[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[House]
[Pages 31744-31764]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         MORTGAGE REFORM AND ANTI-PREDATORY LENDING ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 825 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3915.

                              {time}  1519


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3915) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to reform 
consumer mortgage practices and provide accountability for such 
practices, to establish licensing and registration requirements for 
residential mortgage originators, to provide certain minimum standards 
for consumer mortgage loans, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Tauscher 
(Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 16 printed in 
House Report 110-450 by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) had been 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Watt

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 110-450.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Watt:
       Page 60, line 3, strike ``or'' and insert ``and''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, this amendment, on its face, is very, very 
simple, although I expect there will be some controversy about it. The 
amendment simply changes one word. The word is ``or.'' We change the 
word to ``and'' in the bill instead. You would think that would be 
noncontroversial, but let me get into the effect of that.
  Currently, if an assignee of a mortgage has policies and procedures 
not to buy subprime loans that do not meet safe harbor provisions that 
are in this bill, or if the assignee is willing to cure such loans, the 
assignee has no liability until you get to a foreclosure situation. 
That's very complicated, I understand; but that's what the bill 
provides.
  The effect of the amendment would be to require the assignee to have 
policies and procedures in place and do certain things and be willing 
to cure the loan to avoid being liable for rescission.
  That's important because if you give the option to an assignee of 
either curing or having policies and practices that are responsible in 
place, an assignee can then just treat the cure as a cost of doing 
business, and it becomes an ineffective choice. But if they are 
obligated to both have the policies and procedures and protections in 
place, and be willing to cure the loan, then they are not going to 
exercise the option to do the least onerous one of those things.

[[Page 31745]]

  It is a simple provision, a simple change, although I understand the 
arguments against it.
  And I will, having created the framework and explained what we are 
trying to do, reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, as has been discussed both in committee 
and on the floor of the House this morning, this legislation is a 
result of Democrats joining with Republicans. Not all. I mean, many 
Republicans are opposed to this legislation.
  But after 2 years of trying to address the subprime lending crisis, 
many Members of this body came together to craft legislation. That 
legislation is not perfect, nor will it be. I have concerns about it.
  My Members, many of them, are particularly concerned about the 
liability provisions. And this amendment fundamentally unravels, at 
least a consensus that some of us have reached with the other part by 
gutting the safe harbor contained in the legislation that is critical 
to the functioning of the secondary mortgage market. Without liquidity 
provided by the secondary market, the homeownership dreams of millions 
of Americans, particularly low- and middle-income Americans, will 
simply not be realized.
  If this amendment is enacted, the safe harbor for the secondary 
market would disappear because notwithstanding the satisfaction of the 
statutory elements of the safe harbor, securitizers would be required 
to cure any violations of the bill's minimum standards by a creditor. 
This would effectively eliminate any benefit from the conduct of due 
diligence by secondary market participants that this bill is intended 
to promote. Deprived of that safe harbor, securitizers would simply 
stop purchasing loans. The effect on the availability of mortgage 
credit and on the housing market across the country would be 
devastating.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I too share great 
concern about this amendment. I've had concern about assignee liability 
in this legislation to begin with. But I at least recognized the 
benefit of having a so-called safe harbor provision.
  As I looked at the safe harbor, I was somewhat fearful that there 
were still some dangerous reefs that were lurking beneath the waves. 
I'm fearful if this amendment is passed not only will those dangerous 
reefs be present, but any harbor will have disappeared as well.
  Again, we need to step back and decide, on this entire issue of 
assignee liability, when we look at all the resets that are due to 
happen in the market, will this legislation add liquidity to the 
market? Will it subtract liquidity from the market?
  For people who are trying to keep their homes, over and above 
whatever the market is providing, are the actions of us in this body 
going to exacerbate the situation and dry up even more liquidity?
  I think this is a major amendment, that whatever balance was struck 
in this area completely removes that balance. And I think it will 
provide for an explosion of liability exposure that could be very, very 
damaging to the secondary market.
  I've heard the distinguished chairman of the committee on a couple of 
occasions refer to Chairman Bernanke's comments on the subject. And I'm 
not sure I've seen where he's actually advocated assignee liability, 
although he has acknowledged that, under certain circumstances, in a 
very limited situation, it might be helpful.
  But I also saw in his testimony before our committee, if I can quote 
from the chairman: ``We've seen from different States different 
experiences and there have been examples where assignee liability 
provisions have driven lenders out of the State.''
  Let's not drive them out of the Nation. Let's reject this amendment.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama has 1 minute 
remaining. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chairman, if this amendment is adopted, it's going 
to seriously damage this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to resist 
this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from 
North Carolina.
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank the ranking member.
  In brief, my colleagues must understand the simplicity of this 
amendment. What it would say is the secondary market has to give a road 
map for those who are facing foreclosure for them to get out of their 
mortgage. In essence, what it says is, if you want out of your 
mortgage, here's the road map to do it.
  I think this would be a destructive influence on the market. It would 
further undermine the secondary market and the liquidity in the 
marketplace and would further harm home ownership. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose it.
  Mr. WATT. I yield myself the balance of the time, and I assure you, I 
won't use it.
  The arguments that have been made are absolutely correct with respect 
to 99 \44/100\ percent of the people operating in the market. These are 
not bad people. But this bill was drawn to get at that small percentage 
of the market that is out of control. And if you give that small 
percentage of the market the option of either doing some paperwork or 
curing, as opposed to having to do both of those things, I guarantee 
you they will take the option that is most cost beneficial to them. And 
that's what we've been trying to stop, those people in the marketplace 
who are out of control. And that's what this amendment is designed to 
do.
  For the rest of the market, it really won't have any impact at all 
because they're going to put procedures in place and they are going to 
be willing to cure, if that's the last resort.
  So, I think, unfortunately, there are players in this market that 
have been out of control. This bill is designed to deal with them, and 
this amendment would help disincentivize them being out of control 
without harming anybody else. I would encourage my colleagues to 
support it.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Putnam

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 110-450.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Putnam:
       Page 79, after line 20, insert the following new section 
     (and amend the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 214. REPORT BY THE GAO.

       (a) Report Required.--The Comptroller General shall conduct 
     a study to determine the effects the enactment of this Act 
     will have on the availability and affordability of credit for 
     homebuyers and mortgage lending, including the effect--
       (1) on the mortgage market for mortgages that are not 
     within the safe harbor provided in the amendments made by 
     this title;
       (2) on the ability of prospective homebuyers to obtain 
     financing;
       (3) on the ability of homeowners facing resets or 
     adjustments to refinance--for example, do they have fewer 
     refinancing options due to the unavailability of certain loan 
     products that were available before the enactment of this 
     Act;
       (4) on minorities' ability to access affordable credit 
     compared with other prospective borrowers;
       (5) on home sales and construction;
       (6) of extending the rescission right, if any, on 
     adjustable rate loans and its impact on litigation;

[[Page 31746]]

       (7) of State foreclosure laws and, if any, an investor's 
     ability to transfer a property after foreclosure;
       (8) of expanding the existing provisions of the Home 
     Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994;
       (9) of prohibiting prepayment penalties on high-cost 
     mortgages; and
       (10) of establishing counseling services under the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development and offered 
     through the Office of Housing Counseling.
       (b) Report.--Before the end of the 1-year period beginning 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 
     General shall submit a report to the Congress containing the 
     findings and conclusions of the Comptroller General with 
     respect to the study conducted pursuant to subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Putnam) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment today that would 
direct the GAO to conduct a study to determine the effects the 
enactment of H.R. 3915 will have on the availability and affordability 
of credit for homebuyers and mortgage lending, and then submit a report 
to Congress containing the findings and conclusions within 1 year of 
enactment.
  With that, I would yield to my chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, on the question of this 
GAO report, I believe it is a reasonable request because I am confident 
it will come back in support of our bill. And I think it is entirely 
reasonable to ask them to start, without waiting for passage of the 
whole bill in both Houses.
  Mr. PUTNAM. So the gentleman would agree that we could join together 
and request the study even prior to final passage of the bill?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes. Well, actually, final passage of the 
bill is going to, I hope, happen in a couple of hours in the House; but 
before it gets to the Senate, without waiting for the Senate, yes.
  Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the gentleman. And I look forward to joining him 
on that request to the GAO.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. And I will yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Let me thank Chairman Frank, Chairman Watt, Congresswoman 
Waters and all the members of the Financial Services Committee for 
their leadership and commitment to help Americans who are struggling. 
And we all know, quite frankly, many, many people are struggling to 
keep their homes as this mortgage crisis continues to claim victims.
  This legislation adds a very important piece of what we're trying to 
do in terms of the protections, including limiting prepayment 
penalties, requiring that loans be affordable, and that refinancing 
provide a net benefit to borrowers. However, I have some concerns about 
H.R. 3915 that I hope will be addressed as it moves through the 
process, and I would like to just mention a few of those concerns 
because I think they're very important to hear. They were forwarded by 
ACORN, the Center for Responsible Lending, the Consumer Federation of 
America, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, Ohio 
Attorney General Marc Dann, and Opportunity Finance Network. They 
raised concerns with regard to these issues:
  One, the ability to pay. They believe the standard does not apply to 
all loans, it undercuts agency guidelines, and will not change the 
markets;
  Secondly, the prohibition on steering is weak and upselling of loan 
rates still possible. Homeowners cannot prevent foreclosure. Some feel, 
and I know that this is being addressed today, that the preemption is 
too broad.
  So, I know that, as this bill moves through the process, we will look 
at it. It is a starting point. I urge our colleagues to make sure that 
it does become stronger because this American Dream of home ownership 
is, quite frankly, turning to a nightmare for so many people.
  I want to thank Chairman Frank for his leadership and for really 
trying to put together a bipartisan bill. And also, with regard to the 
Putnam amendment, the reporting, I think, makes sense.

