its programs
offer borrowers access to prime-rate mortgages, require
stringent underwriting, and will not insure a loan with a
[[Page H4351]]
loan-to-value greater than 96.5 percent. We urge you to
oppose these amendments that will only hamper this important
program.
Sincerely,
Mortgage Bankers Association.
National Association of Home Builders.
National Association of REALTORS'.
____
June 7, 2010.
Dear Representative: We write in strong support of H.R.
5072, FHA Reform Act of 2010, scheduled for consideration by
the House this week. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
is playing its intended countercyclical role, providing
borrowers with access to prime credit. Moreover, the FHA has
already taken aggressive steps to manage credit risk and it
has appropriate discretion to take additional action as
necessary. H.R. 5072 provides the necessary tools to insure
the financial stability of FHA and to protect taxpayers from
risk.
We strongly oppose any amendments to further raise the FHA-
required downpayment. Congress addressed this issue in 2008
with the passage of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act,
which increased FHA's downpayment requirement from 3 percent
to 3.5 percent. The current downpayment requirement
represents a significant financial commitment and sufficient
investment to insure a borrower's seriousness about
homeownership. Increasing FHA's downpayment to 5 percent
would, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, reduce the volume of loans endorsed by FHA by
more than 40 percent, while only contributing $500 million in
additional budget receipts (as opposed to the expected $4.1
billion from the other announced changes to the program).
The proposed change could have an especially harsh impact
on African-American and Hispanic borrowers, who traditionally
have much lower accumulated wealth and have benefited from
the opportunities that fully documented, standard FHA loans
with low down payments offer.
FHA is a critical part of our nation's economic recovery.
Increasing the downpayment requirement will make
homeownership more difficult for American families and
disenfranchise more than 300,000 responsible homebuyers. This
is not the time to make unnecessary steps to a program that
is serving such a vital function in our housing finance
system. We urge you to oppose any amendments to increase
FHA's downpayment requirement.
Sincerely,
Center for Responsible Lending.
Consumer Federation of America.
National Association of Consumer Advocates.
National Association of REALTORS'.
National Council of La Raza.
National Fair Housing Alliance.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Tierney
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Cuellar). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUM REFUNDS.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall, to the extent that amounts are made
available pursuant to subsection (c), provide refunds of
unearned premium charges paid at the time of insurance for
mortgage insurance under title II of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.) to or on behalf of mortgagors under
mortgages described in subsection (b).
(b) Eligible Mortgages.--A mortgage described in this
section is a mortgage on a one- to four-family dwelling
that--
(1) was insured under title II of the National Housing Act
(12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.);
(2) is otherwise eligible, under the last sentence of
subparagraph (A) of section 203(c)(2) of such Act (12 U.S.C.
1709(c)(2)(A)), for a refund of all unearned premium charges
paid on the mortgage pursuant to such subparagraph, except
that the mortgage--
(A) was closed before December 8, 2004; and
(B) was endorsed on or after such date.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums as may be
necessary to provide refunds of unearned mortgage insurance
premiums pursuant to this section.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, there are instances when, after we have done all the
research and completed all other options and exhausted them, a
legislative remedy may still be required in order to help our
constituents in our district offices with a particular problem. Those
occasions give us the opportunity to evidence how Congress can work on
their behalf, how Congress can help solve problems, and how Congress
could have a direct and positive effect on people's lives. This is one
of those times, and I appreciate the fact that the Rules Committee has
made this amendment in order.
This amendment seeks to assist those people who, while they were in
the process of pursuing their dream of homeownership, were unfairly
impacted by a statutory change to HUD's upfront mortgage insurance
premium refund policy. Now, under HUD's Upfront Mortgage Insurance
Premium Refund policy, borrowers paid an upfront mortgage insurance of
1\1/2\ percent of their FHA loan amount, and if they prepaid their
loans, the borrowers could be due refunds on that prepaid insurance
amount.
However, in 2005, with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress
included language directing that the mortgages after the time of that
date of enactment, which was December 8, 2004, that would no longer be
true. Borrowers would no longer be eligible for refunds of their
prepaid insurance.
So now there are about 15,000 people in this country who tried to do
the right thing and play by the rules. They are constituents of all of
ours who closed on their mortgage before that December 8, 2004, date in
order to be able to get their refund. But, regrettably, they were
prevented from receiving their refund because HUD didn't endorse their
loan until after December 8, 2004. Now the constituents tell us they
were never adequately informed by the lender of those potential
provisions, and the lenders tell us they didn't do it because they
weren't told by HUD until after the effective date, in fact, not until
January of 2005.
I know of one particular family in my district from Gloucester,
Massachusetts, who were harmed by that new provision in the law. They
did everything right. They played by the rules. They closed their loan
in November of 2004 without notice of the change of law, but they have
been prevented from receiving their refund of some $4,200 because HUD
didn't do their mortgage until after December 10 of 2004. Certainly,
that's an unintended consequence of the provisions in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2005.
This amendment makes a meaningful first step toward helping certain
eligible homeowners and borrowers, many of whom are low-income
families, as I say, who played by the rules. I say this is a first step
because we later have to go to Appropriations to get money to fulfill
this policy. But this clearly is the right policy. It is the fair thing
to do. It is the right thing to do, and we have to discuss and argue
about the money to appropriate in order to make whole these people at a
later date.
But I suggest that if we all want to do the right thing by policy, I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPITO. I think the gentleman from Massachusetts brings forward
an issue, and I have great sympathy for those who are caught basically,
it sounds like, in a bureaucratic maze here, missed a date not really
by their own doing but by maybe just because of the process they were
involved in.
The question I have, and the reason I have skepticism on the
gentleman's amendment, he began with, I think the number that the
gentleman said, this may influence 15,000 folks.
[[Page H4352]]
Was that the number that you said in your statement?
I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, 15,593, according to the Department.
Mrs. CAPITO. The other question I would ask the gentleman, and I know
we would have to go to Appropriations to get the money allotted for
this particular amendment: What would be the approximate cost of
something like this? This is something where we are in this time of
debt and deficit, and we need to cut our spending here. I think we need
to be very vigilant on the bottom line. What is the bottom line of this
amendment?
Mr. TIERNEY. I thank you for raising that point that this is a two-
step process. This part of the process, in fact, talks about whether we
will have a policy that will enable us at some appropriate time to
appropriate the money.
Mrs. CAPITO. Right.
Mr. TIERNEY. We are not appropriating the money now, and I think
that's a debate for another day and another time if we decide whether
we want to be fair to these people or put it off for some other time,
but the total for that 15,593 people, according to the Department,
would be $10,372,661.61, more or less.
Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. Very precise. I appreciate that.
I still have skepticism even about 10 million, which in everyday
dollars is still quite a bit of money. And, as I said, we need to look
at what we are doing on the bottom line here.
So, while I am very sympathetic and I think that the amendment has
some merit, I would stand in opposition to the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that $10 million is $10
million, and that's a lot of money to each one of us individually and,
of course, we should be concerned. It's not proportionately a lot in
our $1.7 trillion budget.
But I think the real number to look at here is what does it mean to
these individuals who are harmed by government policy on no doing of
their own. So if it's $4,200 to a family in my district or $4,200 to a
family in the gentlewoman's district, that's what's driving our economy
right now.
