Congressional Record, Volume 169 Issue 110 (Friday, June 23, 2023)

[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 110 (Friday, June 23, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3115-H3128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MIDDLE CLASS BORROWER PROTECTION ACT OF 2023

General Leave

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and submit extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3564.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaMalfa). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 524 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3564.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 0916

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 consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3564) to cancel recent changes made by the Federal Housing
Finance Agency to the up-front loan level pricing adjustments charged
by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for guarantee of single-family mortgages,
and for other purposes, with Mr. Newhouse in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified
in the first section of House Resolution 524, and shall not exceed 1
hour equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
H.R. 3564, the Middle Class Borrower Protection Act, will undo a bad
policy implemented at the worst time. Americans are struggling to
afford housing. I am talking about the loan level price adjustments
that the Federal Housing Finance Agency, FHFA, put into effect on May 1
of this year. This policy essentially implemented a cross-subsidy to
individuals with lower down payments and lower credit scores.
Loan level pricing adjustments are up-front fees which adjust the
final interest rate charged on mortgage loans based on different risk
characteristics associated with individual loans. The most notable
characteristics would be the mortgage's underlying loan-to-value ratio
and the buyer's credit score.
While such fees may be necessary for Fannie and Freddie Mac,
collectively known as the GSEs, to raise capital and adequately hedge
against credit risk, the adjustments announced by FHFA would
disproportionately hurt individuals with credit scores of 680 or
greater.
To put that into perspective, the average credit score is around 710,
and nearly 19 out of 20 Americans have credit scores above 680. The
other thing is credit scores alone aren't a proxy for wealth or income.
Therefore, most Americans would likely be hurt by these fees.
However, those with a credit score below 680 will benefit from lower
rates than the prior LLPA assessments. This fee change violates the
fundamental principle of risk-based pricing: Lower-risk borrowers
should pay lower prices than higher-risk borrowers for access to the
same credit.

Despite the FHFA's opaque approach to assessing LLPAs, the result of
their new policies speak for themselves. The Middle Class Borrower
Protection Act would reinstate the old LLPA prices that were in effect
prior to May 1, while also directing the Government Accounting Office
to complete an independent study of the processes and data used by FHFA
to change the prices, including the impact of those changes on the
safety and soundness of the GSEs, which, I will add, have been in
conservatorship under the Federal Government for 15 years. Then GAO
would report to Congress within 1 year of the study.
FHFA would be prohibited from changing the LLPAs until 90 days after
the report, after which it would be required to: one, follow the basic
agency notice-and-comment procedure for making any new changes to the
LLPA fee; and two, ensure that future fee adjustments be made based on
the actual risk posed by the mortgage.
FHFA would also be prohibited from imposing any new fee on borrowers
based on their debt-to-income ratio, which was an idea they considered
implementing effective August 1.
Finally, I will acknowledge that over the past weekend, the
Congressional Budget Office scored this bill, and they assessed a cost
of $1.8 billion for implementing this bill. I believe the fact that CBO
says this bill costs a single penny is absurd and exposes a glaring
flaw within our legislative process.
Perhaps CBO has a rebuttal, but that would require them to show their
work, which they have not. This is why I have long advocated for
another bill of mine, the CBO Show Your Work Act.
This past week exemplified just why we need transparent processes
when legislating. The reality is these fees aren't even going directly
to the Treasury. While the GSEs are in conservatorship, the money is
supposed to go to the balance sheet of Freddie and Fannie so that they
can accumulate capital.
As this rule is announced, the explicit purpose was to grow capital
on the balance sheets of Fannie and Freddie. These were taken over by
the Federal Government in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. They
have remained in the conservatorship of the Federal Government. The
revenue isn't coming in directly to the Treasury, it is meant to
actually free the GSEs from control of the Federal Government.
These revenues were not imposed by Congress, so there really isn't a
need

[[Page H3116]]

for us to replace the revenue that the administration imposed with a
really misguided rule. There was no revenue coming in on April 30. On
May 1, they implement this policy change, and somehow, we are supposed
to come up with the revenue to offset it.
Now, I argued against doing that. I asked the Rules Committee to
ignore the misguided advice of the Congressional Budget Office and to
not implement a pay-for because it is not our--we didn't cause this
expense to occur. Frankly, it is not even a real expense. It is
essentially a tax imposed by the administration.
Because of the rules, we offered a manager's amendment which was
ultimately incorporated into this bill. We add 1 year to a 10-basis
point fee that is assessed on every Fannie and Freddie loan, regardless
of your credit, just as a cover. That rule has been in place since the
bill passed in 1992. It was set to expire in 2032. Now it will expire
in 2033.
I hope between now and then we can change that, and we can also
liberate Fannie and Freddie from their ongoing conservatorship which, I
will note, has lasted longer than Britney Spears' conservatorship. The
only way that it would cost the Federal Government money is if the
conservator is actually raking money out of it and funding their own
operation, which is not what is supposed to happen. It is supposed to
stay with Fannie and Freddie, so it shouldn't be costing the Federal
Government a dime to implement the Middle Class Borrower Protection
Act.
Nevertheless, Fannie and Freddie will benefit from one extra year of
money being collected under this manager's amendment that was adopted
and incorporated in the bill.
Let me return and focus on the bill at hand, the Middle Class
Borrowers Protection Act. Let's think about this: A Federal agency
acting under its own purview and not subject to the Administrative
Procedure Act implemented a politically motivated cross-subsidy through
a clear money grab on unsuspecting credit-worthy borrowers. This wasn't
a decision by Congress. This was simply the FHFA using its position as
conservator of the GSEs to increase the government's baseline.
Now Congress is trying to undo the changes and re-implement a policy
that was in place just 8 weeks ago.
However, Congress, as I said, had to pay for this fake shortfall.
Like we see time and again, only in Washington, D.C., would math like
this make sense.
It is imperative for this body to protect the cornerstone of the
American Dream by promoting housing affordability, and H.R. 3564 does
just that.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3564, the MAGA housing scam act,
which follows the blueprint of the GOP tax scam by helping the wealthy
at the expense of the middle class.
Homeownership is a quintessential part of the American Dream, and it
is the single most important way that households today can build
wealth. That is why expanding access to homeownership is one of the
best ways that we can grow the middle class.
Unfortunately, the dream of homeownership is becoming further out of
reach for a growing number of households due to a worsening storm of
rising interest rates and home prices, fueled by an undersupply of new
housing.
In fact, house prices have skyrocketed by 40 percent since 2020, and
first-time homeownership rates have plummeted to an all-time low.

Moreover, housing costs are a primary driver of inflation, which is
hurting every household in America. It is against this backdrop that
Republicans are actually working to make homeownership more expensive
for everyone, especially the middle class.
The MAGA housing scam act would affect two different types of fees
that apply to mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which
make up the vast majority of mortgages today.
First, this bill would extend a guarantee fee of 10 basis points for
another year, costing all future home buyers an additional $5 billion.
Second, this bill would reverse recent changes to loan level price
adjustments, better known as LLPAs, which are another type of fee on
mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie. The amount of this fee is risk-
based, meaning that it varies depending on characteristics of the
borrower and loan, such as income and downpayment; whether the loan has
a fixed or a variable rate of interest; and whether the loan is a cash-
out refinance.
FHFA, which is the agency that regulates Fannie and Freddie, is
responsible for determining the amount of the LLPAs and recently made
changes to this fee to help middle-class borrowers.
To illustrate, a middle-class borrower, say, with excellent credit,
who makes maybe a 5 percent downpayment on a median-priced home would
have their LLPA reduced by nearly half under FHFA's changes.
This bill would reverse the recent changes made by FHFA, resulting in
higher fees for middle-class borrowers. Again, the LLPAs, are only one
of two fees affected by this bill. Altogether, this bill would hit
middle-class borrowers with a double whammy of both an extension of a
10-basis point guarantee fee, and an increase in the LLPAs.
During the debate in the Rules Committee on this bill, I pointed out
how this bill hurts middle-class borrowers who have worked hard to
build excellent credit but can't afford a 20 percent downpayment.
Republicans doubled down, insisting that those with lower
downpayments are riskier borrowers and deserve to pay more. What they
failed to understand is that middle-class borrowers who can't afford a
20 percent downpayment are already required to purchase private
mortgage insurance, which can add hundreds of dollars to a borrower's
monthly mortgage cost. Private mortgage insurance protects Fannie and
Freddie from the risks associated with the lower downpayment.