                                                November 15, 2007.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, House Financial Services Committee.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     Ranking Member,
     House Financial Services Committee.
       Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: We, the 
     undersigned organizations, write to present our views on H.R. 
     3915, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 
     2007. While we greatly appreciate your efforts to reduce 
     predatory lending and to restore balance to the mortgage 
     market, we believe this bill requires improvements in the 
     areas described below in order for the bill to achieve its 
     goals.
       Subprime lending has been a disaster of monumental 
     proportions, shattering hopes of economic progress for 
     millions of families and triggering a devastating chain 
     reaction of losses for communities and businesses. More than 
     two million families will likely lose their homes as a 
     result, and for most families--especially African-Americans 
     and Latinos--their home equity represents the greatest share 
     of their family wealth. Wall Street's demand for risky loans 
     with higher interest rates played a key role in encouraging 
     reckless lending, and brokers delivered whatever loans they 
     could sell.
       When H.R. 3915 was introduced, we applauded many of its 
     strongest provisions, such as the originator duty of care and 
     anti-steering rules, the bans on yield spread premiums, 
     prepayment penalties, mandatory arbitration, and single 
     premium credit insurance, and the special protections for 
     extremely high-cost mortgages and for renters.
       It is crucial to retain those strong provisions, to improve 
     the remedies and market incentives in the bill, and to avoid 
     preemption of state laws related to these issues. 
     Unfortunately, as the bill has passed through the legislative 
     process, several of the strongest provisions (such as the 
     duty of case and ban on yield-spread premiums) have been 
     weakened, the remedies have been weakened rather than 
     strengthened, and a preemption clause has been added that 
     would eliminate important state claims that help homeowners 
     protect the homes.
       Our concerns about the bill fall into four main areas:
       ``Ability to Pay'' Standard Does Not Apply to All Loans, 
     Undercuts Agency Guidance, and Will Not Change Market: The 
     bill requires no ability to pay standards for approximately 
     90% of the current mortgage market and creates an 
     irrebuttable presumption that any loan below 8.25% is 
     affordable. This immunity undercuts the existing joint agency 
     guidance that currently sets ability to pay standards for 
     risky loans, especially loans such as payment options ARMs, 
     the majority of which are ``qualified mortgages.'' Moody's 
     estimates that monthly payments on $220 billion of POARMs 
     will reset--in most cases to much higher monthly payments--
     between 2009 and 2011. Additionally, because there is no 
     requirement that secondary market purchasers conduct due 
     diligence, we fear that the secondary market will continue to 
     purchase abusive loans and choose to absorb the expense of 
     any cures as part of the cost of doing business.
       Prohibition on Steering is Weak and Upselling of Loan Rate 
     Still Possible: Rather than prohibiting yield spread 
     premiums, as was originally intended, the bill as amended now 
     essentially authorizes such practices as long as there is 
     disclosure to the consumer. Research shows that disclosure 
     has virtually no effect on preventing abusive lending 
     practices such as steering. We also fear that incorporating 
     Title II into the Title I standards significantly weakens the 
     entire structure, and the permitted damages are insufficient 
     to change the market. Moreover, the damages for violation of 
     the steering provision are too low to change broker behavior.
       Homeowners Cannot Prevent Foreclosure: As currently 
     drafted, homeowners have no rights against the actual holder 
     of the loan (in other words, against the entity that will 
     foreclose on them) until a foreclosure has already begun. At 
     that point, not only has the family been traumatized, but the 
     damage to the homeowner's credit is done, which will likely 
     prevent the use of the rescission remedy. Moreover, even in 
     foreclosure, it is not fully clear that homeowners will be 
     able to reach the holder in the vast majority of situations.
       Preemption is Too Broad: Although we appreciate that there 
     is not preemption for the entire bill, the broad preemption 
     in the area of assignee liability would wipe out the many 
     existing state laws, such as UDAP statutes [and UCC 
     protections?], that provide remedies against assignees. Since 
     most loans are sold soon after origination, and since so many 
     originators and creditors are thinly capitalized (assuming 
     they even are still in business), many homeowners will be 
     left without any remedy for unaffordable loans.

[[Page 31747]]

       Ultimately, unless legislation fundamentally changes the 
     incentive structure both for Wall Street and for mortgage 
     originators, predatory lending is likely to continue in one 
     form or another.
       We look forward to continuing to work with the Congress as 
     this bill moves through the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
         ACORN, CDFI Coalition, Center for Responsible Lending, 
           Consumer Federation of America, Leadership Conference 
           on Civil Rights, NAACP, Ohio Attorney General Marc 
           Dann, Opportunity Finance Network.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 1 minute to comment on 
what the gentlewoman has said because we've agreed to the gentleman's 
amendment, so we're on some other subjects now.
  What I would say is this: I would want to stress with regard, for 
instance, to ability to pay and jeopardizing the right of the 
homeowner, nothing in this bill in any way diminishes State remedies 
regarding ability to pay on prime loans. That's the argument, that we 
do not deal with the ability to pay on prime loans, et cetera. But the 
effect of that is that any remedy a State wants to pursue against the 
originator of the loan or the lender remains unimpeded. So we did want 
to make that point.
  And just to say also, with regard to the incentive to charge more, 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) and I discussed that. It 
will be very clear to anybody by the time this bill becomes law that 
there is no possibility of anyone being given higher compensation in 
return for getting people into a more expensive loan.
  As to preemption, there will be some. There are people who want none 
at all. I do not think you could have a secondary market if there were 
no preemption. But we have already, in the manager's amendment, defined 
it, and I think reassured people that, for instance, fraud, deception, 
et cetera, that causes arising out of that will not be preempted.
  I now yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished Chair for 
yielding the time. And let me acknowledge in this very short time the 
importance of this legislation, and particularly, its importance to my 
community in Houston.
  The most important point that I would like to emphasize is the issue 
of the standards being put in place for mortgage brokers. I happen to 
be very happy that standards are preempting State standards in this 
instance, because Texas needs that kind of regulation.
  Let me also take note of the fact that I know Mr. Watt was intending 
to bring forward an amendment regarding reverse mortgages, and may 
submit it or not. But knowing that I just recently dealt with a 
constituent, an elderly constituent who suffered from a reverse 
mortgage loan, she utilized the reverse mortgage, and now she can't 
find any of those that provided that loan and cannot afford to pay it 
back and she is about to lose her house. So, with the numbers of 
homeless in our community and with the numbers of homeless across 
America, the fact that we are talking about creating a better housing 
market and also creating jobs as we go forward, this is a constructive 
bill.
  I would ask my colleagues to consider the fact that affordable 
housing only comes from a regulated and positive market. I like the 
underlying amendment, but I think it is important to set standards for 
mortgage brokers and to ensure that there is consumer protection in 
housing for those most vulnerable.
  And I appreciate, in particular, that this bill has created a Office 
of Housing Counseling to help new homeowners. And might I, as I close, 
Madam Chairman, just indicate that I support the concerns of ACORN and 
the NAACP and look forward to those issues being corrected as we make 
our way to conference.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Watt

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 110-450.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Watt:
       Page 52, strike lines 13 and 14 and insert the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(B) if such loan is--
       ``(i) a qualified safe harbor mortgage; or
       ``(ii) a nontraditional mortgage.''.
       Page 56, after line 3, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) Nontraditional mortgage.--The term `nontraditional 
     mortgage' means any residential mortgage loan that allows a 
     borrower to defer payment of principal or interest.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chair, you may not have to recognize anybody in 
opposition to this amendment because I plan to offer it and then 
withdraw it. But I think I would be remiss not to discuss the issue 
because of two reasons: Number one, it needs to be discussed because of 
the very difficult, delicate balance that the Chair has been able to 
walk to get us to this point; and number two, to illustrate once again 
that when you allow good things to happen in the marketplace, some 
people in the marketplace will abuse them. And trying to get the right 
balance to encourage good things to happen in the marketplace and not 
discourage that from happening opens up, sometimes, the possibility 
that people who are not well intentioned will engage in activities that 
need to be prevented. And this is the classic case of that.
  Basically, the bill now presumes that we meet the ability to repay a 
loan and provide net tangible benefit to a borrower if it is not a 
subprime loan. If it is a prime loan in the marketplace right now, that 
interest rate is 8.25 percent, so anything below that we presume to be 
a good loan.
  The market now has done this. They've made available in the market a 
loan that defers interest and principal. And that is a good thing for 
about 90 percent of the people, maybe even more than that, who have the 
ability to do that. I'm the classic example of that. I have a loan in 
which I can defer for a period of time both the interest and the 
principal on the loan. But if you make that kind of loan available to 
somebody who doesn't have the income level that is sufficient to pay 
it, under this bill, they can't even go back and offer proof that you 
shouldn't have done that, because we presumed, irrefutably presumed, 
that this is a good loan. And so the amendment that I was trying to 
craft and offer would have tried to close that. The problem is, if I 
close it for the bad people, then I also close it for the good people.
  And so, as an alternative to proceeding with the amendment, I have 
convinced the Chair, I hope, that we will continue to work on this 
issue and find a way to stop the bad people from making these kinds of 
loans or abusing the process without penalizing the people who really 
deserve and should have these kinds of loans, which I acknowledged from 
the very beginning serve a useful place in the marketplace.
  I yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will say on this, as on a number of 
other issues, I will say very sincerely that the gentleman from North 
Carolina has persuaded me. I think he has clearly identified an issue 
that needs some further work. And as we go forward, ultimately to get 
this bill done, I would hope that we can work together on this.
  Mr. WATT. And that's all I wish to have acknowledged, and to 
demonstrate to everybody who is listening, really, that this has been a 
difficult issue, because just about any kind of loan that can be made 
in the marketplace, somebody can benefit from.

[[Page 31748]]



                              {time}  1545

  But when you have a loan that is particularly subject to being 
abused, you have to have rules to constrain it.
  Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


               Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 110-450.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       Page 73, after line 25, insert the following new section 
     (and redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 211. LENDER RIGHTS IN THE CONTEXT OF BORROWER DECEPTION.