For people to have every expectation of getting the return of that
money and to play by the rules only to have the bureaucracy undercut
them, I think that's the issue of fairness that we are dealing with
here.
Now, we will have an issue later on about whether or not we think now
is the appropriate time to put $10 million on the floor to help people
out, and that will be a day for them. But I think we should deal with
the policy now and authorize that to be done at some date either this
year or next year, or whenever we can make the argument in Congress
that it's time to be fair.
I think we can all say in this amount, given the huge meaning this is
to individuals, now is the time to be fair; 15,000 people wronged by
government bureaucracy in amounts that are every bit as significant to
them individually, the $4,200, as $10 million may be to all of us in
the aggregate. It's an impact on their lives. It's whether or not their
families are going to be able to make it through this crisis, whether
or not they are going to be able to meet the everyday needs of food,
health care, education, clothing and those things that are important to
their family.
Again, in closing, I just reiterate, this is the authorization
process. Let's set the policy of fairness. We can debate the other
later. And let's keep in mind these people played by the rules, did
what was right, and deserve to know, at least as a policy matter,
Congress will stand with them.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. LIMITING ON FHA SHARE OF MORTGAGE MARKET.
(a) 10 Percent Limitation.--Section 203 of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709) is amended by inserting after
subsection (h) the following new subsection:
``(i) Limitation on FHA Market Share.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the aggregate number of mortgages
secured by one- to four-family dwellings that are insured
under this title in fiscal year 2012 or any fiscal year
thereafter may not exceed 10 percent of the aggregate number
of mortgages on such dwellings originated in the United
States (but not including mortgages insured under this
title), as determined by the Secretary after consultation
with appropriate Federal financial regulatory agencies,
during the preceding fiscal year.''.
(b) Plan.--Not later than the expiration of the 90-day
period beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall submit
to the Congress a plan setting forth a strategy and actions
to be taken to ensure compliance with section 203(i) of the
National Housing Act, as added by the amendment made by
subsection (a) of this section.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to commend the chairman of the committee
and the ranking member for moving this particular piece of legislation.
I particularly want to commend the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito) for her great work in this area. She has been a dynamic and an
excellent leader in this area and, indeed, she is to be commended.
Mr. Chairman, this bill incorporates some very positive moves.
Clearly, the housing market has had significant challenges, and the
question that we ought to be asking ourselves is how best to recover.
Most experts would agree that, in order to move forward, we need to
move toward less market distortion.
It might be helpful if we focus on the FHA's mission and the focus
and the requirements that they have on them. We all support the FHA
mission. The mission is to serve first-time homebuyers in underserved
communities, but the FHA didn't get to a 30 percent market share, Mr.
Chairman, by lending to first-time homebuyers and by serving
underserved communities.
In terms of the requirements of the FHA, the requirements of the FHA
are 3.5 percent downpayment. The private sector requires at least 10
percent. The FHA is required to hold a 2 percent capital reserve ratio,
but it's actual ratio is 0.53 percent. A bank is required to hold 10
percent capital reserve ratio.
A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal said, According to
Mortgage Bankers Association data, more than one in eight FHA loans is
now delinquent, nearly triple the rate on conventional nonsubprime loan
portfolios. Another 7.5 percent agreed that FHA loans are in serious
delinquency, which means at least 3 months overdue. The FHA is almost
certainly going to need a taxpayer bailout in the months ahead. The
only debate will be about how much it will cost.
A former chief credit officer of Fannie and Freddie Mae, Edward
Pinto, notes that ``FHA's high-risk lending practices negatively impact
the housing finance marketplace.'' Mr. Chairman, you can translate that
into being increasing taxpayer exposure.
{time} 1215
So if we are honest with ourselves, when appropriately sized, the FHA
does indeed do a wonderful job and is very helpful. But at this point,
this is just another government program that is distorting the market.
FHA's huge market share is a hindrance to regaining equity in the
housing market. In addition, Fannie and Freddie's unlimited government
lifeline is also a hindrance to the housing recovery.
My amendment would ensure that the FHA no longer crowds out the
private market for home loans. The amendment is a modest first step to
cap FHA new origination market share to no more than 10 percent of the
private-market home loans each year, beginning in 2010 so there is
significant time to adjust, so the American people are not further
exposed to the next bailout. Mr. Chairman, that means the taxpayer is
not exposed to greater liability.
[[Page H4353]]
The American people are sick and tired of bailouts. They see another
one on the horizon. It is time for us to act. No more bailouts. What
they are telling us across this country is to stop the madness. This
amendment begins the process of stopping that madness.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. At best, we have a fragile recovery from a massive
recession caused by a precipitous decline in home prices. Now, I know
the gentleman is well-intentioned, but nothing is more likely to cause
a double dip in this recession than the second precipitous drop in home
prices that would be caused by pulling FHA and, as the gentleman
argues, Fannie and Freddie out of the home lending market.
Right now, FHA is 30 percent of the home purchase finance market,
about over half of that market for African Americans, 45 percent for
Hispanics. Are we going to tell one-third of American home buyers,
almost half or over half Hispanics and African Americans seeking to buy
homes, that they are not going to be able to buy those homes? Because,
if they can't get FHA financing, the private sector may be there, but
at much higher rates. And there is no way that these individuals will
be able to afford to buy those homes.
With fewer buyers, you will see a precipitous decline in prices. That
devastates communities further, devastates the American economy
further.
FHA is actuarially sound. It charges fees for the services and the
guarantees that it provides. And to cut its role in the market by a
third as part of an overall policy designed to take FHA, Fannie Mae,
and Freddie Mac out of the market ignores the fact that, in these
troubled times, those three entities--FHA, Fannie, and Freddie--account
for almost all of the home mortgages obtained by middle-class and
working families.
So we should defeat the gentleman's amendment. And I want to point
out it is opposed by the National Association of Realtors, the National
Association of Home Builders, and the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains
on each side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/2\ minutes. The
gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from
California's comments. There is no doubt we are indeed in a fragile
housing market, which is precisely why this policy would not take
effect until 2012. It gives the Secretary significant flexibility in
defining what that 10 percent is, but what it tries to do is to right-
size the number of mortgages, the percent of the mortgages that the FHA
insures.
I want to point out to all that 30 percent is a huge portion,
historically, as it relates to what the FHA single-family insurance
activity has comprised. From 2001 to 2007, the numbers were under 10
percent every single year for all FHA family insurance activity. So the
amount of 10 percent is a responsible, a reasonable number.
What it tries to do, again, is to decrease the effect of intervention
into the market that distorts the market. Remember, Mr. Chairman, that
when the government distorts the market it makes it much more difficult
for the market to recover and for us to make certain that we move in
the direction of economic activity that we need.
Again, the taxpayers of this country are sick and tired of bailouts.
This is another bailout in the making if we allow the process that is
currently in place to continue. We should limit the FHA exposure to 10
percent. We do it in a responsible way, by saying that it would begin
in 2012. We provide significant flexibility for the Secretary so that
the program will work well.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
First, I do note a certain irony. I am glad to see my colleagues, the
gentleman from New Jersey, the gentleman from Georgia, praise the
gentlewoman from West Virginia for a bill which they apparently found
severely lacking.