{time} 0930

Charging a higher LLPA for risks that are already covered by an
insurance policy is simply unfair.
During the Rules Committee debate, Republicans called FHFA's changes
redistributive. Let's be clear: FHFA made changes to ensure that
middle-class home buyers are not unfairly charged more for risks that
are already covered by private mortgage insurance.
This is hardly redistribution. It is ensuring that middle-class
borrowers have a fair shot at homeownership. Mr. Davidson's bill, on
the other hand, would absolutely redistribute costs from the middle
class to the wealthy.
Let me break this down for the Record.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined that this bill
would cost $1.8 billion before the addition of the manager's amendment.
That represents $1.8 billion in fees that otherwise would have
primarily affected the wealthiest home buyers who could barely notice
such a nominal fee increase.
In order to pay for this cost, Republicans added a 10-basis point
guarantee fee that would increase costs for all home buyers to the tune
of $5 billion.
Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons and more, I urge my colleagues to
oppose H.R. 3564, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman points out things that just aren't so.
The idea that a loan that has less equity in it isn't riskier than a
loan with more equity in it is completely false.
Every business school in the country will teach it, but most people
don't need to go to business school to understand that a loan with a
lot of equity in it is at much less risk of default. It is rational to
price risk, and that is what the market should be doing. Plus, people
who have low income and have high credit scores are punished by this
foolish policy. This simply will undo it.
The last thing I will say is, right now, there is money that is being
taken away from consumers in the marketplace--$1.8 billion over the
next 2 years. Once this bill passes, that stops getting taken away. The
10-basis point pay-for that is in this bill is still in effect right
now.
In fact, it is scheduled to go out in 2032. In the near term, nothing
changes in this bill. It is in 2033 that the pay-for comes in, again,
only with the false accounting at the Congressional Budget Office would
that even be necessary.

[[Page H3117]]

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. McHenry), the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and the chair of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance (Mr. Davidson) for his fine work
here legislating and the great work that he has put in this Congress on
the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Davidson's bill, the Middle
Class Borrower Protection Act. What I would say to my colleagues is: Is
it right to raise the costs of borrowing for families that have worked
hard and saved up to buy a home in order to subsidize those who are
less creditworthy? I don't think so.
This bill would ensure that doesn't happen under this new Biden
administration rule set. What we have before us today is a bill that
would say to the 95 percent of Americans nationwide that have a credit
score over 680 that you are going to pay more, and those that are less
creditworthy, under 680, the 5 percent of Americans who are under a 680
credit score will pay less under this new Biden administration
proposal.
If we don't act with this bill, almost half of those borrowers will
face an extra $1.8 billion in new fees over the next 2 years. That is a
tax on more creditworthy people when they access a mortgage. I don't
think that is proper. I don't think that is just.
Those are middle-class borrowers in each of our districts, Republican
and Democrat, Independent, rural and urban, young and old. They are
across the country, and we are trying to stand up for them. For some
reason, the Biden administration wants to put their finger on the
scales and decide who gets to pay more and who gets to pay less.
That is inherently unfair, whether that is in my district in western
North Carolina or districts on the other side of the country. It will
make housing less affordable, not more. It puts taxpayers at risk by
threatening the safety and soundness of our housing finance system, and
we have a chance to change that today and do the right thing.
If you want to protect middle-class borrowers in your district from a
new tax, you will support this bill. If you want to take action to
address housing affordability, you will support this bill. If you want
more Americans to achieve the dream of homeownership, you will vote for
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues on the House Financial Services
Committee, on both sides of the aisle, for the good work they do in
this Congress. I also thank my colleague, Mr. Davidson, for his
leadership here on this important housing issue that touches all of us
across the country, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3564, the so-
called Middle Class Borrowers Protection Act of 2023. The reason for my
position is because this legislation does the exact opposite of what it
purports.
The reality is this: The Financial Services Committee held a
subcommittee hearing on this legislation on May 17, titled:
``Undermining Housing Affordability With Politics.''
My uncle used to say: ``I would kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.'' It is
called irony, but that irony did not match the irony of the hearing on
housing issues that had been hyper-politicized.
In my remarks, I mentioned that stations like FOX News have been
providing a narrative of FHFA changes that almost all the experts in
the field, and all that I have personally talked to, will tell you is
untrue, but the complexity of housing finance lends itself to a lack of
understanding.

Referring to FHFA pricing changes, which were largely required due to
changes in GSE capital requirements and had not been addressed in many
years as a socialist scheme, is simply wrong and is transparently
political.
The committee then marked up legislation in a partisan way, and what
was most surprising to me was the number of industry groups who have
expressed issues with the politicization of FHFA loan-level price
adjustment changes.
The FHFA in this process has been willing to provide information to
Congress and much more information than would have been received by
private entities before conservatorship.
I was pleased when FHFA listened to the concerns of Congress and
outside organizations in rescinding a debt-to-income-based loan-level
price adjustment that would have led to several problems. The bill we
are debating today affirms that decision.
However, the bill we are debating today, if we look at what the CBO
has said about the bill, is potentially expensive and not in the best
interest of the American people. Given the politics of the issue, the
American public should have no confidence that the end result would be
any less politicized.
For example, requiring notice and comment process in all pricing
matters and adjustments would reduce the GSE's ability to quickly
respond to changing market conditions, thereby undermining safety and
soundness objectives in times of market issues.
This would require the agency to delay implementation of pricing
changes for an extended period. There are several alternatives that
could be required that would complement the annual guarantee fee report
FHFA is already required to publish.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri is accurate.
This does cost money. It costs the 19 out of 20 Americans with 680
credit scores or better who choose to get a Fannie or Freddie mortgage,
it costs them money. It takes it out of their hard-earned dollars and
transfers it to the GSEs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma
(Mrs. Bice).
Mrs. BICE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Ohio (Mr.
Davidson) for yielding.
When this news broke that the FHFA organization had passed a rule to
change how this particular policy was put in place, I immediately went
to him and I said: We need to fix this, and here we are.
I am proud to stand in support of this legislation, which I am
collating with Congressman Davidson. Under the rule from the Federal
Housing Finance Agency, home buyers with good credit scores will be
forced to pay more for their mortgages to subsidize loans to higher
risk borrowers, and that is why the Middle Class Borrower Protection
Act is so important.
It will roll back this administration's senseless rule and stop the
anticapitalist agenda. Similar to the student loan scam, the President
is, once again, trying to bypass Congress and centralize more power in
the hands of the executive branch.
Since President Biden took office, he has increased the role of the
Federal Government in the lives of everyday Americans, and this is a
perfect example.
With sky-high mortgage rates, the last thing we need is to add more
fees and burdens on hardworking Americans and certainly hardworking
Oklahomans in my district. I stand in support of this legislation, and
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before I delve into additional remarks, the
Congressional Budget Office deemed this bill to cost $1.8 billion. Why
then would Mr. Davidson, with his amendments, create more money than
even the Congressional Budget Office said his bill would cost?
He has raised it $5 billion more. Who pays for that? I don't care how
you put it. Whether it is paid for tomorrow, next month, next year, 10
years from now, who pays for that? The home buyers pay for that and
that must be noted.
The bill is increased by $5 billion by Mr. Davidson, even more than
the Congressional Budget Office said the bill would cost at $1.8
billion. Why would he do that? Why would he charge home buyers more
money than even the Congressional Budget Office said the bill would
cost?
Accordingly, I will explain further. Currently, middle-class
borrowers who cannot make a 20 percent downpayment are charged higher
LLPAs and must purchase private mortgage insurance.
I am going to say it again. If you are paying less than 20 percent,
you have to get private mortgage insurance to

[[Page H3118]]

cover the risks that may be posed to the enterprises.
This is an unfair double charge on middle-class borrowers for the
same risks. Don't forget, they have paid their g-fees. Everybody has to
pay the g-fees to help write the undercosts of the operation of FHFA.
They pay those, and it is determined on each individual loan. It
depends on the characteristics of that loan.
You build in the question of risk in those fees and then you pay
private mortgage insurance, which means the middle-class borrowers are
paying more than the wealthy borrowers.