        Section 130 of the Truth in Lending Act is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Exemption From Liability and Rescission in Case of 
     Borrower Fraud or Deception.--In addition to any other remedy 
     available by law or contract, no creditor, assignee, or 
     securitizer shall be liable to an obligor under this section, 
     nor shall it be subject to the right of rescission of any 
     obligor under 129B, if such obligor, or co-obligor, 
     knowingly, or willfully furnished material information known 
     to be false for the purpose of obtaining such residential 
     mortgage loan.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, there are clearly many reasons why 
home loans go delinquent. The number one reason, we all know, is the 
loss of a job, or other bad luck like long-term illness or disability. 
Clearly a phenomenon that has been discussed at quite some length in 
committee and on the floor, predatory lending has played a significant 
role as well. And many of us have urged very robust antifraud 
provisions and increased resources for enforcement.
  But I think we also shouldn't underestimate the role of another 
phenomenon in home loans becoming delinquent, and I call that predatory 
borrowing. People who knowingly take advantage of the system, who game 
the system, who give false information in their disclosures and their 
verifications. And making the risk-based analyses that lenders use to 
determine how much money a person should be responsibly lent makes that 
impossible. And there are borrowers, there are borrowers all across 
America who have knowingly exaggerated their incomes. They represented 
that they used a home for their primary residence, and they didn't. 
They acted as straw buyers in property-flipping schemes and used other 
scams to qualify for loans that otherwise they would not have qualified 
for and loans that they cannot pay back, and to a great extent many 
other people are now suffering.
  And the result of this predatory borrowing is predictable: Higher 
foreclosure rates; reduced availability of credit in the market; fewer 
homeownership opportunities for those low-income people, those people 
who may have a checkered credit past but who are honest, who are 
responsible, and who just need a second chance.
  So, Madam Chairman, I think this is a very, very modest amendment 
today that would simply remove the civil liability of a lender and 
cancel the right of rescission for a borrower in instances where the 
borrower knowingly lied on their mortgage loan application.
  Borrowers who have done this, who have misled lenders into giving 
them these loans, should not be able to turn around and then sue the 
lender and be able to rescind those loans to compound their deception 
with some kind of financial advantage. I hope that most, if not all, of 
us would hopefully conclude that that is an absurd and perverse result. 
One should not profit from their dishonesty.
  I certainly appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on 
this amendment. I have been led to believe that he supports it. And 
although I respect the views of everybody in this committee, I have 
clearly said that I do not believe this bill should pass. But if it 
does pass, if it does pass, there does need to be some minimal 
acknowledgment of the role of personal responsibility and of predatory 
borrowing. And I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition, not in opposition although there is going to be a secondary 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK OF Massachusetts. The gentleman said he had been led to 
believe that I would be supportive. I wouldn't want the gentleman to be 
in suspense as to whether or not he had been misled.
  I know there have been conversations between him and the gentleman 
from North Carolina about a secondary amendment. And assuming 
everything goes as we have all discussed, he has not been misled. The 
gentleman can sleep easily tonight that people told him the truth, 
because I am prepared to be supportive of what we have got worked out.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Watt to Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. 
                               Hensarling

  Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, I have a secondary amendment to the 
Hensarling amendment at the desk which has been made in order under the 
rule.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 110-450 offered by 
     Mr. Watt to amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 110-450 
     offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       In the amendment, insert ``and with actual knowledge'' 
     after ``willfully''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, my good friend Mr. Hensarling may be 
surprised to know that we actually agree very much with the spirit of 
what he is trying to do. And I am not sure that my amendment will 
absolutely cure all of the concerns we have with it, but it will 
certainly make it better, and we will continue to work on trying to 
really address the issue.
  We don't want anybody to walk in and give false information on an 
application for a loan. One of the reasons we fought so hard to protect 
State laws and not to preempt all State laws is because that would be 
fraud and we think it would be outrageous, it would be shyster. But as 
everything, there is another side to this, and I will illustrate it 
with a loan that I just recently closed myself, a loan that was made to 
me.
  I submitted the application. I submitted the financial information. 
And what happened after that was that because the lender wanted their 
own form, they took my information that I had submitted to them and put 
it on their own form. They handed it back to me in a stack of forms 
that I needed to sign, and I signed them.
  Now, what has happened in the marketplace much, much more than the 
gentleman would like to know is that when that second block of papers 
came back, somebody had put false information on that application 
because they knew this borrower was not going to qualify for the loan 
if they didn't fudge the borrower's income, if they didn't fudge the 
borrower's credit in some way. So it was not the borrower who gave the 
false information; it was somebody else in the chain. And that is what 
we have got to guard against. And that's what the basic bill is all 
about.

[[Page 31749]]

  Now, we don't have any problem holding people personally accountable 
for the information that they knowingly provide; but if somebody just 
sticks some documents in front of me after I have given them the right 
information and they go back and change the information or put it on 
another form and I just happened to sign it because I presumed that the 
lender I am dealing with or the broker I am dealing with is honorable, 
I shouldn't be held accountable for that. And my second-degree 
amendment helps to make that clearer. And I hope by the time this bill 
gets passed, we can make it absolutely clear that what Mr. Hensarling 
is trying to accomplish and what I am trying to accomplish get taken 
into account.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, I would like to claim the time in 
opposition although I am uncertain at this point whether I am actually 
opposed to the gentleman's second degree amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chairman, although it has been many years, I 
had a short and unillustrious career as an attorney; so I'm somewhat 
familiar with the term ``knowingly'' as a legal term of art. I am less 
familiar with the phrase ``with actual knowledge.'' Hearing the 
gentleman from North Carolina's explanation, I think we are trying to 
get at the very same situation. So the only thing that made me somewhat 
nervous is I am unacquainted with the phrase as a legal term of art. I 
do believe that the gentleman and myself are trying to achieve the same 
thing. Perhaps it's innocuous.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would be glad, Madam Chairman, to give 
the gentleman my assurance. And we can't all, when we see these things, 
know it's exactly right. If as we go forward, assuming the secondary 
amendment and the primary amendment are adopted, if the gentleman needs 
some further clarification of questions that we can deal with between 
now and the time of the final bill, we are open to continue those 
discussions.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. I will give him the same assurance. And I said it in my 
statement because I just got the gentleman's amendment yesterday or the 
day before, and I confess that my amendment to his amendment may not 
accomplish everything that both of us are trying to accomplish either, 
which is why I said we are going to have to continue to work on this, 
and I am certainly willing to continue to work with him.
  I understand exactly what the gentleman is trying to achieve. We 
share that objective. But we want to make sure that the concerns I 
raise don't get washed up in the ``knowingly'' term that the gentleman 
used.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I certainly 
take the distinguished chairman at his word, and I take the gentleman 
from North Carolina at his word, and I certainly withdraw any objection 
that I might have to the second-degree amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Meeks of New York

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 110-450.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Meeks of New York:
       Page 15, line 10, strike ``reviewed, approved, and'' and 
     insert ``reviewed, and''.
       Page 15, after line 12, insert the following new paragraph:
       (3) Limitation and standards.--
       (A) Limitation.--To maintain the independence of the 
     approval process, the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System 
     and Registry shall not directly or indirectly offer pre-
     licensure educational courses for loan originators.
       (B) Standards.--In approving courses under this section, 
     the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry shall 
     apply reasonable standards in the review and approval of 
     courses.
       Page 15, line 13, strike ``and administered''.
       Page 15, line 14, insert ``and administered by an approved 
     test provider'' before the period.
       Page 17, line 23, strike ``reviewed, approved, and'' and 
     insert ``reviewed, and''.
       Page 18, after line 14, insert the following new paragraph:
       (5) Limitation and standards.--
       (A) Limitation.--To maintain the independence of the 
     approval process, the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System 
     and Registry shall not directly or indirectly offer any 
     continuing education courses for loan originators.
       (B) Standards.--In approving courses under this section, 
     the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry shall 
     apply reasonable standards in the review and approval of 
     courses.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Meeks) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Madam Chairman, over the past few years, the 
Financial Services Committee has been working to strike the right 
balance between protecting home buyers without eliminating the 
viability of the subprime mortgage market. Under the leadership of 
Chairman Frank, I believe we have struck that balance in a bipartisan 
manner. This is why I wholeheartedly agree and wanted to be an original 
cosponsor of this legislation.
  Madam Chairman, one of the new requirements of this bill is that all 
mortgage originators must be licensed to serve the public. The purpose 
of this requirement is to have a depository of all mortgage originators 
and hopefully eliminate from the system those loan originators that 
take advantage of borrowers. I know in my district this has been a real 
problem. Along with the fingerprinting and the pulling of a credit 
report, mortgage originators must also participate in 20 hours of 
education in a program approved by the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing 
System and Registry which is to be developed and maintained by the 
Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the American Association of 
Residential Mortgage Regulators.
  Madam Chairman, I am very supportive of this aspect of the 
legislation. But I am concerned that it leaves open an opportunity for 
a conflict of interest. The conflict would take place if the Nationwide 
Mortgage Licensing System were to decide to offer the education 
requirement themselves.
  Currently, 34 States have mortgage education requirements for loan 
originators licensed in those respective States. This training is 
conducted by many small business providers who are approved to offer 
mortgage education by each State's regulating bodies. My amendment is 
quite simple. It does the following:
  A, to maintain the independence of the approval process, the 
Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry shall not directly or 
indirectly offer educational courses for prelicensure or continuing 
education for mortgage originators.

[[Page 31750]]



                              {time}  1600

  And, B, in approving courses under this act, the Nationwide Mortgage 
Licensing Systems and Registry shall apply reasonable standards in the 
review and approval of courses.
  Mr. Chairman, to make it simple, I used to be a judge. A judge cannot 
preside over a case in which he is the litigant. This amendment has 
been discussed with the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, and they 
do not object. I think it is a simple amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition although I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Holden). Without objection, the gentleman 
from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BACHUS. I want to compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Meeks) for offering this amendment. I know it clarifies the role of the 
Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the approval process for State 
license mortgage practitioners and originators. I compliment the 
gentleman. I know that the Conference has worked with the industry in 
crafting this amendment. I urge support for it.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Thank you, Mr. Bachus.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
  The amendment was agreed to.


      Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 110-450.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment 
at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of 
     Florida:
       Page 54, line 14, strike ``and''.
       Page 54, line 16, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 54, after line 16, insert the following new clause:
       ``(iv) a mortgage insured under title II of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.).''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that 
Americans are facing a growing crisis in the subprime housing market. 
Subprime mortgage foreclosures have spiked and crashed for the last 6 
years. Rates have ranged as high as 9.25 in 2002 for foreclosures and 
as low as roughly 3 percent in mid 2005. In the first quarter of this 
year, they crept back up again to 5 percent.
  However, foreclosure rates among loans the Federal Housing 
Administration insures have stayed somewhat consistent throughout that 
time. Since there has been less than 1 percent fluctuation in these 
foreclosure rates since 2001, I think it is very imperative that we 
have this amendment adopted.
  This amendment excludes loans insured by FHA from the provisions of 
this bill. The language is actually very similar to an amendment that I 
offered and that was accepted in the Financial Services Committee, one 
that exempted VA loans.
  Mr. Chairman, the provisions in this bill will help Americans in the 
pursuit of owning their own home, many believe, but there are still 
millions of Americans who without FHA probably would not have had this 
opportunity. But if VA and FHA are already writing loans that are 
clearly good for their customers, Congress should leave them alone and 
let them carry on with their business. Obviously, it is working, and as 
the old axiom goes, if it's not broke, don't fix it.
  Therefore, I urge Members to support my amendment that exempts FHA-
insured loans from the provisions of this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time that is 
set aside for someone in opposition since no one is.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentlewoman coming 
forward. She has on this and other occasions played a very constructive 
role in helping us work things out. We have already done this for the 
Veterans Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. Yes, in fact, 
it is our hope to get more people into the FHA program as an 
alternative to subprime. One of the things we've done, and the Senate 
is now doing it, is to extend the FHA's reach to people with subprime; 
although I do want to remind my friends in the Senate, I feel very 
strongly that when we do that, it would be terrible social policy to 
make people with weaker credit who are faithfully making their payments 
pay more than other people, and we will deal with that as we work out 
the 2 bills.
  But for purposes of this bill, the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. 
So I intend to support her amendment.
  And that leaves me with some extra time, so I would now yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California, a member of the committee.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this amendment and also 
rise in support of H.R. 3515. I want to thank Chairman Frank for his 
leadership.
  The headline from yesterday's San Bernardino Sun, my local paper, 
read ``Area Number 3 in Nation in Foreclosures.''
  Right now, one in 43 houses in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties 
are undergoing foreclosure. Our families are being torn apart by this 
crisis. The American Dream of homeownership has become a nightmare for 
them.
  I had a town hall meeting in my district on foreclosures last 
weekend. I am glad that I did because we were able to assist a lot of 
families. These families are scared and need help. They feel hopeless, 
unless Congress addresses this issue.
  Our families said that the teaser rate was resetting to a payment 
that was more than half of their income. Another said they had to take 
a second job just to afford the new payments after the rates were 
adjusted. It was clear that these families were steered into loans that 
they could not afford.
  On the other hand, other constituents told me that the interest rate 
they received on the loans was higher than what they were told that 
they would receive. Too many consumers are victims of this type of 
predatory bait-and-switch practice.
  This bill includes an amendment which I offered which requires 
additional disclosures to provide consumers information before signing. 
This will help put an end to the abusive practice and ensure that 
consumers have accurate information about the cost of their loan so 
that they know what they are buying.
  H.R. 3915 will help put an end to predatory lending once and for all. 
And it prohibits prepayment penalties, outlaws discriminatory steering 
practices and bans yield spread premiums. It also includes stronger 
underwriting standards to help stop predatory lenders in their tracks.
  I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3915 and support this amendment.

                     [From the Sun, Nov. 13, 2007]

                  Area No. 3 in Nation in Foreclosures

                             (By Matt Wrye)

       If you know 43 homeowners in the area there's a fair chance 
     one of them just lost their house to foreclosure.
       In a report to be released today Wednesday, Realty Trac, a 
     real-estate service, said there is one foreclosure for every 
     43 households in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, 
     according to third-quarter 2007 data.
       That puts the region at No. 3 nationwide for home 
     foreclosures. Stockton was at the top of the list, followed 
     by Detroit.
       The two-county area saw more than 31,661 foreclosure 
     filings on 20,664 between 20,664 properties between July and 
     September.
       That number will drop steadily, but higher-than-normal 
     foreclosure rates will continue until 2009 or 2010, said Jack 
     Kyser,

[[Page 31751]]

     chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic 
     Development Corp.
       ``It's catching up to us,'' he said about the subprime 
     mortgage fallout. ``Unfortunately, the trend will continue. 
     It's going to be slowing down, but people forget the size of 
     the Riverside-San Bernardino area.''
       John Husing, a regional economist based in Redlands, agrees 
     with Kyser.
       ``There's no question that you have a disproportionately 
     large number of foreclosures and you'll be continuing to have 
     that in the Inland Empire versus other places in the country 
     and Southern California,'' Husing said. ``The trend is going 
     to continue for at least the next year to year and a half 
     because of mortgages that were reset back in 2005 and 2006.''
       The top 10 was rounded out by Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; Las 
     Vegas; Sacramento; Cleveland; Miami; Bakersfield and Oakland.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time 
to the gentleman from Oregon.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I 
appreciate watching the legislative process work here. Too seldom in 
the last 12 years have we watched this unfold in the way that it has, 
and I congratulate Mr. Frank, Mr. Watt, Mr. Miller, the Ranking Member 
Bachus, this is how the legislative process should work.
  I will tell you, this is not a Sarbanes-Oxley moment, where Congress 
stalled and stalled and stalled until the problems got so great they 
exploded. Then Congress rushed to act; actually didn't know in many 
instances what people were voting on.
  This bill has been a deliberate process. It has not been rushed. It 
has been bipartisan. And I must say that I feel better than at any 
point in the last 4 or 5 years, as I have been alarmed as Congress has 
been missing in action on this issue where the regulatory structures 
have looked the other way.
  The big question for me, though, is where we go from here. I am 
pleased in the Ways and Means Committee we have been able to make some 
tax adjustments so that people will not be taxed on phantom ``profits'' 
if they end up having a loan foreclosed upon.
  I am eager to find out if the gentleman, Mr. Miller from North 
Carolina, can move forward dealing with fundamental bankruptcy reform 
so that people who are homeowners get the same protection that would be 
given to a speculator in an identical home in a subdivision or 
identical units in a condominium tower. This is extremely critical.
  We are talking now not just about the hundreds of thousands of people 
that will be affected by this legislation. Ultimately, there will be 
ripple effects throughout the economy, a shaken industry, and millions 
of innocent homeowners who are going to have their property values drop 
because regulators were asleep at the switch, because Congress was 
missing in action, and because abusive practices took place.
  H.R. 3915 is a good start. I commend the committee and look forward 
to working with you as it works its way through for the refinement of 
this legislation and the next step.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I certainly 
appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), 
the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, has worked with me 
both on the VA and the FHA loan exemption. I think it is the right 
thing to do, and I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in House Report 110-450.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       Page 52, strike line 9 and all that follows through line 15 
     (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Before I begin, let me just recognize and 
appreciate the work by the ranking member of the committee with regard 
to this overall underlying piece of legislation for his work to try to 
improve the legislation. I believe his actions have been done in view 
of his constituents and their concerns with the primary lending market 
as we see it today.
  Getting to the amendment that is before us, Mr. Chairman, the 
amendment would simply strike the rebuttable presumption paragraph 
under section 203 of the manager's amendment text. As currently 
drafted, section 203 of the bill specifically lists several criteria 
that lenders must meet when they originate a loan and that loan to be 
considered a qualified safe harbor mortgage. Qualified safe harbor 
mortgages are loans that: 1, document consumer income; 2, an 
underwriting process based on fully indexed rate; 3, a debt-to-income 
ratio not greater than 50 percent; four, no negative amortization; and 
five, six payments for at least 7 years an adjustable rate loan with an 
APR that varies less than 3 percent over indexed rate.
  Now after meeting this prescriptive list of requirements, the loan 
can be considered a qualified safe harbor mortgage. It is presumed that 
the mortgage is an appropriate loan. However, section 203 also contains 
a provision that, even when all these provisions are met, would allow a 
borrower to rebut this presumption in a court of law and claim that the 
creditor has made a loan to them in bad faith anyway.
  You see, by allowing lenders to still be held legally liable for a 
loan even after all these conditions have been met, we are creating 
even more uncertainty for loan originators. This will in turn lead to 
further tightening of the credit market and keep more people from 
getting loans.
  Mr. Chairman, if a creditor goes through all these requirements as 
listed, I do not believe that they should still have to worry about 
being held legally liable if the borrower cannot make their payments. 
Such a provision undermines the very nature of a safe harbor vision. It 
undermines the presumption of good faith that the law itself 
establishes. How can we on one hand tell the lender that they are 
providing them with a safe harbor from suit and then turn right around 
and say that safe harbor can be rebutted? I am afraid this will, at the 
very least, raise the cost of loans, at the worst, keep the loans from 
being made at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask you to help the providers, lenders make some 
sense of the legal clarity and to make this a safe harbor, a true safe 
harbor. I would ask every Member to support this important amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, once again, Mr. Garrett has focused on an 
issue that we talked about earlier in the debate. I offered an 
amendment and withdrew it, and it related to this general section. 
Basically, what we have done is allowed the lenders to presume, if they 
meet certain conditions, that their loan will be considered a safe 
harbor loan and go into the secondary market without any complications.
  In certain kinds of loans, we have made that presumption rebuttable 
because there is still tremendous opportunity for abuse even if they 
meet all of the safe harbor requirements. In other instances, we have 
made the presumption irrebuttable, and it was on the irrebuttable part 
of that that I offered the amendment and withdrew it. This is on the 
rebuttable part.
  Now, the problem with Mr. Garrett's amendment is that if you take out 
this rebuttable presumption, then

[[Page 31752]]

the presumption becomes irrebuttable for all kinds of loans, those that 
have risks, and those that don't have risks.