I do note the gentlewoman from West Virginia voted against the prior
amendment from the gentleman from New Jersey. I don't know where she is
on this one, but it wasn't in the bill that I think she introduced, and
for very good reason: A 10 percent cap is wholly arbitrary.
Now, the gentleman says it's going to crowd out the private market,
but the leading participants in the private housing market oppose this
amendment, including the Mortgage Bankers, as well as Realtors and Home
Builders, as well as all consumer groups.
Beyond that, the reason the FHA went down so far from 2001 to 2007--
interesting group of years; guess what was happening during that
time?--was that there was a resistance to regulation of the subprime
market.
The Federal Reserve was ignoring legislation Congress gave it in 1994
to regulate subprime lending. The Bush administration, in 2004, ordered
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase the subprime loans they bought,
which is one reason why I changed my position on the need to be tougher
in the regulatory field. And the FHA lost out because these imprudent
mortgages were being given without regulation. The FHA doesn't do the
kind of mortgages that led to problems.
Beyond that, in recent years, towards the end of the Bush
administration and with even greater force during the Obama
administration, the FHA has been improving. The FHA has on its own
said, if you've got a 580 credit score or below, it's a 10 percent
downpayment. We mandated that they go from 3 to 3.5 percent downpayment
and increase the upfront fees.
In this bill--and the gentlewoman from West Virginia deserves a great
deal of credit, along with our colleague, the gentlewoman from
California--the FHA is given credit to require lenders who get loans
placed with the FHA in violation of the guidelines to take back those
loans. So it wouldn't be the taxpayer that would be on the hook for
those loans that shouldn't have been granted and that violated the good
guidelines of the FHA; it will be the lender.
It also gives them the power to debar people who have a bad record,
which is something they haven't had before.
So we are not talking about the old FHA; we are talking about an
improved one. And we are talking about an FHA that stands in great
contrast to the unregulated subprime market.
Finally, the gentleman says, ``Well, it doesn't take effect until
2012.'' Neither he nor I knows what the housing market will look like
in 2012. And if there's a reason not to do it now, that might also be
there in 2012. No one can predict whether the housing--and maybe in
2015 it will be back again into trouble.
The housing market we don't believe is going to crash like it did
before, but the basic point is this: The FHA has been the alternative
to the kind of unregulated, irresponsible subprime mortgages that many
of my friends on the other side protected, the kind of mortgages which
they prevented us from regulating until 2007 when we were able to pass
a bill in the House, over the objection of many of those who have
spoken already, to regulate subprime mortgages. And because we did
that, the Federal Reserve finally used its authority.
I hope the amendment is defeated.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Weiner
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H4354]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Weiner:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. MAXIMUM MORTGAGE AMOUNT LIMITS FOR MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING.
(a) Elevator-type Structures.--
(1) Amendments.--The National Housing Act is amended in
each of the provisions specified in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``with sound standards of construction and
design'' after ``elevator-type structures'' the first place
such term appears; and
(B) by striking ``to not to exceed'' and all that follows
through ``sound standards of construction and design'' each
place such terms appear and inserting ``by not more than 50
percent of the amounts specified for each unit size''.
(2) Provisions amended.--The provisions of the National
Housing Act specified in this paragraph are as follows:
(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 207(c)(3) (12 U.S.C.
1713(c)(3)(A)).
(B) Subparagraph (A) of section 213(b)(2) (12 U.S.C.
1715e(b)(2)(A)).
(C) Subclause (I) of section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii) (12 U.S.C.
1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)(I)).
(D) In section 221(d) (12 U.S.C. 1715l(d))--
(i) subclause (I) of paragraph (3)(ii); and
(ii) subclause (I) of paragraph (4)(ii).
(E) Subparagraph (A) of section 231(c)(2) (12 U.S.C.
1715v(c)(2)(A)).
(F) Subparagraph (A) of section 234(e)(3) (12 U.S.C.
1715y(e)(3)(A)).
(b) Extremely High-cost Areas.--Section 214 of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715d) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``, or with respect to projects consisting
of more than four dwelling units located in an extremely
high-cost area as determined by the Secretary'' after ``or
the Virgin Islands'' the first place such term appears;
(B) by inserting ``, or to construct projects consisting of
more than four dwelling units on property located in an
extremely high-cost area as determined by the Secretary''
after ``or the Virgin Islands'' the second place such term
appears; and
(C) by inserting ``, or with respect to projects consisting
of more than four dwelling units located in an extremely
high-cost area as determined by the Secretary'' after ``or
the Virgin Islands'' the third place such term appears;
(2) in the second sentence--
(A) by inserting ``, or with respect to a project
consisting of more than four dwelling units located in an
extremely high-cost area as determined by the Secretary,''
after ``or the Virgin Islands'' the first place such term
appears; and
(B) by inserting ``, or in the case of a project consisting
of more than four dwelling units in an extremely high-cost
area as determined by the Secretary, in such extremely high-
cost area,'' after ``or the Virgin Islands'' the second place
such term appears; and
(3) in the section heading, by striking ``and the virgin
islands'' and inserting ``the virgin islands, and extremely
high-cost areas''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to mortgages insured under title II of the
National Housing Act after September 30, 2010.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity. I also want
to thank my colleague, Mr. Miller, with whom I offer this amendment.
This is a similar amendment--in fact, it is identical to one that was
adopted by voice vote. There are problems with some FHA programs, and
they are addressed in this bill. And there are some losing programs;
there are some programs that simply haven't worked out very well.
One program that has been a consistent money-maker for the taxpayer
and one that has driven the marketplace to do good things is the
Multifamily Loan Program. However, in that program, the limits set for
how much the loan can be guaranteed for have not risen as fast as the
cost in a lot of communities.
So what the Weiner-Miller amendment would do is simply raise the
limits to keep up with the cost and create something called an
``extreme high-cost area.''
The way the program works is they essentially say, this is the limit
to which we will underwrite, guarantee a loan for new construction or
to modify a home. But if you have an apartment building--four, five,
10, 50, 100 units--obviously the costs wind up going up as you need
things like elevators and HVAC going into big buildings. And what
happens is, in places like Los Angeles and New York and Las Vegas and
Miami, these costs have simply not been kept up with. The result has
been that the loan program has not been very useful there.
What we do is we take a loan limit of $183,000, almost $184,000,
create a new extreme high-cost area that the Secretary will be able to
designate where the limits will be higher, $377,000.
For those people who are concerned, well, are we going in the wrong
direction and giving too much exposure to a program that we should be
tightening up, this is a program that, unlike the single-family homes,
where the program there has an extreme delinquency rate of about 8
percent, this one only has one of 0.3 percent.
Frankly, this is not a problem program, so we are just increasing the
limits on one that really would encourage people to make loans to small
businesses for developing.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in
opposition to the amendment, although I am not in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment is exactly the same as the bill that passed this body
by a voice vote last year, the FHA Multifamily Loan Limit Adjustment
Act.
FHA's multifamily mortgage insurance programs enable qualified
borrowers to obtain long-term, fixed-rate financing for a variety of
multifamily properties that are affordable to low- and moderate-income
families.