{time} 0945

In fact, borrowers with PMI also have excellent credit, with median
FICO scores of 754 as of December 2020, and are more likely to be
first-time home buyers. They also pose less loss severity to the
enterprises than borrowers who have the means to make a downpayment of
20 percent or more.
FHFA's mortgage pricing changes that reduce this unfair double charge
on borrowers with PMI is a critical step to making the dream of
homeownership attainable for the middle class in America.
I oppose this bill, and I oppose my Republican colleague, who is part
of the message going out from FOX News.
I oppose this bill because, first of all, the $5 billion is an
increase. The Republicans are forever saying that they are trying to
cut budgets. They don't want to increase the amount of taxes. Yet, here
he is increasing the amount that he claims he is charging homeowners,
when even the Congressional Budget Office says it costs $1.8 billion,
and now, he is asking for $5 billion. Well, I don't quite understand
that, and nobody else should understand that. It is not needed.
Again, they keep talking about credit scores. These middle-class
homeowners, who could not afford to pay maybe 20 percent down, have
good credit scores, equal credit scores to the wealthy home buyers. I
don't get why he keeps talking about these credit scores.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for recognizing that low-income
people do have high credit scores. That is why it is unjust to
implement this rule and charge them a higher fee than maybe wealthy
people who have low credit scores.
This is an interesting observation. The ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, Mr. Cleaver, just pointed out
that it would be dangerous to require the FHFA to use the
Administrative Procedure Act, i.e., to give notice and get comment,
before they implement policies that impose costs on the American
public. In July 2020, Ms. Waters and the majority at the time sent a
letter to Director Calabria--at the time the Director of FHFA--saying:
``Moreover, we urge you to use your powers under title 5 U.S.C. 551-
559, the Administrative Procedure Act, to engage meaningfully with all
stakeholders.''
It seems they are not opposed to FHFA using the Administrative
Procedure Act. In fact, they asked them to do it, so I wonder why it is
selectively.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs.
Lesko).
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Davidson for sponsoring this bill
and allowing me to talk.
The Biden administration's mortgage rule is the most recent in a long
line of upside-down, absolutely crazy policies by this administration.
Recently, the Federal Housing Finance Agency increased loan-level
pricing adjustments for Americans with good credit scores and decreased
the fees for the majority of Americans who have poor credit scores.
That makes no sense. It is upside down, and it incentivizes people not
to have good credit scores.
Americans who have good credit scores and have been fiscally
responsible should not be forced to effectively subsidize the loans of
people with bad credit, especially in the middle of a cost-of-living
crisis with still-high inflation rates and rising home prices.
The Middle Class Borrower Protection Act repeals this terrible policy
and ensures that Americans are not unfairly punished for being fiscally
responsible.
I have young adult children, and they struggle. They are not wealthy,
as some of my Democratic colleagues have said, but they have struggled.
They live paycheck to paycheck, but they try to have good credit
scores.
One of them said to me: Jeez, with this crazy Biden policy of wanting
to punish people with good credit scores so that they have to pay more
to subsidize people with poor credit scores, why the heck should I work
to have good credit scores?
That is what this administration is doing. This is like socialism.
This is insane. That is why I support Mr. Davidson's bill. That is why
I support Americans who strive to be fiscally responsible.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I will take a minute to say that the representation that
middle-class home buyers who may not have 20 percent down also have bad
credit is not true. The record should reflect that that is not true.
That is made up by someone who would like to throw credit scores into
this argument and argue that these middle-class buyers, who can't pay
20 percent down, all have bad credit. They do not. They have good
credit, and they are eligible for a loan. The only thing they don't
have is 20 percent down, and they get mortgage insurance in order to
cover that.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Cleaver).
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chair, I missed something because I didn't know that
the Biden administration was involved in this debate or had any
involvement at all with this discussion.
At the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill
back to committee. If House rules permitted, I would have offered the
motion with an important amendment to the bill.
My amendment would make the $3.2 billion surplus this bill generates
available for Federal programs to assist homeless individuals and
families. Instead of making housing more expensive for our
constituents, we should be ensuring that every single American is able
to live with dignity and comfort.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of the amendment.
At the end, add the following new section:

SEC. 8. USE OF EXCESS AMOUNTS.

Any amount of budget authority resulting from the enactment
of section 7 (relating to enterprise guarantee fees) in
excess of the amount necessary to offset mandatory spending
increases under the other provisions of this Act so as to
comply with clause 10.(a)(1) of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives of the 118th Congress are hereby
made available for assistance under Federal programs to
assist homeless individuals and families.

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting
for the motion to recommit and opposing this sham bill.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Good).
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Davidson for his
leadership on trying to correct this egregious policy coming from the
Biden administration.
The American people are suffering today. They are suffering from
Bidenflation, 40-year high inflation. They are suffering under higher
grocery prices. They are suffering under high gas prices, higher
utility energy prices, all as a result of this President's policies.
They are suffering under the massive inflation that has caused
housing prices to rise, and then we have complicated that with raising
interest rates to make homeownership out of reach for most Americans.
Here comes the Biden administration to the rescue. They are going to
charge most Americans higher mortgage fees when they go to borrow to
buy a home as a result of having good credit.
I worked in the lending industry for 17 years. Lending prices and
fees are based on credit. They are based on stability. They are based
on ability. They are based on the loan to value, the amount of loan
that you take relative to the value of the home.
The lending industry knows what they are doing. They want to make
every possible loan they can make, and they want to price it
appropriately, according to the risk.
However, what this does, what we are trying to overturn here, what
the Biden administration wants to do, is reward or incentivize bad
behavior.

[[Page H3119]]

Credit is a reflection of good behavior. There is not even really a
correlation between income and credit. There are many high-income
individuals who borrow more than they can afford or have bad character
demonstrated in their credit. There are many low-income individuals who
have outstanding character, outstanding credit history because they do
the right thing.
Now, what the Biden administration wants to do is to penalize them
and to subsidize that bad credit on the backs of folks who have good
credit, of course.
I thank my friend from Ohio, Mr. Davidson, for his leadership on
this, his efforts to overturn this terrible policy. It is socialist and
un-American, and it is simply wrong. I thank him for his leadership.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, the MAGA housing scam act would reverse critical cost
savings for middle-class borrowers as provided by FHFA.
Before FHFA's May 1 changes, a middle-class borrower with a high
credit score and a 5 percent downpayment on a medium-priced home would
have paid an LLPA fee of $81 in addition to private mortgage insurance.
Today, this borrower would pay half of that fee, allowing them to
access affordable homeownership.
Similarly, a borrower with the same credit score and a 40 percent
downpayment on the same priced home would have paid only $27 before May
1 and today pays just $20. These are cost savings that Republicans not
only want to eliminate but now they want to add an additional $5
billion in fees for everyone.
This is a scam, not a protection for the middle class. This is
messaging by FOX News.
What is that $5 billion for? Why is it that Mr. Davidson is wanting
to raise more money than even the Congressional Budget Office says the
bill costs? This is not to be understood.
I know that there is an attempt to try to make the argument that
somebody wealthier is paying for those who have less income, less
money, less resources. It is not true.
Don't eliminate private mortgage insurance. If you pay less than 20
percent, you pay for private mortgage insurance in addition to the GSE
fees. Middle-class borrowers were paying more than even the wealthier
borrowers, so it had nothing to do with the credit score because the
credit score of that home buyer who only paid less than 20 percent is
as good as the credit score of the wealthier buyer. It had nothing to
do with that at all.
Again, I don't know why this argument is being made by the other
side. It is an attempt, I think, to message in a way that goes directly
to constituents who they make angrier because their government is
making them do something they should not be making them do.
Don't politicize this. This is about homeownership. This is about the
American Dream. This is about making sure that those people who can
afford to buy a home are able to do so.
The idea that anybody would say that, if you can't make a 20 percent
downpayment but can pay for private mortgage insurance, you must not
have good credit scores, that is an absolute untruth. As a matter of
fact, you would not be able to get that loan if you had bad credit
scores.
I wish the opposition would stop making that argument because it does
not fly. That person who is paying, again, private mortgage insurance
also has a good credit score. They didn't have the 20 percent down, but
they are paying for it with their private mortgage insurance.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1000

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 3564, which harms middle-class home
buyers and their ability to access homeownership on fair and affordable
terms.
This bill responds to a misinformation campaign, again initiated by a
friend of the Republicans, FOX News, and propagated by extreme MAGA
Republicans. It protects wealthy home buyers and imposes billions in
new fees on all home buyers.
Mr. Chair, I also oppose this bill because it completely ignores our
Nation's worsening housing crisis, which is locking millions out of the
dream of homeownership. MAGA Republicans are instead focused on a
minuscule fee in the home-buying process that does nothing to address
our Nation's housing shortage and rising housing costs that are driving
inflation.
We have a shortage of 14 million homes nationwide and more than
582,500 people experiencing homelessness on any given night, with
homelessness rising faster in rural communities than anywhere else in
the country. Meanwhile, U.S. renters are paying more of their income on
rent today than ever before. These are the real problems that
Republicans should be working to solve, not increasing fees by billions
of dollars according to the CBO.
In fact, this bill is opposed by Americans for Financial Reform,
Center for Responsible Lending, the National Fair Housing Alliance, the
National Housing Law Project, and the National Housing Resource Center.
Industry groups such as the Mortgage Bankers Association and the
National Association of Realtors are also very concerned about this.
Republicans are forever worried about the fact that we are not making
enough cuts. Yet, in the negotiations that just occurred on raising the
debt limit, they wanted to cut, cut, cut, cut. They are not only
jeopardizing middle-class homeowners, but they are increasing the
amount of money--more than even needed--than the Congressional Budget
Office has said the bill would cost.
Why $5 billion? I don't get it. I don't understand, but I am through
with it.
Mr. Chair, I simply ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, the American people should be angry. They
should be upset because the Biden administration did impose a socialist
redistribution scheme. The most egregious and obvious part is that they
withdrew as we uncovered this and exposed what they were trying to do.
On August 1, their plan was to say that if you have a lot of income
and very little debt, then you should pay more, even more than this
scheme that took effect on May 1, and you should subsidize the people
that have little income and more debt. Now, to be sure, they still
would qualify for a mortgage, or they wouldn't get the loan, but that
is patently obvious redistribution of wealth.
The component that took effect on May 1 isn't really a redistribution
of wealth per se, but it does hit the average credit score of 710.
Everyone with a credit score of 680 or above, 19 out of 20 Americans is
being hit by a higher fee since May 1 for their mortgages.
It is a redistribution of credit scores, and that is even worse than
an idea of redistribution of wealth, in a sense. Because you have
responsible people who live within their means, might live just a
little bit above paycheck to paycheck, save, scrape together, build up
a downpayment, have a mortgage in place, and they are going to pay more
now since May 1.
We have to fix this injustice. That is what this bill does. It is
time to just move forward in a commonsense way.
First, you study the problem before you implement it. This bill
requires the GAO to complete the study, and then it requires FHFA to
look at the study, to take 90 days of notice before they implement
something else. The part that it bans after the study is over is the
real redistribution of wealth, the debt-to-income scheme.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this commonsense Middle Class Borrower Protection Act, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak against H.R. 3564, a
harmful bill which seeks to cancel recent changes made by the Federal
Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to the single-family mortgages'
framework.
First, I'd like to applaud the FHFA for their bold and courageous
actions that aim to ensure equity and fairness in the mortgage pricing
framework.
The title of H.R. 3564 contradicts its content, because in reality,
it makes mortgages more expensive for many middle-class American
families.

