[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.

                          ____________________