In the most expensive cites, it is very difficult for these workers,
particularly those starting out in the workforce, to find affordable
rental housing where they work. The FHA multifamily mortgage insurance
program can help, but, due to its loan limits, there were only three
FHA-insured multifamily loans for high-rise construction or
rehabilitation approved in fiscal year 2007 and 2008--understand, just
three--and that is a huge problem in this country. The loan limits in
high-cost areas are simply too low.
According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the lack of available
loans is creating serious problems concentrated in major cities where
high-rise construction is involved. In fact, their data shows that
while elevator buildings cost 45 percent more than non-elevator
structures, the current limit for these structures are less than 10
percent higher than non-elevator structures.
Developers are simply unable to provide affordable housing units in
high-cost areas because the current statutory loan limits for FHA
mortgage insurance are basically too low. I don't think we have ever
seen a housing market that has been as impacted as the one we have
faced in recent years. Low-income renters and moderate-income renters
in these particular areas are really impacted by the loan limits that
we have placed on developers.
We need to provide more housing stock, yet do it in a way that does
not put taxpayers at risk. And that is what this does. The program
makes money for the government, does not lose money for the government.
I would absolutely support this amendment and ask all my colleagues to
join us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEINER. I think my colleague states it very well, and I urge a
``yes'' vote as well.
I just want to point out, this is not a zero-sum game. There is
nothing about the single-home market that is going to be impacted by
this. There is nothing about the higher cost that is going to be
impacted. This is just allowing this program to function in all
quarters of the housing market and to take into accommodation the
things that my colleague says, things like bigger buildings have very
often higher costs.
As I said, this has an outstanding delinquency rate of 0.3 percent.
If every housing program and every housing guarantee program, despite
the very difficult downturn, had such a small delinquency rate as this,
then I think we would all be very happy with it. So increasing these
limits I don't believe would have any deleterious effect.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I agree with what my colleague
said.
[[Page H4355]]
When we passed this bill out last time, it had unanimous support. There
is no impact on the Federal Government. We are taking areas that are
high-cost, that have basically been discriminated against in the past
from being able to participate in either a GSA loan or an FHA loan.
This is a good amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
{time} 1230
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Turner
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Turner:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. FHA MAXIMUM LOAN LIMITS FOR 2010.
Section 166 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2010 (as added by section 104 of Public Law 111-88; 123 Stat.
2972) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``For'' and inserting
``Except as provided in subsection (c), for'';
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``the lesser of the
applicable amount under subsection (c) of this section or''
after ``but in no case to an amount that exceeds'' ; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Absolute Ceiling Limits.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the maximum dollar amount
limitation on the principal obligation of a mortgage
determined under this section for any area or subarea may not
exceed, in the case of a one-family residence, $500,000, and
in the case of a 2-, 3-, or 4-family residence, the
percentage of such amount that bears the same ratio to such
amount as the dollar amount limitation determined under the
sixth sentence of section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation Act for a 2-, 3-, or 4-family residence,
respectively, bears to the dollar amount limitation
determined under such section for a 1-family residence.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Turner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TURNER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that caps the
temporary authority for the Federal Housing Administration to insure
homes in high-cost areas at $500,000. The current temporary authority
has the FHA insuring mortgages as high as $729,750.
Only in Washington would a government program insure a mortgage on a
home worth $750,000 for a low- and moderate-income program. Permitting
FHA loans on a $750,000 home puts American taxpayers at additional
risk. Allowing FHA-backed loans on these expensive homes contributes to
the overinflated housing values that contributed to the foreclosure
crisis from the beginning.
The mortgage foreclosure crisis is not over, Mr. Chairman. There are
still too many American families who are confronted every day with the
risk that they might lose their homes. Washington should not be in the
role of enabling this crisis. We need to begin the process of reducing
the dependence of these communities from artificial support, and we
need to give the private sector the ability to step back into the
market.
The best place to facilitate this is to lower the FHA loan limit to
homes under $500,000. The FHA has traditionally focused on low- to
moderate-income families who are seeking to purchase homes--and for
good reason--as these buyers need the greatest assistance in their home
purchases. The FHA should, once again, focus their efforts on these
buyers.
Permitting FHA loans to purchase a $750,000 home also means fewer
FHA-insured mortgages for Ohio families and for families across America
who truly need them. In most of my congressional district in Ohio, the
current FHA loan limit is $271,000, which is in line with the loan
limit for most of the U.S. I understand that there are high-cost urban
areas in our Nation where some homes cost more than in Ohio, but the
FHA was designed to help low and moderate homebuyers, and it should
focus on more moderately priced homes. Permitting FHA loans for these
high-priced homes only limits access to true moderately priced FHA
loans for American families who need them.
My amendment seeks to start the process of removing higher income
buyers off the government program designed for low to moderate buyers.
The effect of this amendment is to limit it to the 179 counties in the
country, but it does not reduce the assistance to the moderately priced
homes that are the majority of the Nation.
The FHA was intended to assist Americans in achieving the American
dream of homeownership. We need to work to ensure that their focus
continues to be on those who truly need the help. My amendment would
work to that purpose, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Gary G. Miller).
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am in strong opposition to this amendment. Over the years, I think
in about 2001, I started arguing to raise conforming loan limits in
high-cost areas, and it has had a tremendous benefit across this
Nation, but it seems like everybody who comes with amendments to oppose
that does so when it does not impact their districts.
Now, my good friend Mr. Turner--and he is a good friend of mine--if
you had introduced an amendment and had said to accept conforming as it
should be, if you applied the old principles, it would be $417,000, but
that would have had an impact on many counties in your State. So you
introduced an amendment which said, well, let's pick an amount of
$500,000, which means there is zero impact on the State of Ohio. So
$500,000 is a great amount to pull out of the air when it doesn't
impact you, personally.
In L.A. County, the loan limits are $729,750. In Orange County, the
limits are $729,750. These are some of the best-performing loans FHA is
making. When you look at GSE and FHA nationwide, they are making over
90 percent of the loans in this country. If they were not there today,
people would not be able to sell loans in high-cost areas.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SHERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. You would not be able to sell a
home in a high-cost area, nor would you be able to buy a home in a
high-cost area. Now, if this were in some way impacting the Federal
Government or taxpayers, I would absolutely agree with my good friend.
I will say again to my good friend, Mr. Turner, that I would agree
with this, but this is not impacting taxpayers. It is not impacting
FHA. It has some of the best-performing loans. Why should people who
live in high-cost areas be basically penalized just because we want to
pick a number of $500,000 out of the air, which will have no benefit to
anybody anywhere?
I absolutely think this is a wrong amendment. I oppose it, and I ask
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. TURNER. Well, I appreciate my good friend Mr. Miller's statement.
There is one that I do want to correct, though, which is that all of
Ohio would be under his suggested limit of 415. We certainly could have
picked a lower number. My community is at 271.
The issue becomes one of, well, we're in a financial crisis, and
we're having bailouts and mortgage foreclosures across the country. We
look to this issue as one of basic math. The larger the loan amount,
the more the risk. When there is fluctuation in the market, a
percentage of a larger number is a larger loss, leading to, certainly,
an issue of more increased incidences of a likelihood of foreclosure.