[[Page H3120]]

Escalating housing prices in recent years have put many families and
hardworking Americans out of the bid for homeownership.
The median U.S. home sales price stands at about $455,800 dollars as
of the first quarter of 2023 representing a whopping 32 percent
increase from 2020, just two years ago.
In the last 2 to 3 years however, the average American has neither
become 32 percent richer nor gained wage increase of 32 percent.
Increasing amounts of homes owned by private equity and Wall Street
firms, accompanied by high inflation and rising demand have contributed
to these price increases.
Rising rents make it even more difficult for first-time home buyers
to save for a down payment.
At an average cost of $455,800 for a home, middle-income American
families would need to save roughly $87,500 dollars, an amount which
most families simply do not have.
Rather than rescinding their bold and courageous action, we should
rather applaud and commend the FHFA in its rightful steps toward making
mortgages more affordable for first-time homeowners and many
creditworthy borrowers who simply cannot afford a 20 percent down
payment.
The eliminated loan level price adjustment fees would actually help
these borrowers to save for their monthly mortgage payments.
The upward adjustments in vacation home and investment property
mortgages also help to ensure balance, equity, and fairness in the
federal housing finance and pricing framework.
The FHFA's actions are in the right direction and help to ensure a
more equitable mortgage pricing framework that prioritizes middle class
home buyers over investors and second-home owners.
H.R. 3564 is an attempt to rescind the FHFA's more equitable pricing
framework and instead require increased fees for many first-time home
buyers and those who do not have a 20 percent down payment.
H.R. 3564 will raise the cost of homeownership and make it more
expensive for first-time homebuyers and borrowers of color seeking
conventional loan.
The FHFA's actions are a step toward remedying this inequity and
achieving fairness and equal opportunity.
It is not Congress' job to set mortgage pricing fees for loans
purchased by the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs).
This is the role of the government regulator, the Federal Housing
Finance Agency.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Ellzey). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the
5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Financial Services printed in the bill, an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 118-8, modified by the amendment printed in part A of House
Report 118-115, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as an original bill for purpose of further
amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 3564

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 ``Middle Class Borrower
Protection Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RECALIBRATED SINGLE-FAMILY PRICING
FRAMEWORK.

Not later than the expiration of the 60-day period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency shall revise
the recalibrated single-family pricing framework charged by
the enterprises for guarantee of mortgages on single-family
housing so that such fees are identical to the fees of the
standard single-family pricing framework in effect
immediately before May 1, 2023.

SEC. 3. RESTRICTIONS ON FHFA ADJUSTMENTS TO SINGLE-FAMILY
PRICING FRAMEWORK.

(a) Temporary Prohibition on Further Adjustments to Single-
family Pricing Framework.--During the period beginning upon
the date of the revision of the recalibrated single-family
pricing framework pursuant to section 2 and ending 90 days
after the submission to the Congress of the report required
under section 5, the Director may not further revise the
single-family pricing framework from such framework in effect
pursuant to the revision required by section 2.
(b) Administrative Procedures for Adoption of Adjustments
to the Single-family Pricing Framework.--After expiration of
the period referred to in subsection (a), when proposing
adjustments to the single-family pricing framework, the
Director shall follow procedures that are as close as
practicable to those requirements for a Federal agency
issuing a rule under chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code
(commonly referred to as the ``Administrative Procedure
Act'').
(c) FHFA Requirement for the Use of Risk-based Pricing.--
Section 1367(b)(2) of the Federal Housing Enterprises
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C.
4617(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(L) Additional powers as conservator.--The Agency shall,
as conservator for an enterprise, to the greatest extent
feasible require that any modifications, including increases,
decreases, or eliminations, approved to a loan-level pricing
adjustment fee, as such term is defined in section 6 of the
Middle Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023, charged by an
enterprise shall be based on the risk posed by the mortgage
loan to the enterprise.''.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF LOAN-LEVEL PRICE ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON
DEBT-TO-INCOME RATIO.

The Director and the enterprises shall not impose any
loan-level pricing adjustment fee that is based on the ratio
of the debt of the mortgagor to the income of the mortgagor.

SEC. 5. GAO STUDY.

(a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study of the revisions made by the Federal
Housing Finance Agency to the standard single-family pricing
framework under the recalibrated single-family pricing
framework to--
(1) analyze--
(A) the methodology, policy considerations, and any other
objectives used by the Federal Housing Finance Agency as the
basis for such revisions, including the authority cited by
the Director under the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.) to
require such revisions;
(B) the data, econometric modeling, and other inputs
supplied by the enterprises during the revisions process;
(C) the extent to which such revisions comply with the
objectives of the Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework,
including the interaction with and treatment of any private
mortgage insurance required in connection with a residential
mortgage transaction; and
(D) the economic impact of such revisions on various
classes of lenders and borrowers affected by such revisions;
and
(2) determine the extent to which such revisions--
(A) were conducted on the basis of, and how they might
deviate from, the principle of risk-based pricing;
(B) deviate from the data, econometric modeling, and other
inputs supplied by the enterprises during the revisions
process;
(C) achieve the objectives of the Enterprise Regulatory
Capital Framework, including if such revisions have resulted
in either a negative profitability gap or negative rate of
return on the targeted rate of return on capital for any
business segment under the recalibrated single-family pricing
framework; and
(D) represent any increased risks to the safety and
soundness of the enterprises.
(b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report
to the Congress setting forth the findings and conclusions of
the study not later than the expiration of the 14-month
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
(2) Enterprise.--The term ``enterprise'' has the meaning
given such term in section 1303 of the Federal Housing
Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12
U.S.C. 4502).
(3) Loan-level pricing adjustment fee.--The term ``loan-
level pricing adjustment fee'' means an up-front fee paid by
lenders when a mortgage loan is acquired by an enterprise.
(4) Recalibrated single-family pricing framework.--The term
``recalibrated single-family pricing framework'' means the
loan-level pricing adjustment fee structure as referred to in
the announcement of the Federal Housing Finance Agency on
January 19, 2023, relating to ``Updates to the Enterprises'
Single-Family Pricing Framework'', and set forth in Federal
National Mortgage Association Lender Letter LL-2023-01 and
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Bulletin 2023-1.
(5) Risk-based pricing.--The term ``risk-based pricing''
means the calibration of fees based on the expected credit
losses to an enterprise of each single-family mortgage
category as defined by an enterprise based on the credit
score and loan-to-value ratio characteristics of a mortgage.
(6) Standard single-family pricing framework.--The term
``standard single-family pricing framework'' means the loan-
level pricing adjustment fee structure in effect on April 30,
2023.

SEC. 7. ENTERPRISE GUARANTEE FEES.

Subsection (f) of section 1327 of the Federal Housing
Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12
U.S.C. 4547(f)) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2032''
and inserting ``October 1, 2033''.

The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in part B of House Report 118-115.
Each such further 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 Mrs. Boebert

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part B of House Report 118-115.

[[Page H3121]]

Mrs. BOEBERT. 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:

Page 5, line 7, after ``study'' insert ``, and make the
report publicly available online on a website of the
Department,''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in favor of my amendment, which will
require the Government Accountability Office to make its report on the
findings and conclusions of its study of the Federal Housing Finance
Agency's loan-level pricing adjustment revisions publicly available
online.
My commonsense amendment will provide transparency for the
administration to answer to the American people.
The latest FHFA fee change could result in thousands of dollars in
additional fees for lower risk homeowners over time, while encouraging
and rewarding financial irresponsibility. This is a gross overreach and
will ultimately contribute to the growing inflation problem we have in
this country.
Raising housing costs at a time when mortgage rates are at their
highest, thanks to the Biden-Pelosi spending spree, will make housing
less affordable and will result in higher mortgage costs and reduced
access to credit for most borrowers.
Joe Biden's agenda of equity over equality defies common sense and
will endanger the stability of the housing market. The Republican
majority is fighting tooth and nail to protect middle-class home buyers
from Joe Biden's new socialist tax, which puts homeownership out of
reach for the middle-class American.
Borrowers with excellent credit should not be punished for doing
right and be forced to bear more financial burdens due to the fiscal
irresponsibility of others.
Unelected bureaucrats in Washington should not have the ability to
impose these un-American regulations on hardworking middle-class
families. I am glad this bill puts an end to business as usual here in
the swamp.
I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) for his leadership to
block Joe Biden's new socialist tax to force middle-class borrowers to
subsidize risky loans.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment, as
well as the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Well, actually, I don't even want to waste another minute on this
pointless and redundant amendment.
Anyone who pays attention to government oversight knows that the GAO
already makes all of its reports resulting from legislative mandates
publicly available on the GAO's website as soon as they are issued to
Congress.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters: one from Americans
for Financial Reform and one from Public Citizen.