                              {time}  1615

  So what does that mean to the average lay person when you create a 
rebuttable or irrebuttable presumption? An irrebuttable presumption 
makes it impossible for you ever to rebut it. Because it is 
irrebuttable, you can't even raise it anymore. A rebuttable presumption 
makes it possible, even though it is presumed, that you can still go 
and offer evidence that what is generally a fair loan turned out to be, 
in your particular case, an unfair loan.
  So the effect of Mr. Garrett's amendment would be to make it 
impossible ever for anybody to get into court and contest any of these 
loans. Because if you take out the rebuttable presumption, it becomes 
an irrebuttable presumption. We don't want that. I mean, that is where 
the marketplace is now. It is out of control. It has been out of 
control.
  While we are setting up a construct to make the market better, we 
don't want to pass a law that then sanctions going right back to where 
we are now. That is how we got here in the first place, the market was 
out of control. And the construct that we have set up allows people to 
buy mortgages in the secondary market and presume that they will be 
okay.
  But we don't want to set up a situation where it is impossible for 
anybody to go into the secondary market or against anybody and say 
under no circumstances will you be able to get liability. That is what 
Mr. Garrett would have you do. I think it would be very, very, very bad 
public policy.
  With that, I encourage opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman misstates the 
case when he says you can never get into court. You can get into court 
when these five different criteria are not met. But when these five 
criteria are met, you have a safe harbor. That is the language of the 
bill. What is a safe harbor for, if not for giving protection to those 
who are meeting the requirements.
  With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Baker).
  Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. I shall try to be 
brief. I had hoped at the outset the bill would present a uniform 
national standard so all those engaged in this practice would have 
legal certainty as to the behavior that complies with the law, no 
matter where one might extend credit. Unfortunately, that is not the 
case in the underlying bill.
  I had hoped more clarity in the provisions of enforceability. I am 
troubled by some of the unclear language, the way in which some 
descriptive phrases have been used, as in, for example, the anti-
steering provision, which states that loan products which have 
predatory characteristics, one cannot be sure what constitutes a 
predatory characteristic. Third, in contract resolution, we had hoped 
that we would at least avail ourselves of mandatory arbitration, which 
is a common business practice to resolve differences without the court 
being involved. Unfortunately, the bill in its current form prohibits 
mandatory arbitration, which leads us then to the gentleman's very 
well-thought-out amendment relative to the safe harbor provision.
  At least we should have the statement that if you engage in lending 
practices of a certain type, that there will be legal certainty you 
will not be sued at some future point for engaging in the honorable 
profession of extending credit to people trying to buy homes.
  On that point, let me quickly add that 95 percent or more of the 
people engaged in this practice are honorable people, doing a public 
service, extending credit to people who pay their obligations on time. 
It is a mischaracterization on this floor to represent that all people 
engaged in the business of extending credit for this honorable purpose 
are up to no good. In fact, when foreclosures occur, it actually costs 
the industry business.
  This is not a helpful environment. We would be legislating with 
certainty, and the bill in the underlying form does not provide that. 
The gentleman's amendment is excellent, well-constructed. I hope the 
House will favorably consider it.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. WATT. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. As I said to my friend from Louisiana, I 
know everybody can't hear everything. He defends against an accusation 
that was not made when he said, Don't say they are all up to no good. 
Several of us on this side have explicitly said that we believe the 
majority are well-intentioned. The problem, I think, is that where 
there are people who are not well-intentioned, there are no rules to 
stop them. But we did on several occasions quite say the opposite of 
what the gentleman said we shouldn't have said.
  Mr. WATT. I would just add to that, on the floor today time after 
time after time, I have said that the great, great, great majority of 
the lenders are abiding by the rules. It's not those lenders who 
created this crisis. It is those people who are operating outside the 
rules, and that is what we are trying to put a construct around that is 
workable to protect those who abide by the rules of the road without 
shielding those who will abuse the process. This amendment would allow 
that to happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out 
that this amendment is supported by the Mortgage Bankers Association, 
the American Financial Services Association, and Financial Services 
Roundtable. I believe they do that because they realize when a bill 
sets up the language of presumption of ability to repay and net 
tangible benefits, as it has done on line 1, page 52, and then defines 
that as a safe harbor, with the one hand, but then immediately takes it 
away with the other hand by saying that you can still go into court 
after the lender has met all the requirements as we defined as what is 
an ability to repay and tangible benefits, we are creating more 
uncertainty in the market, as the gentleman from Louisiana indicated, 
one that will hurt the overall economy and the ability to secure loans.
  I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


         Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in House Report 110-450.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I am.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
       Page 64, line 12, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the second period.
       Page 64, after line 12, insert the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(10) Pattern or practice of violations.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to any money penalty that 
     may be imposed by any agency referred to in subsection (a) or 
     (c) of section 108 under any provision of law referred to in 
     such section in connection with such agency or any other 
     enforcement action taken by such agency under such section, 
     any creditor, assignee, or securitizer which engages in a 
     pattern or practice of originating, assigning, or 
     securitizing residential

[[Page 31753]]

     mortgage loans that violate subsection (a) or (b) shall 
     forfeit and pay a civil penalty of--
       ``(i) not less than $25,000 for each such loan; and
       ``(ii) $1,000,000 for engaging in such pattern or practice.
       ``(B) Information.--Any person may submit information to 
     any agency referred to in subparagraph (A) regarding any 
     pattern or practice of violating subsection (a) or (b) and 
     such agency shall promptly bring such complaint to the 
     attention of any other such agency which may have 
     jurisdiction over any person involved in the alleged 
     violation.
       ``(11) Trust fund for consumers without remedy.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any civil money penalty collected under 
     paragraph (10) shall be transferred to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to be held in trust in the Consumers Rescission and 
     Cure Remedial Fund for the benefit of borrowers with 
     residential mortgage loans that were originated in violation 
     of subsection (a) or (b) for which the consumers are eligible 
     for rescission or cure but have no party against whom to 
     assert such remedies.
       ``(B) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     prescribe regulations establishing--
       ``(i) a claims process for consumers described in 
     subparagraph (A) to file claims against the Consumers 
     Rescission and Cure Remedial Fund for rescission or cure of a 
     residential mortgage loan that was originated in violation of 
     subsection (a) or (b);
       ``(ii) a procedure for administrative determination of 
     claims, and the allowance or disallowance of any such claim, 
     and a review of such determination; and
       ``(iii) a process for payment of any claim allowed against 
     the Fund to effectuate a rescission or cure as part of a 
     final settlement entered into by the consumer with the 
     Secretary with respect to such claim.
       ``(C) Finality.--Any determination by the Secretary under 
     this paragraph shall be final and not subject to judicial 
     review.''.

  The ACTING Chairman. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment, but 
I do not intend to push it today. I will be withdrawing it with the 
consent of the body. I was not as careful as I should have been in 
supervising or making clear my intentions in what I wanted. I do 
believe 1 of the 2 most controversial items in this is preemption. Very 
few people think we have done preemption just right. Fortunately, a lot 
of us are here. A lot of other people think we have done too much or 
too little.
  The question of preemption is really twofold: 1, should you preempt; 
and, secondly, having preempted, having prevented the State from 
acting, have you put sufficient rules in there to defer bad behavior. I 
think we probably didn't, as I read this over. That is, I think we have 
preempted, as we have clarified it, the right amount: Not too much and 
not too little. But we have not put into the preemption enough in terms 
of deterrence.
  We do have the policies and procedures in the safe harbor exemption. 
But what I think we should have and what this amendment was meant to 
embody is the ability of aggrieved parties or representatives, 
Attorneys General of the States, others, to go to the regulator of the 
entity in question and say, Look, there's been this pattern of abuse. 
When we have a pattern of abuse, you act.
  We did not want to make the liability for any one violation too 
heavy. We didn't want to overkill. But we then would run into the 
problem the gentleman from North Carolina talked about, where 
violations at a moderate level of penalty could be simply a cost of 
doing business. So having a pattern and practice approach in here 
prevents people from treating a moderate penalty from simply being a 
cost of doing business.
  It was drafted more than I had intended. That is my fault. I should 
have been paying more attention. I do not think originators ought to be 
covered in this, certainly not with a $1 million limitation.
  So for that reason I am going to offer this and say that I hope to 
withdraw it now and work on it further.
  I would yield to my friend from Colorado who is one of those who 
brought some of the problems here to my attention.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to 
me, and I thank the chairman for being willing to work on this 
particular amendment to zero in on the major players who, in a repeated 
fashion, time after time, show by pattern and practice an abuse of this 
predatory lending policy.
  I do want to reiterate something that Mr. Blumenauer said. I want to 
congratulate the ranking member and Mrs. Biggert and Mrs. Capito and a 
number of the others on the Republican side of the aisle, along with 
the sponsors of this bill, for working and refining and developing a 
bill that will deal with the problems that we have seen of predatory 
lending and subprime loans that have hurt a lot of the people in this 
country and our financial system.
  I also intend to work with the chairman on the eviction piece, the 
rental piece of this, so we don't harm the single-family, owner-
occupied system of FHA and VA-type loans.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me take back my time. The gentleman 
raised that issue.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant) raised an issue on renter 
protection. So you cannot be the homeowner being foreclosed upon and 
then get the rights of a tenant. The gentleman from Colorado had a 
further point, which is in those cases where there was a very specific 
prohibition in the loan against rental, that should not be overcome by 
what we do.
  I would yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns about 
this bill is the weakness, the inadequacy of the remedies available to 
the consumer. I have said that earlier today in the debate on this bill 
that I am very concerned that if industry is looking at one consumer in 
50, or one in 100, or one in 200 who has actually been the victim of 
illegal practices, brings a claim for very modest remedies, many 
industries or some in industry may simply view that as a minor cost of 
doing business, a minor nuisance, and just keep doing what they are 
doing.
  This amendment, while I agree it does need to be tinkered with some, 
would raise the stakes substantially. It does provide a more 
substantial penalty, $1 million plus $25,000 for each loan. That 
actually is not that much. Ameriquest, one of the biggest subprime 
lenders, paid $425 million in a settlement and just kept doing it. Just 
kept going. It was the cost of doing business. And their CEO is now the 
ambassador to one of those small, pleasant countries in Europe that big 
campaign contributors get appointed to be ambassadors to. It hasn't 
affected them in the slightest.
  This amendment would call the attention of the regulatory agencies, 
the SEC to pay attention to the securitizers, the Goldman Sachses of 
the world, the big banks; Bank of America would have to answer to the 
OCC, their regulatory body, and on and on. Mr. Chairman, those industry 
groups do not want the attention of their regulator that way. They do 
not want to be under that kind of scrutiny; they do not want to pay 
those penalties. And this would substantially raise the stakes for them 
and encourage them to abide by the law.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me take back the time. The gentleman 
has underlined an important point. We are going to see this back again 
in somewhat buffed-up form. It goes to the regulators, so this isn't 
going to lead to court. It is not an explosion of litigation. It would 
allow a range of people to bring it, including State Attorneys General, 
but it would be brought to the regulator, someone familiar with that 
business model and an entity able to discriminate between good and bad 
practices.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

[[Page 31754]]




           Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in House Report 110-450.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas:
       Page 15, line 7, insert ``which shall include instruction 
     on fraud, consumer protection and fair lending issues'' 
     before the period.
       Page 16, line 6, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 16, line 8, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 16, after line 8, insert the following new clause:
       (iv) Federal and State law and regulation, including 
     instruction on fraud, consumer protection, and fair lending 
     issues.
       Page 17, line 20, insert ``, including education on fraud, 
     consumer protection, and fair lending issues.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Al Green) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to thank the 
chairman of the full committee, Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, 
the subcommittee Chair and ranking member as well.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple and straightforward amendment. 
This amendment deals with minimum standards for mortgage originators, 
and it requires that mortgage originators receive a certain amount of 
training.