Also, the issue of larger loan amounts means fewer loans which could
be provided assistance. There is a limited amount here, and with that
limited amount, if it is carved up into
[[Page H4356]]
$750,000 home sales versus those that are going to more moderately
priced homes, you certainly will have less resources with which to
provide that assistance.
This is basic math. When we look across the country during this
mortgage foreclosure crisis, we have to be very concerned about how we
ensure that we are assisting home buyers, low and moderate buyers. At
the same time, we have to ensure we are not overly inflating the market
and that we are not putting the taxpayers at greater risk.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERMAN. A quick inquiry: Do I have the right to close, or does
the gentleman from Ohio have the right to close?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to
close.
Mr. SHERMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this
measure, which makes good financial and fiscal sense. It would lower
the amount, providing greater assistance because there would be a
greater number of loans which could be provided assistance. At the same
time, it would lower the risk to taxpayers, and it would lower the risk
of bailouts by making these higher-cost areas, the more risky areas,
conform to an amount that really would be more reflective of our goal
of low and moderate home buyers who receive assistance from the FHA.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERMAN. I yield myself the remainder of the time.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's definition of ``risk'' and his
arithmetic are a bit faulty. To say that $1 billion of smaller loans
carries less risk than $1 billion of larger loans is not something one
can determine except by looking at the performance of those loans.
As the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) pointed out,
those larger loans perform better. The FHA, therefore, has less
insurance risk and, actually, usually, makes a profit on those loans.
So to say that loans in Los Angeles take away from loans in Ohio and
expose the Federal Government to more risk than loans in Ohio is simply
false.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHERMAN. I will yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. A question for you: there has been
a perception created that somehow, by eliminating the high-cost areas,
the FHA could insure more loans. Yet that is not real because the FHA
can insure all of the loans they want irrespective of the volume of the
loans. It does not have any impact on FHA's ability whatsoever. Am I
correct on that?
Mr. SHERMAN. The gentleman is correct. This is not an anti-Ohio
stance that the two gentlemen from California are taking.
The fact is there is this image that some have from other parts of
the country that, if a home sells for more than $500,000, the people in
it must be rich. That is not how things work in the 122 counties that
are affected by this amendment. In my area, if a police officer is
married to a teacher, they're in a home of over $500,000. Now, that's
very difficult for them to afford. That ends up tying up their
retirement money for better or for worse, but that is how expensive it
is to live in some parts of this country.
To say that, because people are buying a home of over $500,000 that
they are rich and do not deserve the same kind of help the gentleman
from Ohio thinks middle class families in his district deserve, it is
the same kind of help that middle class families in my district
deserve.
Now, this amendment is opposed by the Mortgage Bankers Association,
by the National Association of Home Builders and by the National
Association of Realtors, not just the California divisions of those
entities but entities that represent the entire country. I don't think
that the Ohio Realtors would be here supporting this amendment. I don't
think the Nebraska Realtors would be. And I don't think the National
Association of Realtors would be here opposing this amendment if the
amendment were going to help major swaths of this country.
The fact is that the FHA's current program helps California without
hurting those other States. It helps the Washington area, the New York
area, much of Virginia, et cetera. The worst thing we could do for this
economy is to cause a precipitous decline in the price of homes in the
major metropolitan areas of this country. Our recovery is fragile. The
program, the way it works now, allows middle class families in both Los
Angeles and in Ohio to be able to finance homes, and we ought to vote
down this amendment.
So please join with Chairman Frank, with Chairwoman Waters, with the
National Association of Realtors, Home Builders, and Mortgage Bankers
in urging a ``no'' vote.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Clarke
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rahall). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 10 printed in House Report 111-503.
Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Ms. Clarke:
Page 21, line 3, strike ``and''.
Page 21, line 8, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 21, after line 8, insert the following:
(E) analyzes the effectiveness of the loss mitigation home
retention options of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development in assisting individuals in avoiding home
foreclosure for mortgages on 1- to 4-family residences
insured under subsection (b) or (k) of section 203, section
234(c), or section 251 of the National Housing Act,
particularly for low-income individuals (as such term is
defined in section 103 of the Riegle Community Development
and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4702)).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Clarke) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues, Chair Waters and
Chairman Frank, for bringing this important bill to the floor today and
for supporting my amendment, which is cosponsored by Representative
Cuellar from Texas.
Before I speak about my amendment, I want to quickly recognize the
significance of H.R. 5072. This bill will make essential reforms to
strengthen the financial footing of the FHA, and it will enhance its
authority to go after fraudulent lenders who have preyed on the most
vulnerable of borrowers for far too long.
Mr. Chairman, many people have blamed this foreclosure crisis on the
borrowers while some individuals, desperate to achieve the American
Dream, may have sought to cut corners in the process. Fraudulent and
unscrupulous lenders ultimately held the purse strings. These lenders
bear a great deal of the burden for the foreclosure crisis, which
continues to impact Americans and to devastate communities from coast
to coast.
Last year, New York City saw a record 20,000 foreclosure filings.
According to data compiled by the Furman Center for Real Estate and
Urban Policy at New York University, in the first quarter of 2010,
there were 4,226 foreclosures across New York City, up 16.3 percent
from 2008. Brooklyn alone experienced 1,546 foreclosures in the first
quarter of 2010.
Since the beginning of the FHA, Commissioner Stevens' tenure in 2009,
the Commissioner and Deputy Assistant Secretary Bott have taken several
steps to assess and to strengthen FHA's foreclosure mitigation
capabilities, beginning with a thorough review of FHA and of private
lender loss mitigation and foreclosure preventative activities. The FHA
trained almost 2,000 staff lenders on how to better serve FHA borrowers
to avoid foreclosure, to identify lenders which are underperforming and
to share best practices to improve foreclosure mitigation performance.
[[Page H4357]]
{time} 1245
FHA assisted more than 450,000 borrowers in the past year to avoid
foreclosure through a variety of loss mitigation programs, but my
constituents are telling me that more can be done to support the
foreclosure counseling efforts. We must determine if enough resources
are being devoted to foreclosure mitigation, especially for low-income
borrowers. That is why I proposed this amendment, along with Mr.
Cuellar, which would direct GAO to analyze the effectiveness of HUD's
loss mitigation home retention efforts in helping distressed borrowers,
especially low-income borrowers, hold on to their American Dream. While
the FHA is working to strengthen its mitigation capabilities, resources
for these efforts are likely insufficient for the massive size of the
program.
I'd like to thank Representative Cuellar for joining me in this
effort. Low-income borrowers in rural areas such as Mr. Cuellar's
district in Texas are facing the same challenges as those in distressed
urban areas such as parts of my district in Brooklyn.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to assist our
Nation to overcome our foreclosure crisis.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition,
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I would like to thank both
the sponsors of the bill. Certainly the intent is for more information
and certainly more accurate information to look at the programs that
we're putting forth and that have been put forth to see if the loss
mitigation efforts are working and in what ways we can improve them. So
I congratulate you and I urge support of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CLARKE. I want to thank my colleague on the other side of the
aisle for seeing the usefulness in this amendment. I want to thank Mr.