Americans for Financial Reform,

May 23, 2023.
Hon. Patrick McHenry,
Chairman, House Committee on Financial Service, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Maxine Waters,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McHenry and Ranking Member Waters: We are
writing to express our opposition to H.R. 3564 ``Middle Class
Borrower Protection Act of 2023.'' The bill's title is ironic
because it would, in fact, make mortgages more expensive for
many middle-class American families.
Record housing prices have put homeownership increasingly
out of reach for my Americans. The US median home sales price
is $436,800 as of the first quarter of 2023. That's a 32
percent increase from 2020, when the median was $329,000.
However, Americans have not become 32 percent richer in the
last three years. Rather, inflation, rising demand, and the
increasing amount of homes owned by private equity and Wall
Street firms have all contributed to these price increases.
Meanwhile, rising rents make it increasingly difficult for
first-time home buyers to save for a down payment. To afford
a 20 percent down payment on a $436,800 home, a homebuyer
would need $87,360 for the down payment, a sum that many
middle-income American families simply do not have.
Given these trends, the FHFA should be commended for making
mortgages more affordable for first-time homebuyers,
borrowers participating in the Enterprises' affordable
mortgage programs, and creditworthy borrowers who lack a 20
percent down payment. These borrowers will see reduced or
eliminated loan level price adjustment fees. The FHFA will
also increase loan level price adjustment fees for vacation
home and investment property mortgages, cash-out refinances,
and large loan amounts. Taken together, these actions
demonstrate an important first step towards a more equitable
mortgage pricing framework that supports middle class
homebuyers over investors and second-home owners.
We oppose H.R. 3564 because it would rescind the FHFA's
more equitable pricing framework and instead require the FHFA
to increase fees for many first-time home buyers and those
who do not have a 20 percent down payment. It would require
the FHFA to impose a risk-based pricing model, one that would
ultimately benefit housing investors and vacation home owners
while making homeownership more difficult for middle class
Americans.
H.R. 3564 will disproportionately harm homebuyers of color.
Because of our history of racial discrimination, a large
racial wealth gap persists that makes it less likely that a
homebuyer of color will be able to pay for a 20 percent down
payment through their personal savings, assistance from their
families, or inheritance.
Opponents of the FHFA's pricing matrix have spread
significant misinformation about its impacts on mortgage
pricing. To be clear: under the new framework, borrowers with
good credit and higher down payments will continue to pay
lower mortgage costs than borrowers with good credit and
lower down payments, because these borrowers will still be
required to pay for monthly mortgage insurance until they
reach 20 percent equity.
Optimally, Americans for Financial Reform believes the
loan-level price adjustment fees should be eliminated
altogether because this will increase pricing transparency
and make homeownership more affordable. These fees are
unnecessary from a risk-mitigation perspective because Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac already have charge guarantee fees to
cover the credit risk of acquiring single-family loans from
lenders. However, the changes recently made by FHFA are a
step in the right direction of mitigating the adverse effects
of the adjustment fees, which is why we support FHFA's
actions. H.R. 3564 would move us in the wrong direction by
further entrenching the loan-level price adjustment fee
flawed framework and making it even more inequitable.
At a time when more and more Americans are struggling with
the cost of housing, it defies comprehension that Congress
would seek to increase fees for middle class homebuyers. For
these reasons, we urge you to oppose this legislation.
Sincerely,
Americans for Financial Reform.
____

Public Citizen 50,

May 22, 2023
Chair Patrick McHenry,
Ranking Member Maxine Waters,
Hon. Members of the Committee,
House Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair McHenry, Ranking Member Waters and Members of
the Committee: On behalf of more than 500,000 members and
supporters of Public Citizen, we offer the following comment
on legislation slated for a vote May 24, 2023, before the
House Financial Services Committee. We address these bills in
three parts. The first part involves a cluster of capital
formation bills. The second part is a bill with multiple
titles that purports to respond to the recent bank failures.
The third part is a housing bill.

1. Capital Formation

The first cluster of bills involves capital formation.
Average investors enjoy an ample range of opportunities for
savings and wealth creation, and one of the most approachable
is the public securities markets. There are thousands of
public companies that offer stocks and bonds. Each of these
public companies provide detailed disclosures on an annual
(10k) or quarterly (10Q) basis, and sometimes more frequently
(8k) following a major event that could affect the stock
price. These documents are reviewed by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) after they are subject to an
independent audit. Most of these documents are studied by
Wall Street analysts who publish critical information that an
ordinary reader might miss. Investors may also choose a
mutual fund, where experts select a portfolio of stocks,
usually involving a certain risk appetite, or sector. Or,
given that stock-picking can be difficult for even the most
seasoned professional, investors may essentially choose
``all'' stocks through an index fund. Again, these
investments are subject to rigorous registration and
disclosure, with non-complying brokers subject to fines and
expulsion from the industry for shoddy sales practices.
Then there are investment opportunities that fail to meet
these standards. That's often because the underlying business
is untested, or perhaps even shady. Sophisticated investors
know to avoid them. But Wall

[[Page H3122]]

Street salesmen want to earn commissions, and even selling
such eschewed junk can generate those commissions. What
prevents them are safeguards that Congress and the SEC have
erected to deter the unscrupulous from pawning off the odious
to unsuspecting victims.
The following cluster of bills are part of a years-long
effort by Republican and some Democratic enablers to strip
away some of those safeguards.
The Increasing Investor Opportunities Act
This misleadingly titled bill would expose investors to
greater risk by increasing the limit that a closed-end fund
can invest in a private fund, which are subject to less
regulation and disclosure. Currently, the SEC caps the amount
that closed-end funds can invest in private funds at 15
percent of net assets, if the closed-end fund is sold to non-
accredited investors, who are investors with lower income and
total wealth. If a closed-end fund has more than 15 percent
of net assets in private funds, it must sell that fund only
to accredited investors. This bill would allow closed-end
funds to invest 100 percent of their net assets in private
funds and still be sold to non-accredited investors. Many
private funds are simply bad products that sophisticated
investors have avoided. This bill would allow them to be
sloughed off on those with less investment experience and
less income and savings to lose. We oppose this bill.
The Retirement Fairness for Charities and Educational
Institutions Act of 2023
This bill claims to level the playing field between 401(k)
plans and 403(b) plans so that both accounts can invest in
collective investment trusts (CITs). However, the bill would
gut securities laws and allow securities salespeople to sell
other, far riskier investments, to 403(b) plans. A 403(b)
plan is one that is available to public school organizations.
Securities laws require that mutual funds and variable
annuities that are sold to 403(b) plans must be registered
with the SEC. Registration requires the disclosure of basic
information such as risks and costs. The SEC reviews this for
accuracy. This helps investors avoid products that are unfit
for a risk-averse portfolio.
This bill would allow unregistered variable annuities and
other pooled investment vehicles to be sold to these public-
school teachers. The bill does this by amending the
Investment Company Act and the Securities Act. This would end
the disclosures about risks and costs. We believe this bill
is a craven effort to expose hard-working public-sector
workers to investment vehicles that can't be sold to people
paying attention to important details. We oppose this bill.
The Access to Small Business Investor Capital Act
This bill would allow business development companies (BDCs)
to obscure critical information such as acquisition costs and
other expenses (acquired fund fees and expenses, or AFFEs).
Instead of highlighting them, sales documents could bury this
information in a footnote to the fee table. This will be
confusing if not misleading. We oppose this bill.
The Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act
This bill would allow firms to promote risky investments at
various forums such as social clubs or college events without
providing basic disclosures regarding the securities. The
bill also prevents the SEC from offering any restrictions on
these quasi sales events. We oppose this bill.
A bill to except quotations of Rule 144A fixed-income
securities from certain regulatory requirements
This bill would end the prohibition on publishing certain
riskier securities (governed under Rule 144Af and Rule 15c2-
1) from using a quotation medium other than a national
securities exchange (such as over-the-counter securities).
The SEC did provide an exemption from this prohibition, but
it was time limited. This would make the exemption permanent.
We opposed the original exemption, and we oppose making it
permanent and therefore we oppose this bill.