                              {time}  1630

  The bill itself right now requires at least 20 hours of education, of 
which at least 3 hours of Federal law shall be included in the 
regulations as well, along with 3 hours of ethics. What this amendment 
does is include in the ethics training instructions on fraud, consumer 
protection and fair lending issues. It is very straightforward. It is 
not complicated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Alabama is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the author, Mr. Green, for 
this amendment. I would anticipate and hope that with the passage of 
this amendment that mortgage originators would receive instructions on 
these subjects. So I very much am in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Green and express 
gratitude to Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, Subcommittee Chair 
Watt and Congressman Miller for their extraordinary efforts to restore 
confidence in our Nation's housing markets and address the housing 
mortgage crisis facing our Nation, this crisis has been felt no more 
harshly than in the State of Ohio, one of the hardest hit States in our 
Union, where our foreclosure filing rates have gone up 300 percent 
since just last year, thousands upon thousands of Ohioans having for 
sale and foreclosure signs in front of their homes. In Ohio, $20 
billion and growing is the gap, the financing gap.
  I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, but want to clarify 
that under the bill, any legal case that has been filed can proceed 
forward, indeed until the regulations for implementation of the bill 
are completed after it is signed by the President. States are not 
limited in their ability to prosecute in cases of fraud, collusion, 
misrepresentation, deception, false advertising or civil rights. 
Importantly, any mortgage made in the future will have to assure the 
borrower's ability to repay and that the borrower be yielded a net 
tangible benefit.
  As this bill moves forward, I believe it can be perfected even more 
to restore confidence, discipline and provide accountability in our 
troubled, very troubled, housing markets, which are helping to drive 
our Nation into recession.
  I just want to say to Chairman Frank, you are the right man in the 
right place at the right time. I just hope that the other body and the 
President of the United States follow your leadership on this really 
critical issue, take it not just to Ohio, but to our country.

Stockton, Detroit, Riverside-San Bernardino Post Top Metro Foreclosure 
                              Rates in Q3

                         (By RealtyTrac Staff)

       IRVINE, Calif.--Nov. 14, 2007--RealtyTrac' 
     (realtytrac.com), the leading online marketplace for 
     foreclosure properties, today released its Q3 2007 
     Metropolitan Foreclosure Market Report, which shows Stockton, 
     Calif., Detroit and Riverside-San Bernardino, Calif., 
     documented the three highest foreclosure rates among the 
     nation's 100 largest metropolitan areas during the third 
     quarter.
       RealtyTrac publishes the largest and most comprehensive 
     national database of foreclosure and bank-owned properties, 
     with over 1 million properties from nearly 2,500 counties 
     across the country, and is the foreclosure data provider to 
     MSN Real Estate, Yahoo! Real Estate and The Wall Street 
     Journal's Real Estate Journal.
       ``Although cities in just three states--California, Ohio 
     and Florida--accounted for more than two-thirds of the top 25 
     metro foreclosure rates, increasing foreclosure activity was 
     not limited to just a few hot spots,'' said James J. 
     Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac. ``In fact, 
     77 out of the top 100 metro areas reported more foreclosure 
     filings in the third quarter than they had in the previous 
     quarter. Still, there continue to be pockets of the country--
     most noticeably metro areas in the Carolinas, Virginia and 
     Texas--that have thus far dodged the foreclosure bullet.''


 california, ohio, florida cities dominate top metro foreclosure rates

       Stockton, Calif., documented one foreclosure filing for 
     every 31 households during the quarter, the highest 
     foreclosure rate along the nation's 100 largest metro areas. 
     A total of 7,116 foreclosure filings on 4,409 properties were 
     reported in the metro area during the quarter, up more than 
     30 percent from the previous quarter.
       Detroit's third-quarter foreclosure rate of one foreclosure 
     filing for every 33 households ranked second highest among 
     the nation's 100 largest metro areas. A total of 25,708 
     foreclosure filings on 16,079 properties were reported in the 
     metro area during the quarter, more than twice the number of 
     filings in the previous quarter.
       The Riverside-San Bernardino, Calif., metropolitan area in 
     Southern California documented the nation's third highest 
     metro foreclosure rate, one foreclosure filing for every 43 
     households. A total of 31,661 foreclosure filings 20,664 
     properties were reported in the metro area during the 
     quarter, up more than 30 percent from the previous month.
       Other cities in the top 10 metro foreclosure rates: Fort 
     Lauderdale, Fla.; Las Vegas; Sacramento, Calif.; Cleveland; 
     Miami; Bakersfield, Calif.; and Oakland, Calif. California 
     cities accounted for seven of the top 25 metro foreclosure 
     rates, while Florida and Ohio each accounted for five of the 
     top 25 spots.


riverside-san bernardino, los angeles, detroit report most foreclosure 
                                filings

       The Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area reported the 
     most foreclosure filings during the quarter, followed by Los 
     Angeles, with 29,501 filings on 18,043 properties. The Los 
     Angeles foreclosure rate of one foreclosure filing for every 
     113 households ranked No. 26 among the nation's 100 largest 
     metro areas. Detroit reported the third highest number of 
     foreclosure filings during the quarter.
       Atlanta's foreclosure filing total of 21,695 on 18,940 
     properties was the fourth highest foreclosure filing total, 
     and the metro area's foreclosure rate of one foreclosure 
     filing for every 92 households ranked No. 18 among the top 
     100 metro areas.
       Other cities with foreclosure filing totals among the 10 
     highest were Phoenix, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Cleveland, 
     Chicago, Miami and Sacramento, Calif.


                           report methodology

       The RealtyTrac Metro Foreclosure Market Report provides the 
     total number of foreclosure filings by metropolitan area, 
     along with the number of households per foreclosure filing. 
     The household numbers are based on the U.S. Census Bureau's 
     2005 estimates of total housing units.
       Beginning with the Midyear 2007 report, the report also 
     includes counts of properties with at least one foreclosure 
     filing reported against them. This new metric only counts a 
     property once, even if there were multiple foreclosure 
     actions filed against the property during the time period 
     covered by the report.

[[Page 31755]]



     FORECLOSURE ACTIVITY FOR THE NATION'S 100 LARGEST MSAS--Q3 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Foreclosure
                                                              filings
                        Rate rank                        ---------------
                                                          Total  filings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1.  Stockton, CA.......................................           7,116
 2.  Detroit/Livonia/Dearborn, MI.......................          25,708
 3.  Riverside/San Bernardino, CA.......................          31,661
 4.  Fort Lauderdale, FL................................          16,595
 5.  Las Vegas/Paradise, NV.............................          14,948
 6.  Sacramento, CA.....................................          15,479
 7.  Cleveland/Lorain/Elyria/Mentor, OH.................          16,332
 8.  Miami, FL..........................................          15,484
 9.  Bakersfield, CA....................................           3,947
10.  Oakland, CA........................................          13,245
11.  Akron, OH..........................................           3,992
12.  Denver/Aurora, CO..................................          13,179
13.  Fresno, CA.........................................           3,687
14.  Memphis, TN........................................           6,239
15.  Phoenix/Mesa, AZ...................................          18,328
16.  San Diego, CA......................................          12,274
17.  Dayton, OH.........................................           4,147
18.  Atlanta/Sandy Springs/Marietta, GA.................          21,695
19.  Tampa/St. Petersburgh/Clearwater, FL...............          13,562
20.  Toledo, OH.........................................           3,119
21.  Palm Beach, FL.....................................           6,387
22.  Dallas, TX.........................................          14,717
23.  Columbus, OH.......................................           7,265
24.  Indianapolis, IN...................................           6,604
25.  Sarasota/Bradenton/Venice, FL......................           3,308
26.  Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA.........................          29,501
27.  Orlando, FL........................................           7,189
28.  Warren/Farmington Hills/Troy, MI...................           9,025
29.  Fort Worth/Arlington, TX...........................           6,328
30.  Cincinnati, OH.....................................           6,144
31.  Orange, CA.........................................           6,899
32.  Worchester, MA.....................................           2,069
33.  Jacksonville, FL...................................           3,501
34.  Tucson, AZ.........................................           2,514
35.  San Antonio, TX....................................           4,300
36.  Houston/Baytown/Sugarland, TX......................          11,960
37.  Springfield, MA....................................           1,637
38.  Washington/Arlington/Alexandria, DC-VA-MD..........           9,099
39.  Essex, MA..........................................           1,605
40.  Newhaven/Milford, CT...............................           1,850
41.  Chicago, IL........................................          16,314
42.  Ventura, CA........................................           1,400
43.  San Jose/Sunnyvale/Santa Clara, CA.................           3,245
44.  Austin/Round Rock, TX..............................           3,063
45.  Gary, IN...........................................           1,408
46.  Charlotte/Gastonia, NC.............................           3,148
47.  Newark, NJ.........................................           3,970
48.  Boston/Quincy, MA..................................           3,386
49.  Tacoma, WA.........................................           1,369
50.  Lake/Kenosha, IL-WI................................           1,110
51.  Milwaukee/Waukesha/West Allis, WI..................           2,870
52.  Camden, NJ.........................................           1,225
53.  Little Rock/North Little Rock, AR..................           1,250
54.  Kansas City, MO-KS.................................           3,659
55.  Edison, NJ.........................................           3,787
56.  St Louis, MO-IL....................................           4,820
57.  Cambridge/Newton/Framingham, MA....................           2,278
58.  Tulsa, OK..........................................           1,497
59.  Nashville/Davidson, TN.............................           2,224
60.  Scranton/Wilkes-Barre/Hazleton, PA.................             898
61.  Hartford, CT.......................................           1,674
62.  Bridgeport/Stamford/Norwalk, CT....................           1,171
63.  Salt Lake City, UT.................................           1,253
64.  Oklahoma City, OK..................................           1,639
65.  Baltimore/Towson, MD...............................           3,516
66.  Louisville, KY-IN..................................           1,696
67.  Raleigh/Cary, NC...................................           1,242
68.  Bethesda/Frederick/Gaithersburg, MD................           1,362
69.  Minneapolis/St Paul/Bloomington, MN-WI.............           3,699
70.  Philadelphia, PA...................................           4,456
71.  Omaha/Council Bluffs, NE-IA........................             846
72.  Knoxville, TN......................................             701
73.  Suffolk/Nassau, NY.................................           2,321
74.  Pittsburgh, PA.....................................           2,548
75.  Seattle/Bellevue/Everett, WA.......................           2,318
76.  El Paso, TX........................................             527
77.  New York/Wayne/White Plains, NY-NJ.................           9,240
78.  New Orleans, LA....................................           1,212
79.  Wilmington, DE-NJ..................................             543
80.  Buffalo/Cheektowaga/Tonawanda, NY..................             960
81.  Poughkeepsie/Newburgh/Middletown, NY...............             446
82.  Providence/New Bedford, RI.........................             816
83.  Portland/Vancouver/Beaverton, OR-WA................           1,474
84.  Rochester, NY......................................             695
85.  Wichita, KS........................................             343
86.  Greensboro/Highpoint, NC...........................             405
87.  San Francisco, CA..................................             940
88.  Albany/Schenectady/Troy, NY........................             449
89.  Albuquerque, NM....................................             387
90.  Birmingham/Hoover, AL..............................             451
91.  Norfolk/Virginia Beach/Newport News, VA............             580
92.  Charleston, SC.....................................             254
93.  Columbia, SC.......................................             279
94.  Richmond, VA.......................................             448
95.  Syracuse, NY.......................................             249
96.  Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton, PA.....................             204
97.  Honolulu, HI.......................................             197
98.  Baton Rouge, LA....................................             147
99.  McAllen/Edinburg/Pharr, TX.........................             106
100. Greenville, SC.....................................              79
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to correct 
something I said earlier today. Earlier today I said the Mortgage 
Bankers Association was opposed to this bill. That is not correct. They 
do not support the bill. In a letter dated today, they outlined four 
areas of major concern with the bill, but they did not oppose the bill. 
They did not support the bill, but they did not oppose it. So what I 
said earlier today, it was incorrect.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute 
to Mrs. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, please.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, there is a God. For the past 8 
years I have introduced legislation called the Predatory Lending 
Reduction Act, saying to the community and the world that there is a 
problem happening out here. And here we are in 2007, some 8 years 
later, and there is a wake-up call going on.
  Across the country, people are having problems with their mortgages 
and communities are losing tax underwriting as a result thereof. I am 
pleased that H.R. 3915 incorporates language from the Predatory Lending 
Reduction Act that I introduced 8 years ago and that it requires a 
licensing and registration for mortgage brokers.
  We all know that all subprime lenders are not predatory lenders, but 
we also know that all predatory lenders are subprime lenders, and we 
have to get on top of this.
  Thank God we are saving the people of America.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by 
indicating I am very pleased to see the bipartisan effort that has been 
generated by this bill. This is a good bill, and I ask all of my 
colleagues to please support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. McHenry