Cuellar for being a partner and for bringing this amendment forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Nye
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. NYE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Nye:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. SPECIAL FORBEARANCE FOR MORTGAGORS WITH CHINESE
DRYWALL.
The provisions of Mortgagee Letter 2002-17 of the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development (regarding ``Special
Forbearance: Program Changes and Updates'') relating to Type
I Special Forbearance shall apply, until the conclusion of
fiscal year 2011 and may not be revoked, annulled, repealed,
or rescinded during such period, with respect to mortgagees
of mortgages insured under title II of the National Housing
Act that are secured by one- to four-family dwellings that
have problem or damaging drywall products.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Cuellar). Pursuant to House Resolution 1424,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nye) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. NYE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I stand here today to continue the fight for my
constituents in Hampton Roads, Virginia, and for thousands of families
across the United States against a nefarious adversary, toxic Chinese
drywall.
Chinese drywall has serious health implications. The toxins released
from the drywall reek of chemicals and rotten eggs. They corrode a
home's electrical systems and can cause deep, hacking coughs, bloody
noses, and eye irritation. However, the scariest fact is that we still
do not know what long-term health effects Chinese drywall will have.
Since January of last year, more than 3,300 cases have been reported
from 37 States and the District of Columbia. Families have been left
with an impossible choice: live in a contaminated home or pay tens if
not hundreds of thousands of dollars to rip out and replace their
home's drywall.
In my district, I have visited these homes and I've spoken with the
families. Many of them have been forced to move in with friends or
relatives; many others are now living in rental housing, paying for
both the cost of the mortgage and the cost of rent or, even worse,
living in the home, unable to afford repairs. And still others have
made the toughest decision: walking away from their homes. This is bad
for our recovering housing market and bad for our economy, and it's bad
for American families.
Mr. Chairman, my commonsense amendment will extend the Federal
Housing Administration's special forbearance program for American
homeowners by providing forbearances for those who suffer from toxic
Chinese drywall through fiscal year 2011. This reprieve has allowed
countless families to get back on their feet and repair their homes.
As cochairman of the Congressional Contaminated Drywall Caucus, I
commend the Federal Housing Administration for working with Congress
and American homeowners. Providing temporary forbearances for those who
suffer from Chinese drywall through no fault of their own is something
the Federal Government must continue to support. I hope my colleagues
will join me in supporting this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not
opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. As the Congressman has stated, his amendment merely
ensures that HUD will take no action between now and the end of FY 2011
to bar the Chinese drywall victims from eligibility from HUD's special
mitigation and forbearance program. Since this does not create a new
program or new spending, it just ensures an existing effort by HUD to
extend aid to Chinese drywall victims remains in place through FY 2011,
I commend the gentleman on his amendment, and I support the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NYE. I thank my colleague from West Virginia for her support of
the amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nye).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS.
Section 203 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(z) Required Certifications.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary may not insure any mortgage
secured by a one- to four-family dwelling unless the
mortgagor under such mortgage certifies, under penalty of
perjury, that the mortgagor has not been convicted of a sex
offense against a minor (as such terms are defined in section
111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42
U.S.C. 16911)).''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Members, my amendment is a
simple, commonsense protection for
[[Page H4358]]
children and families. It requires anyone seeking to benefit from the
terms of an FHA mortgage to certify under penalty of perjury that they
have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor. This
amendment ensures that taxpayers will not be on the hook for loans made
to convicted child sex offenders.
There are 704,000 registered sex offenders currently living in our
communities, and experts estimate as many as 100,000 convicted sex
offenders are lost in the system. Recent research has shown that there
is a high repeat rate for sexual crimes, and even higher amongst those
who commit these crimes against children. As a result, in the past 2
years, Congress has passed a series of laws adopting the use of sex
offender registries and community notification systems for sexually
violent offenders and those committing offenses against children.
While we cannot prevent registered child sex offenders from moving
into our communities, we do not need to provide them the additional
benefits offered by an FHA home loan if they try to do so. With an FHA
home loan, taxpayers are liable if the loan defaults. I do not believe,
I don't think most Members of this House believe, and I know most
Americans do not believe that taxpayers should be on the hook for a
home loan of someone who has committed a sex offense against a minor.
A quarter of a million children are sexually assaulted every year in
my home State of Texas, according to the National Crime Victims
Research and Treatment report. There are still private market
alternatives to FHA loans, and we want to continue to discourage any
kind of federally financed reward or taxpayer-backed benefit to sex
offenders reentering our communities. For example, sex offenders are
already banned from residing in section 8 public housing. My amendment
continues that pro-family stance.
The certification requirement in this amendment is a strong
enforcement mechanism which will not put additional burdens on small
businesses.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment to protect our
communities and to prohibit those who have committed a sex offense
against a minor from benefiting from government-backed FHA loans.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to claim time in opposition, although I am
not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. The gentleman's amendment is similar to previous efforts
by Republicans in past housing debates to ensure that convicted sex
offenders are unable to receive the Federal aid to obtain housing
through the FHA. I think the intent and the direction that the
gentleman is going to absolutely appropriate. I support his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Maffei
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in House Report 111-503.
Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mr. Adler to
offer an amendment on behalf of Mr. Adler and myself, and it is at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Maffei:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 16. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES.
None of the funds authorized under this Act or any
amendment made by this Act may be used to pay the salary of
any individual engaged in activities related to title II of
the National Housing Act who has been officially disciplined
for violations of subpart G of the Standards of Ethical
Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch for viewing,
downloading, or exchanging pornography, including child
pornography, on a Federal Government computer or while
performing official Federal Government duties.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1424, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Maffei) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Frank and
Chairwoman Waters for bringing this bill and my amendment to the floor.
We were all outraged when we learned that dozens of employees at the
Securities and Exchange Commission were found to have been using their
government-issued computers to view pornography. Some of these
employees were senior staffers, earning as much as $222,000 a year. One
SEC attorney in Washington, D.C., spent up to 8 hours a day watching
pornography. An accountant in a regional office was denied access by
the government firewall 16,000 times when he tried to access Web pages
containing sexually explicit material.
Mr. Chairman, this behavior, these abuses are not just an abuse of
government resources but also of the public trust. It undermines
confidence in our institutions. It subjects the thousands of SEC and
other government employees who work hard every day to a diminishment,
and, simply put, it is outrageous and unacceptable.
This amendment is very simple. It simply says that if you are an FHA
employee who is officially disciplined for viewing, downloading, or
exchanging pornography, including child pornography, you lose your job.
No private business in America would tolerate this kind of behavior,
and there's no reason our government institutions should either.
Again, very, very simple. If you're caught and officially disciplined
for viewing, downloading, or exchanging pornography, you lose your job.
It's that simple.
This should not be a partisan issue, and I urge swift passage of this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am
not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from West
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would just reiterate that the Congressman's amendment
seeks to ensure that the employees hired by FHA as a result of funds
made available in this bill are in good standing and not guilty of
viewing any previous pornography or any related disciplinary measures.
As the gentleman said, I think all of us, and certainly throughout
the country, were stunned to learn some of the statistics of certain
government employees not only viewing inappropriate material, but the
absolute, incredible waste of government resources and waste of time
that these employees have engaged in.