2. Response to Recent Bank Failures

The next bill is an amalgam of irrelevant, wrongheaded
responses to the recent failure of three large regional
banks. This legislation masks the Republican (and wayward
Democratic) sponsorship of a major deregulation effort
approved in 2018 known as S. 2155. S. 2155 led to the
failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. S. 2155
increased from $50 billion to $250 billion the size of bank
that would face ``enhanced supervision'' (as provided under
Title I, Section 165 of the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act). Enhanced supervision includes
regular, frequent stress tests. Tellingly, Silicon Valley
Bank (SVB) promptly grew from just under $50 billion in
assets before approval of President Trump's S. 2155, to $211
billion by the end of 2022. It was not due for another stress
test until 2024. When the Federal Reserve raised interest
rates precipitously and after persistent, vocal warning to
markets, SVB's lazy strategy of holding copious long term,
low interest baring Treasury securities proved fatal. It
collapsed March 10, 2023, a billboard for the disastrous
deregulatory policy of S. 2155. Rather than acknowledge
accountability, Republicans have projected their culpability
by complaining that regulators failed; some even blame
``woke'' capitalism, as SVB devoted some attention to
diversity and inclusion.
The Increasing Financial Regulatory Accountability and
Transparency Act
Title I of this bill would complicate the FDIC's resolution
process for failing banks by requiring new and extensive
analyses of the systemic risk exception. While we believe
this exception should be used with great caution, the bar is
currently high: at least two-thirds of the board members of
the FDIC and Federal Reserve must support it, and it must be
signed by the Treasury Secretary who must consult with the
President. We oppose this title.
Title II would revise the Fed's emergency lending authority
with several limitations that would slow down the ability to
deploy stabilization tools. There are already a number of
limits, the recent failure of three large banks does not make
a case for such additional limitations. Instead, Congress
should amend the statute (12 USC 1828 13c) that includes an
exception to a bank controlling more than 10 percent of the
nation's deposits (as JP Morgan does) acquiring another bank,
namely if that bank is failing. The statute should authorize
the FDIC to accept a second-best bid if from a bank with less
than 10 percent of deposits. In its current form, we do not
support Title II.
Title III would add another voting member to the Financial
Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and eliminate FSOC's
Climate-related Financial Risk Advisory Committee. Given that
climate change is the gravest threat to humanity (which is
bad for business), Congress should improve oversight rather
than reduce it, especially since the recent calamity was
caused by simple failure to understand interest rate maturity
mismatches, hardly the gravity of climate change. We oppose
this title.
Title IV is an ad hominem retort to Federal Reserve Vice
Chair Michael Barr, who issued a report identifying S. 2155
as one of the factors causing the collapse of SVB. The bill
would establish qualifications for Vice Chair that Barr does
not meet. Legislating should be about policy, not personal
attacks. We clearly oppose this title.
Title V would require the FDIC Chair, OCC Comptroller of
the Currency, NCUA Chair, and the Fed's Vice Chair of
Supervision to testify before Congress on a semiannual basis
(currently, only the Fed Vice Chair of Supervision is
required to testified semiannually). This is the only title
of the bill Public Citizen does not oppose. We oppose all the
other titles, and this bill.

3. Housing bill

The Middle-Class Borrower Protection Act
This bill would stymie the ability of Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae (overseen by the Federal Housing Finance Agency)
to appropriately price credit risk. It would compromise the
safety and soundness of the housing finance market. We oppose
this bill.
Once again, the committee majority are doing Wall Street's
bidding by bringing a counterproductive mark-up of
deregulatory bills instead of increasing the safety and
soundness of our financial system. Responsible lawmakers
concerned about investor protection, financial stability and
housing must not support this legislation.
Sincerely,
Public Citizen.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters of opposition to H.R. 3564
from the Center for Responsible Lending, the National Housing Resource
Center, the National Housing Law Project, and the National Fair Housing
Alliance.

[From the Center for Responsible Lending, Sept. 2020]

More Harm and No Good--So-Called ``Middle Class Borrower Protection Act
of 2023'' Leaves Borrowers and Taxpayers Less Financially Secure

The Center for Responsible Lending OPPOSES H.R. 3654, the
so-called ``Middle Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023,''
and urges Members of Congress to do the same. As written, the
bill would: (1) undo the Federal Housing Finance Agency's
recent cost changes for mortgages under the loan-level-
pricing-adjustment framework used by Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac and (2) subject any future framework changes to the
Administrative Procedure Act. Yet. rather than protecting
America's middle class, these proposals would make it more
expensive for middle-class consumers to become homeowners
using conventional mortgage loans and more difficult for many
consumers to enter America's middle class by obtaining
affordable, conventional mortgage credit. Here is what
policymakers, advocates, and consumers need to know:
(1) H.R. 3654 Undermines Middle Class Borrowers By Undoing
The Pricing Reductions That Were Recently Made For Them. This
bill would eliminate the reductions in loan-level-pricing
adjustments (LLPAs) that the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) recently established. Those reductions were targeted
to the lower wealth, credit-worthy borrowers who
disproportionately make up or seek to enter America's middle
class.
(2) H.R. 3654 Makes it Harder for More Americans to Enter
the Middle Class by Raising the Cost of a Conventional Home

[[Page H3123]]

Loan for First-Time And Working-Class Borrowers.
Homeownership continues to be the single most important
factor in determining the ability of an American household to
build wealth and enter or maintain middle-class status. Yet,
by eliminating the pricing reductions FHFA recently
implemented for lower-wealth and first-time homebuyers, the
proposed bill reinforces a two-tier housing finance system
where the conventional mortgage market continues to
prioritize wealthier borrowers while first-time, underserved
or rural borrowers with less wealth are dependent upon
government-backed loans from federal agencies. That result is
inconsistent with the statutory purpose and mandate of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. As the FHFA has noted, ``[a]chieving a
liquid, resilient housing finance market throughout the
country requires improved access to responsible mortgage
credit across different market segments of creditworthy
borrowers.
(3) H.R. 3654 Makes All Taxpayers More Vulnerable by
Disrupting Safety And Soundness Regulation of for Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission stated unequivocally that
the primary cause of the crisis was a failure on the part of
the government to regulate the financial industry,
particularly in the secondary mortgage market. Based on its
own experience in that regard, Congress created an
independent FHFA, empowered it to assume conservator
responsibilities for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ensured
that it would have the ability to act swiftly and
independently from the political process to manage each
government-sponsored enterprise's safety and soundness
considerations. Under H.R. 3654, FHFA would Jose the ability
to act swiftly on pricing considerations tied to safety and
soundness by being subjected to the Administrative Procedure
Act. That result would require the Agency to delay
implementation of pricing changes for an extended period that
often does not match changing dynamics in the financial
markets. As a result, taxpayers would be a greater risk for,
once again, having to bail out the enterprises.
@ Making homeownership more expensive for moderate income
borrowers and less accessible for first-time, workingclass,
rural and other underserved borrowers is not protecting
America's middle class. Likewise, depriving the enterprises'
conservator of the tools needed to swiftly respond to safety
and soundness considerations raised by pricing and, in the
process, increasing the likelihood of another taxpayer funded
bail out is not protecting American taxpayers. For each of
these reasons, H.R. 3654, the ``Middle Class Borrower
Protection Act of 2023,'' is bad public policy and should not
be enacted. CRL urges Members of Congress to vote against the
measure.
____

May 21, 2023.
Hon. Patrick McHenry,
Chairman, U.S. House Financial Services Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Maxine Waters,
Ranking Member, U.S. House Financial Services Committee,
Washington, DC.
Subject: The Current Mortgage Market: Undermining Housing
Affordability with Politics
We are writing to show support for the Federal Housing
Finance Agency (FHFA) changes to the Loan Level Price
Adjustments (LLPAs). The past LLPA pricing framework unfairly
raised the costs for many first-time homebuyers who had
downpayments of less than 20 percent. The main area of growth
for first time homebuyers will be people of color and this
disproportionately disadvantages them. The median downpayment
in 2021 was 17 percent and for first-time- homebuyers it was
7 percent. These homebuyers with lower downpayments will also
be paying mortgage insurance which mitigates the risk to the
Enterprises and raises the costs for the homebuyer.
Reducing the LLPA fees for first-time homebuyers and
participants in the affordable housing programs also helps
the Enterprises meet their mission goal of supporting
homeownership in America. Ironically, the LLPA framework was
instituted in 2009 in response to the financial crisis and
has unfairly put the burden of the Enterprises' financial
recovery and future catastrophic risk on first-time-
homebuyers and especially borrowers of color, despite their
communities being the greatest victims of the financial
crisis.
We believe the solution is eliminating the LLPAs
altogether. Unnecessary LLPA fees raise the cost of
homeownership and reduce opportunities for Americans who
would like to become homeowners. Our organization urges you
to prioritize fair and inclusive mortgage pricing to promote
equitable and sustainable homeownership.
Signed,
National Housing Resource Center.
____