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in House Report 110-450.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. McHenry:
       Page 80, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 
     102, line 26 (all of title III) (and redesignate the 
     subsequent title and sections and conform the table of 
     contents accordingly).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is really the 
crux of this debate that we are having here on the House floor on how 
to best take on the mortgage crisis that we are facing as a country.
  This is a very substantive debate. I think it is a very legitimate 
debate for the House to have, about how we approach the mortgage 
marketplace and ensure that individuals, families, can still access 
credit so they can actually get a home for themselves and their 
children.
  Now, the issue at hand is title III of the bill, the so-called North 
Carolina standard, put forward by my colleagues from North Carolina, 
Mr. Watt and Mr. Miller. What, in essence, they do is make all subprime 
loans HOEPA loans. These are really high-cost loans, so-called 
innovative loans.
  What this does is make all subprime loans HOEPA loans, and, as the 
Comptroller of the Currency said in a recent hearing before the 
Financial Services Committee, ``It is fair to say that in the past 
HOEPA loans were viewed as so extreme that few institutions provided 
HOEPA loans because it was such a rigorous and, what is the word, a 
scarlet letter of sorts that people wouldn't make the loans. So when 
you look at our home loan registry, for example, you don't find many 
HOEPA loans anymore.''
  Well, there were 10 million mortgages let in 2006. Only 15,200 were 
HOEPA loans. A very small percentage.
  In essence, what title III of this bill does is it, in essence, 
eliminates the subprime marketplace in America. What it does in North 
Carolina, it has curtailed refinancing and initial financing in the 
subprime marketplace. This is very harmful to individuals and families.
  With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, title III hardly turns 
all subprime loans into HOEPA loans. HOEPA loans are very high-cost 
loans, loans with a very high interest rate. For first loans, it is 8 
percent above the Treasury rate, which works out to about 13 percent. 
Or for subordinate loans, second or third mortgages, it is 10 percent 
above, which is more like a 15 percent interest rate.
  In contrast, this legislation before us, the other provisions of the 
legislation, the other titles, treats the

[[Page 31756]]

subprime loans as loans with an interest rate of about 8.5. So there is 
plenty of room between 8.5 or 13 or 15.
  Mr. Chairman, it is simply not true that this legislation in North 
Carolina has created a problem with lending in North Carolina. We have 
heard it again and again in the Financial Services Committee for 4 or 5 
years. We have heard repeatedly testimony by the North Carolina 
Commissioner of Banks, Joe Smith, who has said there is a ready 
availability of credit in the subprime market in North Carolina, and 
that it is no more expensive than it is anywhere else that he knows of.
  We have heard from witnesses from industry who have said repeatedly 
they have been able to lend in North Carolina on the same terms and at 
the same rates as everywhere else, and they have been able to do so 
profitably.
  There was a business school study at the University of North Carolina 
that said there has been no difference in the availability or the cost 
of credit in the subprime market in North Carolina because of the 
protections of the North Carolina law. A Morgan Stanley survey of 280 
subprime branch managers said there had been no reduction in subprime 
lending in North Carolina as a result of these consumer protections. 
And it just goes on.
  In the time between 1998 before the North Carolina law was enacted 
and went into effect in 2003, there was a 366 percent growth in 
subprime lending in North Carolina. It is sort of hard to see from that 
that the North Carolina law killed off subprime lending.
  What it did do is it protects consumers from equity stripping, from 
having huge chunks of their equity in their home, their life savings, 
taken from them at closing by outrageous up-front costs and fees, many 
of which were poorly disclosed.
  This lowers the trigger for a HOEPA loan from 8 points at closing to 
5 points at closing and closes some of the loopholes so that consumers, 
when they have to borrow money against their home, are not going to 
have their equity stripped, are not going to have their life savings, 
the equity in their home, taken from them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, let me quote Congressman Miller from our 
recent subprime markup in Financial Services. ``Yes, there are fewer 
loans being made in North Carolina,'' is the reference. ``That is also 
an intended consequence of reform. This is the heart of the bill.''
  The statistics for North Carolina, amongst subprime lenders there is 
a decline of 8.1 percent in the last 5 years. In comparison States, 
there was a growth of 1 percent of prime lending. In comparison States, 
loans by subprime lenders increased by 4.6 percent, and loans made in 
North Carolina decreased, subprime loans, by 8.1 percent. There is a 
significant disparity there.
  Furthermore, in refinancing in subprime loans in North Carolina, 
there was a decline of 11.4 percent. In comparable States, there was an 
increase of 4 percent.
  It shows that there are fewer loans being made and less availability 
of credit in North Carolina because of the so-called North Carolina 
standard.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to 
close, so I think I will wait until Mr. McHenry is done.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves the balance of his time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I would inform my colleague I have the 
right to close.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Only one of us is right.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) 
has the right to close.
  Mr. McHENRY. Two additional points on my amendment here. It strikes 
title III, which bans rolling closing costs, points and fees into the 
financing of subprime mortgages, as well as eliminating prepayment 
penalties. So if someone currently has a prepayment penalty and they 
want to get out of this high-cost mortgage they currently have, and 
they seek to refinance their way into a more affordable mortgage, they 
would be prevented from rolling that prepayment penalty into the next 
loan.
  So my contention is title III of this bill eliminates people's 
options and opportunities to refinance their way out of foreclosure and 
default.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to vote for my amendment to strike 
I think the most egregious title within this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. McHENRY. Who has the right to close on an amendment? Is it those 
opposed to it or those who are offering the amendment?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Member claiming time in opposition 
hails from the committee of jurisdiction, he has the right to close.
  The gentleman from North Carolina has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Let me tell you one story in North Carolina. Ben Ingle is a mortgage 
broker at NBI Mortgage in Shelby, North Carolina. Ben was able to 
secure a loan for a woman who was a victim of domestic violence and a 
victim of her ex-husband's bad credit. Her ex-husband ruined her 
credit. In this process, she got out of an abusive relationship and 
wanted to have a home for her son and herself, but she had a tough time 
because of her credit situation.
  Well, Ben was able to work with her over an extended period of time. 
In fact, when it was all said and done, under this legislation before 
us today, Ben would have been only able to make $4.16 an hour for the 
work that he did for this lady to qualify her for a loan.