So, I think it's right and proper, as this amendment moves forward,
to ensure that we protect against those abuses in the future. I support
the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from West
Virginia for her support of this amendment.
I again want to reiterate that thousands and thousands of workers at
the Securities and Exchange Commission and other government agencies
are extraordinarily hardworking, would never engage in this kind of
behavior. And, in fact, the reason why this amendment is so important
is to protect their reputation for the important jobs they do.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H4359]]
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-503 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Waters of California;
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey;
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Price of Georgia;
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Turner of Ohio;
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Edwards of Texas;
Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Maffei of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Waters of California
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 417,
noes 3, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 347]
AYES--417
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--3
Broun (GA)
Flake
Paul
NOT VOTING--17
Barrett (SC)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Harman
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Johnson (GA)
Kennedy
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lewis (GA)
McHenry
Olson
Putnam
Shuster
{time} 1329
Mr. MACK changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Pomeroy was allowed to speak out of
order.)
In Memory of Congressman Arthur A. Link
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, last week, former Congressman Arthur A.
Link who served in the 92nd Congress passed away. One week earlier, he
celebrated his 96th birthday and 71st wedding anniversary with his
beloved wife, Grace.
Mr. Link held elected office in North Dakota for 34 years, including
the State legislature, in the Congress, and as Governor from 1973 to
1980. Not bad for someone with an 8th grade education who farmed and
ranched in the sparsely populated northwestern part of our State. Art
Link's importance to North Dakota is significant not just for his time
in public office but for his 30 years of exemplary activity he and
Grace spent after Governor, remaining deeply engaged in North Dakota
activities.
He is remembered for his rock-solid values of integrity, decency,
humility, and a deep sense that we are passing stewards of the land
whose responsibility is to make certain things are in good shape for
those who follow.
His philosophy is beautifully expressed in a short but unforgettable
speech, ``When the Land is Quiet Again,'' and I will add to the Record
this speech. I commend it to each of you, for the words have timeless
relevance and seem especially pertinent given the events of these days.
[Speech given October 11, 1973]
When the Landscape Is Quiet Again
(By Governor Arthur A. Link)
We do not want to halt progress.
We do not plan to be selfish and say ``North Dakota will
not share its energy resource.''
No, we simply want to insure the most efficient and
environmentally sound method of utilizing our precious coal
and water resources for the benefit of the broadest number of
people possible.
And when we are through with that and the landscape is
quiet again, when the draglines, the blasting rigs, the power
shovels and the huge gondolas cease to rip and roar!
And when the last bulldozer has pushed the last spoil pile
into place, and the last patch of barren earth has been
seeded to grass or grain, let those who follow and repopulate
[[Page H4360]]
the land be able to say, our grandparents did their job well.
The land is as good and, in some cases, better than before.
Only if they can say this will we be worthy of the rich
heritage of our land and its resources.
I loved Art Link and can honestly say to each of you, this Chamber
has never seen a more genuine, committed, and thoroughly decent Member.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in honor
of former Congressman and Governor Arthur A. Link.
The Acting CHAIR. Members will rise for a moment of silence.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Garrett) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 131,
noes 289, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 348]
AYES--131
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Lamborn
Latta
Linder
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
McCaul
McClintock
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stearns
Sullivan
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
NOES--289
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boccieri
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Calvert
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Wittman
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--17
Barrett (SC)
Blumenauer
Butterfield
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Kilpatrick (MI)
McGovern
McHenry
Putnam
Radanovich
Shuster
Spratt
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on
this vote.
{time} 1340
Messrs. DELAHUNT and MORAN of Virginia changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. FORBES and ROHRABACHER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina was allowed to
speak out of order.)
In Honor of Rev. Eddie Lee Carter
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Today, I rise to recognize Rev. Eddie
Lee Carter on the occasion of his retirement from serving here in the
House where since 2004 Rev. Carter has been repairing and shining
shoes.
Rev. Eddie Lee Carter and I have a shared heritage. He was born at
Beech Island, South Carolina, and my grandfather was born at Beech
Island, in Aiken County, South Carolina. At a very young age, his
family moved to Augusta, Georgia, which was nearby, and he attended
elementary school with the world-famous musician James Brown, another
great South Carolinian.
Rev. Carter first began to work on shoes as a young man, even before
he joined the Army in 1953. Rev. Carter was stationed primarily in
Germany while serving in the Army. A musician himself, he was renowned
for singing and entertaining generals when they passed through the
post. In 1955, Rev. Carter left the Army with the rank of corporal and
later moved to Washington from Augusta to work at Stern Shoe Repair.
In 1992, he was ordained a Methodist minister. On June 7, 2004, Rev.
Carter came to work at the U.S. Capitol repairing and shining shoes. He
currently lives at Fort Washington, Maryland, with his wife, Molly
Anthony Carter. They have been married for 28 years. He has a son, and
Mrs. Carter has two sons. On Friday, he plans to retire to spend more
time with the congregation.
Personally, I will always remember Rev. Carter's cheerfulness and
encouragement, his quiet reading of the Bible, and his proud wearing of
U.S.-South Carolina flag pin.
Godspeed, Rev. Carter.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
[[Page H4361]]
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 106,
noes 316, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 349]
AYES--106
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Lamborn
Latta
Linder
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Marchant
McCaul
McClintock
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Rangel
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
NOES--316
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Campbell
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Barrett (SC)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Eshoo
Faleomavaega
Garamendi
Gordon (TN)
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Kilpatrick (MI)
Manzullo
McHenry
Putnam
Shuster
{time} 1350
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, June 10, 2010, I
inadvertently missed this vote. I would have recorded a ``no'' vote on
rollcall No. 349.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Turner
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Turner) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 121,
noes 301, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 350]
AYES--121
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Boustany
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Duncan
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
LaTourette
Latta
Linder
Loebsack
Luetkemeyer
Mack
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Miller (FL)
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perriello
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Rehberg
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Sutton
Teague
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Wamp
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
NOES--301
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Calvert
Campbell
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
[[Page H4362]]
Ellsworth
Engel
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Heller
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Barrett (SC)
Carnahan
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Eshoo
Garamendi
Gohmert
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Kilpatrick (MI)
McHenry
Putnam
Schrader
Shuster
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1357
Mr. HOYER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420,
noes 4, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 351]
AYES--420
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--4
Filner
Nadler (NY)
Paul
Scott (VA)
NOT VOTING--13
Barrett (SC)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Eshoo
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lofgren, Zoe
McCarthy (NY)
McHenry
Putnam
Shuster
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on
this vote.
{time} 1404
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Maffei
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Maffei) on which further proceedings
[[Page H4363]]
were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 416,
noes 0, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 352]
AYES--416
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Edwards (MD)
NOT VOTING--20
Barrett (SC)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Eshoo
Giffords
Gordon (TN)
Gutierrez
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lofgren, Zoe
McHenry
Putnam
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Stark
Wu
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on
this vote.
{time} 1410
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5072) to
improve the financial safety and soundness of the FHA mortgage
insurance program, pursuant to House Resolution 1424, reported the bill
back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. LEE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. LEE of New York. In its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lee of New York moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 5072,
to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new sections:
SEC. 16. PROHIBITION OF MORTGAGE INSURANCE FOR BORROWERS WITH
STRATEGIC DEFAULTS.