National Housing Law Project,

June 22, 2023.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Hon. Patrick McHenry,
Chair, House Financial Services Committee.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
Hon. Maxine Waters,
Ranking Member, House Financial Services Committee.
Dear Speaker McCarthy, Leader Jeffries, Chair McHenry, and
Ranking Member Waters: The National Housing Law Project
writes to express our strong opposition to H.R. 3564, the so-
called ``Middle Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023''.
H.R. 3564 would repeal the structure of upfront fees
related to residential mortgages developed by the Federal
Finance Housing Agency (FHFA) and instituted by the
government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, on May 1, 2023, and reinstate the prior fee
structure. It would also prohibit any changes to the fee
structure for at least two more years.
Contrary to the claims of H.R. 3564's cosponsors, the
FHFA's updated fee structure does not uniformly shift the
cost of lower fees for borrowers with low credit scores to
those with high credit scores. Instead, it represents a
carefully calibrated effort to balance risk to the GSEs'
balance sheets with their obligation to provide broad and
equitable access to homeownership in light of the realities
of the housing market.
As explained in a May 23, 2023, letter opposing H.R. 3564
from Americans for Financial Reform (AFR), the updated fee
structure that the bill would rescind serves to make the
homebuying market more equitable than it has been
historically by lowering mortgage costs for first-time and
first-generation homebuyers who are disproportionately people
of color. Moreover, reverting to the prior fee structure
would actually harm the many middle-income families around
the country who have never owned a home and who are unable to
save for a large down payment by restoring higher upfront
fees for their loans.4 H.R. 3564 is the epitome of bad
policy: a misleadingly named bill that seeks to erase 18
months of careful work by the government's own experts in
housing finance for the sole purpose of ratcheting up
political controversy. We urge you to oppose this
legislation.
Sincerely,
Lisa Sitkin,
Supervising Attorney.
____

[May 22, 2023]

NFHA Issues Statement Opposing the Middle Class Borrower Protection Act

Washington, D.C.--Nikitra Bailey, Executive Vice President
of the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), issued the
following statement opposing the Middle Class Borrower
Protection Act of 2023 introduced by Rep. Warren Davidson (R-
OH). The bill would require the Federal Housing Finance
Agency to reverse recent changes to its single-family pricing
matrix for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
``We are concerned that Congress is attempting to set
mortgage pricing fees for loans purchased by the Government
Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). This is the role of their
regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). A
return to the former pricing matrix would raise the cost of
homeownership and make it more expensive for first-time
homebuyers and borrowers of color seeking conventional loans.
The bill also fails to advance housing affordability and does
not offer a solution for the millions of mortgage-ready
consumers who desire and can succeed in homeownership.
``Prior to FHFA mandating upfront Loan Level Price
Adjustment (LLPA) fees, the GSEs had a stronger track record
of purchasing loans made to Black, Latino, AAPI, and Native
communities. Since FHFA instituted LLPAs in 2008, the GSEs
have grossly underserved the very borrowers on whom the
health of the future housing finance system depends. LLPAs
also unfairly place the potential burden of future
catastrophic risk on the backs of the borrowers who were most
harmed by the Great Recession.
``LLPAs must be eliminated. They force creditworthy first-
time homebuyers and borrowers of color to pay more for
mortgages, which prices them out of the conventional market.
The GSEs' charters mandate that they serve the whole of the
market--not just wealthier borrowers purchasing second homes
and investors. FHFA's recent changes move the system toward
greater safety and soundness, which is ultimately in
everyone's best interest.''

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, these organizations all fight hard for
homeownership, especially for middle-class Americans. They are
absolutely opposed to this bill.
Again, I don't understand why we are spending time on this amendment.
It does not accomplish anything at all. It would require GAO to do
something it already does.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Lee of Nevada

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part B of House Report 118-115.
Ms. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in
order by the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

[[Page H3124]]

Page 4, line 12, strike ``and''.
Page 5, line 4, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 5, after line 4, insert the following:
(3) assess the benefits that would accrue to first-time,
low-income homebuyers based on the recalibrated single-family
pricing framework taking effect.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, the gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
Ms. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of my amendment to H.R.
3564. This amendment serves one of my highest priorities, expanding
access to affordable housing across southern Nevada.
My amendment is quite simple. It would direct the Government
Accountability Office to assess how changes to the Federal Housing
Finance Agency's pricing framework would impact first-time, low-income
home buyers.
This is a critical addition to any proposed GAO report on new FHFA
policies, and it follows my commitment to making sure that any Federal
action on housing does right by all Americans and Nevadans, especially
those seeking reliable, affordable housing or seeking to buy a home for
the first time.
I represent Clark County, which ranks among the top 10 counties
nationwide with the highest concentration of renters. Clark County also
has one of the highest proportions of households that spend more than
30 percent of their income on rent, and the cost of rent has been going
up. The cost of homeownership as well has been going up, and the
American Dream remains out of reach for far too many.
We must focus how we can work across party lines, hand in hand with
the entities that help families buy their first homes, and ensure that
the American Dream can become a reality and not push it further out of
reach. We must find bipartisan ways to make access to affordable
housing easier, especially for the families of southern Nevada who most
need additional support as they work to affordably purchase a home.
This is just what my amendment will help us do.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1015

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I
am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, while there has been broad discussion about
the fundamental unfairness associated with the Biden administration's
new tax on creditworthy borrowers, Congress' oversight role also
extends to the process and impact these changes will have on home
buyers and the housing market.
Members on both sides share policy concerns regarding this new tax,
and it is equally imperative that we promote transparency to the
American people on this flawed effort.
The GAO study does just that as the amendment Mrs. Boebert proposed
would simply make the GAO study public. Sunlight is the best
disinfectant, and in no area is this more relevant than the opaque
process with which the FHFA has enacted these and other changes.
This amendment would add to the GAO study included in H.R. 3564 which
will play a critical factor toward furthering both Congress' and the
public's understanding of this issue that impacts millions of home
buyers.
Americans deserve a thorough accounting of the process and deserve to
know the significant impact of FHFA'S actions. An agency that virtually
controls U.S. housing markets should not operate without appropriate
congressional oversight.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to restore
fairness, transparency, and accountability to this process and policy
that impacts millions of Americans. Amidst economic uncertainty and a
housing affordability crisis, the American people deserve nothing less.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of Nevada. I am prepared to close, Mr. Chair, and I yield
myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to see bipartisan support for my commonsense
amendment to support first-time home buyers across the country. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
secure meaningful Federal action to better support hardworking families
in their efforts to buy their first home and to realize that part of
the American Dream.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I urge all of our colleagues to support 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 Nevada (Ms. Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Lee of Nevada

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 118-115.
Ms. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in
order by the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 4, line 12, strike ``and''.
Page 5, line 4, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 5, after line 4, insert the following:
(3) assess the impacts that the recalibrated single-family
pricing framework taking effect would have on affordable
housing preservation, rural housing, and manufactured
housing.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, the gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of this amendment to H.R.
3564.
Quite like my other amendment, this one also speaks to a top priority
of mine in Congress: expanding access to affordable housing across
southern Nevada.
This amendment would direct the GAO to assess how changes to the FHFA
pricing framework would impact affordable housing preservation, rural
housing, and manufactured housing.
This is another critical addition to any proposed GAO report on any
new FHFA policies, and it follows on my commitment to making sure that
any Federal action on housing does right by Nevadans and their need for
a fair and stable housing market.
I am committed to making sure that all Federal action on housing
improves southern Nevada's stock of affordable housing, including
manufactured and rural housing options.
This is not an area where we can risk unintended consequences, and,
as such, my amendment will direct the GAO to study and make absolutely
sure that our Federal Government is doing all it can do to improve
affordable housing availability.
In Clark County, Nevada, this is of utmost importance as we continue
to see a severe shortage in affordable housing stock. That means real
stress and uncertainty for far too many hardworking Nevadans and their
families. Again, I remain committed to working across the aisle to
ensure that every family has access to affordable, reliable, and safe
housing.
This amendment is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to this
amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, this is a commonsense amendment to the GAO
study, and I applaud the gentlewoman from Nevada for including this
comprehensive view on the impact of housing affordability.
It furthers the work of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee, and I
think it is an important addition.
Mr. Chair, I encourage all of our colleagues to support it, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield
myself the balance of my time.

[[Page H3125]]

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased, again, to see bipartisan support for my
commonsense amendment to ensure that the Federal policy that we create
right here delivers affordable housing options across America.
I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides to better
support hardworking Americans and their families in securing reliable
and affordable housing in Las Vegas and across the country.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I urge all of our colleagues to support the
amendment. I support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Pettersen

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 118-115.
Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in
order by the rule.
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. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--Sections 2 through 6 of this Act shall
take effect, and the amendment under section 3(c), shall be
made, in accordance with subsection (c) of this section.
(b) Determination of Effect on Middle Class Borrowers.--
Promptly after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency shall--
(1) make a determination of whether allowing section 2 of
this Act to take effect would result in increased loan-level
pricing adjustment fees for middle class borrowers (which
term, for purposes of this subsection, means a borrower
having a household income equal to or less than 100 percent
of the median income for the area in which the residence
subject to the mortgage loan for which such fees are charged
is located or, in the case of high-cost areas, 140 percent of
the median income for such area) who are first-time
homeowners; and
(2) notify the Committee on Financial Services of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate, in writing, of such
determination.
(c) Effectiveness.--If the determination of the Director
submitted pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of this section is
that--
(1) allowing section 2 of this Act to take effect would
result in increased loan-level pricing adjustment fees for
borrowers described in subsection (b)(1) of this section,
sections 2 through 6 of this Act shall not take effect, and
the amendment under section 3(c) shall not be made, and such
provisions shall have no force or effect; or
(2) allowing section 2 of this Act to take effect would not
result in increased loan-level pricing adjustment fees for
borrowers described in subsection (b)(1) of this section,
sections 2 through 6 of this Act shall take effect, and the
amendment under section 3(c) shall be made, upon such
notification.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 524, the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, we are in the middle of a housing crisis across the U.S.
and in Colorado, especially in the Seventh District. The housing supply
is lagging significantly behind the demand in our State which has led
to skyrocketing prices pushing far too many people out of the
communities that they have lived in their entire lives, as well as
creating significant challenges to hire and retain workers for small
businesses and public servants.
Some communities in the rural part of our district have seen property
increase threefold in just a couple of years. While so many people are
struggling to get their first home, there are far too many people who
are buying up real estate for their third, fourth, and even fifth
homes, which has also contributed to the challenges our communities are
facing.
While I am very concerned about the rising costs of housing, this
bill does not address the problem.
For a little bit of background, the Federal Housing Finance Agency
serves as the chief regulator of the enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac.
Essentially, the FHFA oversees the majority of all mortgages in the
United States. Earlier this year, the Financial Services Committee
heard from the director, Sandra Thompson, about how the agency is
working to help Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet capital requirements
and promote increased access to homeownership for creditworthy home
buyers.
The underlying bill that we are considering today would reverse
changes made by the Federal Housing Financing Agency to loan-level
price adjustments which are fees charged to originate a loan. The fee
matrix has not been updated since 2008 and is woefully out of date.
There was some controversy surrounding a debt-to-income ratio rule,
but that rule has already been repealed. The remaining fee matrix will
see fee increases only on wealthy individuals, people purchasing a
second home, or individuals who are purchasing an investment property
while reducing the cost for first-time buyers and low- to middle-income
families.
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree that fees
should not be increased on those in the middle class who are already
struggling to make ends meet, then they should support my amendment.
It would ensure that this legislation would not be implemented until
the director certifies that it would not result in increased fees on
middle-class home buyers.
If the bill does what they are saying it does, then my amendment
would not create a barrier to implementation.
We must come together in a bipartisan way to address affordable
housing. I look forward to getting back to work with the chairman and
ranking member when we return in July.
Unfortunately, this legislation won't reduce costs for the middle
class and would tie the hands of the FHFA to address changing needs,
which is why this amendment is necessary.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, and I am
opposed to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment introduced by Ms. Pettersen which would make it impossible to
repeal the Federal Housing Finance Agency's damaging price increases on
creditworthy home buyers. In fact, it will undo the entire point of the
bill.
The legislation before us, the Middle Class Borrower Protection Act,
would repeal these increases and would require the Government
Accountability Office to assess the FHFA's fee structure. That is the
point of the GAO's study.
It would also require that any future loan-level fees implemented by
the agency adopt a risk-based price framework.
Ms. Pettersen's amendment would set up a sham test so that FHFA would
have to keep those unfair fees in place even at the expense of the
majority of middle-class borrowers.
So while the gentlewoman's amendment is designed to sound fair, the
reality is that it would actually have the opposite effect of what it
advertises. Instead of lowering fees for middle-income families, it
would doom many of them to higher fees. In other words, a vote for Ms.
Pettersen's amendment is a vote against the Middle Class Borrower
Protection Act.
I also find it interesting that our friends on the other side of the
aisle would support an amendment that essentially says: Don't do this
if it makes fees go up, which is exactly what our bill does. It stops
the fees from going up or staying up, as the case is on part of the
plan that they implemented.
We should be united in saying that deliberately making mortgages more
expensive for creditworthy borrowers is a foolish policy. The sting of
inflation and higher interest rates are already hurting middle-income
families, and this adjustment by FHFA is not fair.
While I cannot support this amendment, I am glad to see the
recognition that we need to protect middle-income families looking to
purchase a home from unfair pricing. It makes it harder for some
borrowers to afford because they pay more just because they have high
credit scores.
Ms. Pettersen's amendment would, unfortunately, lock in that unfair
system.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H3126]]

Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), who is the ranking member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Ms. Pettersen's amendment
which is simply holding Republicans accountable for their claims about
the impacts of the bill.

They claim that this bill will help middle-class home buyers, so I
don't see why there should be any objection to this amendment which
would make the implementation of the bill contingent on the truth of
its claims.
Republicans held hearings on this topic where their own witnesses
repeatedly debunked MAGA Republicans' claims that these changes would
result in higher credit score borrowers paying higher mortgage fees
than lower credit borrowers.
If we agree that the goal of this bill is to help middle-class
borrowers, then I think we should be able to agree on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I urge Members to support this amendment.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself
the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Waters for her remarks in support
of the amendment.
Once again, ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable
housing is a priority of mine and the Democrats on the Financial
Services Committee.
We must ensure that middle-class home buyers have access to our
housing market. Unfortunately, this legislation will not reduce costs
for the middle-class and first-time home buyers.
Not only are we focusing on a narrow subset of fee increases that are
supposed to target wealthy home buyers, individuals purchasing a second
home, and people buying investment homes, they are tying the hands of
the FHFA in moving forward in changing their fee structures on a more
regular basis to address changing needs.
This will make Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac less available to support
the housing market if there is a future fiscal crisis, and it only
threatens our housing market.
Once again, Mr. Chair, if you want to make sure that fees are not
increased for the middle class, then you should support my commonsense
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1030

Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I urge all of
our colleagues to oppose 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 Colorado (Ms. Pettersen).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there
were--ayes 204, noes 216, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 287]

AYES--204

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Moskowitz
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Quigley
Ramirez
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOES--216

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez-Colon
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moylan
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NOT VOTING--19

Bush
Cammack
Donalds
Gallego
Hoyer
LaHood
Massie
Morelle
Moulton
Ogles
Phillips
Posey
Pressley
Radewagen
Raskin
Sablan
Sherrill
Trahan
Williams (TX)

{time} 1101

Mr. SANTOS, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mr. LUTTRELL, Ms. STEFANIK, Messrs.
HERN, CLYDE, and KELLY of Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. LOFGREN, Messrs. JACKSON of North Carolina,
POCAN, and CLYBURN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. SHERRILL. Mr. Chair, I missed one vote on the House Floor today.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 287.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). Under the rule, the
Committee rises.

[[Page H3127]]

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Valadao) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, 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. 3564) to cancel recent changes made by the Federal Housing
Finance Agency to the up-front loan level pricing adjustments charged
by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for guarantee of single-family mortgages,
and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 524, he
reported the bill back to the House with sundry further amendments
adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were 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. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Cleaver of Missouri moves to recommit the bill H.R.
3564 to the Committee on Financial Services.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on the passage of the bill, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197,
nays 214, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 288]

YEAS--197

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Moskowitz
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Quigley
Ramirez
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (NY)
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NAYS--214

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spanberger
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NOT VOTING--22

Bush
DeLauro
Fleischmann
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Granger
Hoyer
LaHood
Lee (CA)
Massie
Meng
Morelle
Moulton
Ogles
Phillips
Posey
Pressley
Raskin
Rogers (KY)
Torres (CA)
Trahan
Williams (TX)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1110

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I was participating in a State, Foreign
Relations, and Related Agencies Appropriations subcommittee markup of
the proposed fiscal year 2024 spending bill. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 288.
Stated against:
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, due to timing issues with the
State-Foreign Operations Subcommittee markup, I was unable to vote on
the MTR for H.R. 3564. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''
on rollcall No. 288.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 189, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 289]

YEAS--230

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Boyle (PA)
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl

[[Page H3128]]

Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Craig
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davids (KS)
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harder (CA)
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Manning
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moskowitz
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Owens
Palmer
Pappas
Pence
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spanberger
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wild
Williams (NY)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NAYS--189

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crockett
Crow
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Quigley
Ramirez
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Bush
Gallego
Hoyer
LaHood
Massie
Morelle
Moulton
Ogles
Phillips
Posey
Pressley
Raskin
Trahan
Williams (TX)

{time} 1117

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ and Mr. MRVAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Ms. GRANGER changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, due to a personal family matter,
I was unable to be in D.C. and vote today. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 289.

personal explanation

Ms. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, I was not present during today's vote series.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 287,
``yea'' on rollcall No. 288, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 289.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I had to miss votes today to travel back to
Illinois for a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''
on rollcall No. 287, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 288, and ``yea'' on
rollcall No. 289.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 287, ``nay'' on
rollcall No. 288, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 289.

____________________