Section 203 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(z) Prohibition of Mortgage Insurance for Borrowers With
Strategic Defaults.--
``(1) Prohibition.--The Secretary may not newly insure any
mortgage under this title that is secured by a 1- to 4-family
dwelling unless the mortgagee has determined, in accordance
with such standards and requirements established by the
Secretary, that the mortgagor under such mortgage has not
previously engaged in any strategic default with respect to
any residential mortgage loan.
``(2) Strategic default.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `strategic default' means, with respect to a
residential mortgage loan, an intentional default having such
characteristics or under such circumstances as the Secretary
shall, by regulation, provide.''.
SEC. 17. PROHIBITION ON TAXPAYER BAILOUT OF FHA PROGRAM.
Section 205 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1711),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Taxpayer Protection.--The Secretary shall use all
available actions and methods authorized under law to ensure
compliance with subsection (f)(2) and to protect the
taxpayers of the United States from
[[Page H4364]]
financial responsibility for any obligations of the Fund,
including authority to increase insurance premiums charged
under this title for mortgages that are obligations of the
Fund, authority to establish more stringent underwriting
standards for such mortgages, and authority to increase the
amount of cash or its equivalent required to be paid on
account of the property subject to such a mortgage.''.
Mr. LEE of New York (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
Ms. WATERS. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.
{time} 1415
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEE of New York. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill that we have
been considering today is an important one, and I support the
provisions that are included in H.R. 5072, the FHA Reform Act of 2010.
It gives HUD new tools that will allow the FHA to protect taxpayers
against fraudulent or poorly underwritten and insured loans.
The goal of H.R. 5072 is for HUD to begin the process of putting FHA
back on the road to a program that has adequate capital in reserve to
weather whatever problems it encounters down the road. However, H.R.
5072 is not a cure-all. We can do more to ensure that American
taxpayers are better protected.
During the past 2 years, FHA's market share has significantly
increased from less than 5 percent to more than 30 percent. As FHA's
market share has increased, taxpayer exposure has continued to grow day
by day. That is why we must do everything we can to ensure that the
program is being run in a safe and sound manner and that the taxpayers
will not be asked to pay for yet another government bailout.
The motion does two important things. First, it prohibits the FHA
from insuring loans from borrowers who have strategically defaulted on
previous loans. Second, it prohibits a taxpayer bailout of the FHA
program.
According to a study by Experian and management consulting firm
Oliver Wyman, from 2007 to 2008, the number of strategic defaults more
than doubled to 588,000, and a separate 2009 survey found that more
than a quarter of all existing defaults were strategic.
Meanwhile, there are lawyers, scam artists and opportunists touting
the financial benefits of walking away from a mortgage and offering to
help you do that for a fee. Not a day goes by that we don't read
another news article about folks who are making calculated decisions to
stop paying their mortgages even though they still have the ability to
pay. We are not talking about those families who have fallen on hard
times or who simply can no longer afford to make their payments. We are
talking about this new trend of people who voluntarily choose to stop
paying their mortgages even though they still have the ability to pay.
While these decisions should ultimately be left to the individual, we
should put in place more stringent penalties to discourage this
irresponsible behavior. If borrowers make decisions to strategically
default on their loans, they certainly should not be allowed to benefit
from a government-subsidized program.
This motion makes it clear: if you can afford to pay your mortgage
and choose not to, you will no longer be eligible to secure an FHA
mortgage. This motion calls on the Secretary of HUD to define strategic
default and to work with lenders to identify and to prevent borrowers
from participating in the FHA program.
This motion also prohibits a taxpayer bailout of the FHA program by
requiring HUD to use all available methods at its disposal to ensure
that the program is properly capitalized and that the taxpayer is
protected, ensuring that mortgage applicants have truly enough skin in
the game.
As Ranking Member Bachus said in yesterday's motion to instruct
conferees on the financial regulatory reform conference, it is time to
end bailouts once and for all. Whether it is $145 billion for Fannie
and Freddie or another $60 billion for AIG, Chrysler and GM, the
American public has suffered enough from bailout fatigue.
This motion to recommit ensures that the FHA uses its existing
authorities to ensure that the program does not need an appropriation
and that taxpayers are protected.
While the underlying legislation makes significant improvements to
the FHA program and goes a long way to providing HUD with the tools it
will need to improve the financial condition of the FHA program, these
additional prohibitions on strategic default borrowers and on taxpayer
bailouts will ensure that the FHA program stays on a solid financial
path and that American taxpayers will be protected from yet another
bailout.
I urge the adoption of this motion, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I rise to speak on the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the motion?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I don't know yet.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I was disappointed that my
colleague on the Financial Services Committee wouldn't observe the
tradition that we have of yielding to each other. If he had, I could
have saved the Members a lot of time because I am going to urge people
to vote for it.
I will say that it might need a word or two of improvement. If it
had, in fact, been offered at the Financial Services Committee, either
provision, we could have accepted it then, but then Members wouldn't
have had a chance to make dramatic speeches on the floor, so I suppose
that explains why we had to go through this.
I urge adoption of the amendment of the recommittal motion, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was agreed to.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions
of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 5072,
back to the House with an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
At the end of the bill, add the following new sections:
SEC. 16. PROHIBITION OF MORTGAGE INSURANCE FOR BORROWERS WITH
STRATEGIC DEFAULTS.
Section 203 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(z) Prohibition of Mortgage Insurance for Borrowers With
Strategic Defaults.--
``(1) Prohibition.--The Secretary may not newly insure any
mortgage under this title that is secured by a 1- to 4-family
dwelling unless the mortgagee has determined, in accordance
with such standards and requirements established by the
Secretary, that the mortgagor under such mortgage has not
previously engaged in any strategic default with respect to
any residential mortgage loan.
``(2) Strategic default.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `strategic default' means, with respect to a
residential mortgage loan, an intentional default having such
characteristics or under such circumstances as the Secretary
shall, by regulation, provide.''.
SEC. 17. PROHIBITION ON TAXPAYER BAILOUT OF FHA PROGRAM.
Section 205 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1711),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Taxpayer Protection.--The Secretary shall use all
available actions and methods authorized under law to ensure
compliance with subsection (f)(2) and to protect the
taxpayers of the United States from financial responsibility
for any obligations of the Fund, including authority to
increase insurance premiums charged under this title for
mortgages that are obligations of the Fund, authority to
establish more stringent underwriting standards for such
mortgages, and authority to increase the amount of cash or
its equivalent required to be paid on account of the property
subject to such a mortgage.''.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (during the reading). I ask unanimous
consent that the reading be dispensed with.
[[Page H4365]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage will be followed by a 5-minute vote on
suspension of the rules with regard to S. 3473.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 406,
noes 4, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 353]
AYES--406
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Djou
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--4
Broun (GA)
Flake
Honda
Paul
NOT VOTING--21
Barrett (SC)
Berman
Costa
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Eshoo
Hensarling
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Inglis
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lummis
Marshall
McHenry
Obey
Peterson
Putnam
Roe (TN)
Shuster
Welch
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1439
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 353 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 353, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yes.''
____________________