                              {time}  1645

  Now, she is very happy to be in a loan today and have a mortgage 
today and have a home for her son. But what this bill does is harm our 
communities and I think our mortgage brokers that are doing the right 
thing.
  At the end of the day, mortgage originators are a part of our 
community. They are community leaders oftentimes, and what we are 
trying to do is battle unscrupulous actors and have good protections 
for homeownership in America.
  Title III of this bill would prevent this young lady from having the 
option to get the lending she needed for a home. This is about 
homeownership. I urge Members to vote for my amendment and vote against 
the bill.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the woman from Shelby 
would be able to borrow under this bill, it just would be a highly 
regulated loan, only if she is paying more than 13 percent interest or 
paying more than 5 percent in closing costs, which is a lot in closing 
costs.
  Mr. McHenry really got at what is wrong with predatory lending when 
he said that people need to be able to refinance to pay off the loans 
they are in now.
  That is not the kind of mortgage system we want. We don't want people 
refinancing to pay off the loan they are in now and pay the prepayment 
penalties on this loan and pay points and fees for the next loan, and 
then 2 years later doing it all over again. We don't want people in a 
cycle of borrowing and borrowing again. We want people to get into 
loans that they can pay off. They can pay month after month, and at 
some point have a ceremony, a little party, that people in another 
generation had of burning the mortgage because it is paid off. So for 
the rest of their lives, they will own their home free and clear.
  Predatory lending traps people in a cycle of borrowing and borrowing 
again. That is something that North Carolina law successfully dealt 
with. If there was some slight dip in overall loans, it is because 
people weren't caught in a cycle of borrowing to pay

[[Page 31757]]

off the last mortgage and then having to borrow 2 years from now to pay 
off the mortgage they are entering today.
  It ends flipping of loans to generate fees for everybody else in the 
system who is getting rich off the middle class, off the middle-class 
homeowners. The North Carolina law is working fine for North Carolina. 
It will work fine for the rest of us. It has been the model for most of 
the States that have had their own predatory lending legislation, 
consumer protection legislation in the last few years. Keep title III 
in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 
printed in House Report 110-450.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Van Hollen:
       Page 71, line 5, strike the closing quotation marks and the 
     second period.
       Page 71, after line 5, insert the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Closing Costs.--In the case of a residential mortgage 
     loan, any costs incurred in connection with the consummation 
     of the loan may not exceed by more than 10 percent the 
     estimate of the amount of such costs disclosed to the 
     consumer in advance of the consummation of the loan.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by commending the chairman 
of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, and the ranking member, 
Mr. Bachus, for crafting a bill that is before us today to help protect 
homeowners across the country and to stop predatory lending.
  The amendment I am proposing is designed to protect consumers from 
bait-and-switch schemes perpetrated by a small number of unscrupulous 
lenders who have learned to exploit flaws in the existing system. Under 
the existing law we have today, lenders are required to provide 
homeowners with a good-faith estimate of their settlement costs, the 
costs they will have when they settle on a transaction.
  However, under current law there is absolutely no penalty for lenders 
who are widely off in providing those estimates. We have many cases 
where you have a few bad actors who lure consumers to borrow by low-
balling their estimate of closing costs only to jack-up those costs 
when it comes to the last minute at the settlement table.
  This amendment would address this problem by saying that in the case 
of residential mortgage loans, the amount of closing costs may not 
exceed by more than 10 percent any estimate of the closing cost 
provided to the consumer in advance of closing. By setting that kind of 
ceiling, we reduce the chance that borrowers will be blind-sided by 
unexpected fees at closing.
  The intent of this amendment is to protect consumers from negligent 
or fraudulent lenders and introduce greater confidence and certainty 
into the process.
  Mr. Chairman, as currently drafted, I believe this amendment is too 
broad. We need to make sure we hold lenders accountable for estimates 
that are within their control, not those estimates that may be outside 
of their control. In a moment I am going to move to withdraw the 
amendment.
  But before that, I would like to yield to the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
  This is a very complicated subject. It involves a number of moving 
parts.
  At every stage, and we said this from the beginning, at every stage 
in this bill, from the bill's introduction to the hearing to the markup 
to now, it has been improved. No one really knew enough. We are in a 
somewhat unknown area.
  I would also say ultimately, I think, if we're going to get any 
legislation here, as I said before, we are going to get a bill that no 
single Member of this House likes in every particular because we are 
going to have to work together.
  The gentleman from Maryland has identified one more area where we 
believe improvement can go forward. It is a subject that has to be 
refined some. This is the end of the session. We are getting 
legislation drafted. It can't always be done as carefully as we would 
like.
  I appreciate the gentleman calling this to our attention; and in the 
bipartisanship spirit we have had, I believe we can continue to work on 
this, and by the time this bill is finally ready to be signed, we can 
include the thrust of what the gentleman is trying to accomplish.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this amendment, and I 
acknowledge that the gentleman brings up a valid point. It is something 
that we will continue to adjust as the process goes forward.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Bachus and the chairman of 
the committee as well. I appreciate your willingness to work on this 
issue as we go forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Sutton

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 
printed in House Report 110-450.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Ms. Sutton:
       After section 211, insert the following new section (and 
     redesignate the subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 212. 6-MONTH NOTICE REQUIRED BEFORE RESET OF HYBRID 
                   ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1631 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     128 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 128A. Reset of hybrid adjustable rate mortgages

       ``(a) Hybrid Adjustable Rate Mortgages Defined.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `hybrid adjustable rate 
     mortgage' means a consumer credit transaction secured by the 
     consumer's principal residence with a fixed interest rate for 
     an introductory period that adjusts or resets to a variable 
     interest rate after such period.
       ``(b) Notice of Reset and Alternatives.--During the 1-month 
     period that ends 6 months before the date on which the 
     interest rate in effect during the introductory period of a 
     hybrid adjustable rate mortgage adjusts or resets to a 
     variable interest rate, the creditor or servicer of such loan 
     shall provide a written notice, separate and distinct from 
     all other correspondence to the consumer, that includes the 
     following:
       ``(1) Any index or formula used in making adjustments to or 
     resetting the interest rate and a source of information about 
     the index or formula.
       ``(2) An explanation of how the new interest rate and 
     payment would be determined, including an explanation of how 
     the index was adjusted, such as by the addition of a margin.
       ``(3) A good faith estimate, based on accepted industry 
     standards, of the creditor or servicer of the amount of the 
     monthly payment that will apply after the date of the 
     adjustment or reset, and the assumptions on which this 
     estimate is based.
       ``(4) A list of alternatives consumers may pursue before 
     the date of adjustment or reset, and descriptions of the 
     actions consumers must take to pursue these alternatives, 
     including--
       ``(A) refinancing;
       ``(B) renegotiation of loan terms;

[[Page 31758]]

       ``(C) payment forbearances; and
       ``(D) pre-foreclosure sales.
       ``(5) The names, addresses, telephone numbers, and Internet 
     addresses of counseling agencies or programs reasonably 
     available to the consumer that have been certified or 
     approved and made publicly available by the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development or a State housing finance 
     authority (as defined in section 1301 of the Financial 
     Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989).
       ``(6) The address, telephone number, and Internet address 
     for the State housing finance authority (as so defined) for 
     the State in which the consumer resides.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     2 of the Truth in Lending Act is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 128 the following new item:

``128A. Reset of hybrid adjustable rate mortgages.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to commend the 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee for his extraordinary 
leadership and hard work on this legislation. I also want to thank the 
ranking member, Mr. Bachus, along with Mr. Frank for their 
extraordinary hard work. I also extend my thanks to Mr. Miller, the 
sponsor of this bill, as well.
  Today I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 3915 that I believe will 
take an important step in preventing avoidable foreclosures. The news 
stories we see every day remind us that this subprime mortgage crisis 
is not going away immediately. In fact, it is getting worse.
  RealtyTrac just released its third quarter foreclosure numbers, and 
the numbers are staggering. Foreclosure filings increased 30 percent 
nationally from the second quarter, which translates to one foreclosure 
filing for every 196 American households.
  Two of the largest metro areas in my district are among the 15 with 
the highest foreclosure rates nationally. Foreclosures in the 
Cleveland, Lorain, Elyria area are up 179 percent from last year. One 
in every 57 homes in that area is in foreclosure. In Akron, it is one 
of every 76. These are families in my district who are suffering.
  Many of the loans involved in the current subprime mortgage crisis 
are hybrid adjustable rate mortgages. Though these loans typically 
begin with a low fixed ``teaser'' rate, it resets after 2 or 3 years, 
often to as much as 2 or 3 times the original payment.
  According to a recently conducted survey, 1 in 4 homeowners with 
adjustable rate mortgages were not aware how soon their rates could 
spike, and three-quarters did not know how much their payments might 
increase.
  A homeowner who does not know what is coming may not be able to ask 
for help until it is too late. The amendment I am offering today would 
take a simple step to help ensure homeowners have the opportunity to 
pursue all of the options available to them before the foreclosure 
becomes inevitable.
  My amendment, which is based on a recommendation of the Ohio 
Foreclosure Prevention Task Force, will require lenders to send a 
notice to homeowners holding hybrid adjustable rate mortgages 6 months 
before their interest rates are due to reset. The notice will contain 
four key pieces of information:
  It will include the new interest rate and an explanation of how it 
will be determined;
  Second, it will require the lender to include a good-faith estimate 
of the monthly payment that will apply after the loan resets;
  Third, it contains a list of alternatives the consumer may pursue 
before the date of the adjustment or reset if they feel they will have 
difficulty in meeting the payment obligations;
  Finally, it will include the contact information of the local HUD-
approved housing counseling agencies, as well as the State housing 
finance authority for the State in which the consumer resides.
  Enhanced disclosures will help prevent avoidable foreclosures and 
ensure our families are not caught by surprise and trapped in a 
position that may ultimately force them out of their homes. I believe 
this disclosure is a vital tool for our families, and I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SUTTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I want to thank the gentlewoman. She has 
been very diligent and called to the attention of the committee some of 
the concerns of the Attorney General of Ohio, with whom she has been 
working, as have her other Ohio colleagues. I appreciate this 
particular amendment and also the willingness of the gentlewoman to 
work with us as we continue to make this a better bill. I hope her 
amendment is adopted.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Ohio obviously points 
out a significant problem with foreclosures in Cleveland. It is 
actually a heart-breaking experience that the people of Cleveland are 
going through when one out of every five or six houses are undergoing 
foreclosures. You hear some pretty devastating figures. I know, I used 
to be an attorney for the FOP, Fraternal Order of Police, in 
Birmingham; and there is absolutely nothing more problematic in a 
community than a vacant house from a crime standpoint as well as from a 
property value standpoint.
  The notice she requires, I think some of that is addressed by Mr. 
Green and Mr. McHenry, but it is at an earlier time. I would say this, 
I personally am not going to ask for a roll call on this.
  Going forward, I think parts of this amendment are very good. I think 
stating what the new interest rate will be, giving somebody a notice. 
The Federal Reserve said some folks sort of, you know, this is 
something that they don't always see or focus on. But explaining what 
the new interest rate is going to be and how it is going to be 
determined, that could be somewhat problematic, but it could be worked 
in a range as long as the regulators are given some discretion. 
Offering the borrower the best estimate of what the new monthly payment 
will be could also, as long as there was some range or discretion in 
there.
  The last two things I think are very good, offering alternatives that 
the consumer could pursue. That might be very valuable, as would 
providing information on HUD-approved house counseling. I think that 
would be very valuable. I personally am not going to ask for a roll 
call on this. Other Members might.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida because, as you know, on this side, as with this 
whole body, we come with different perspectives.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ranking member yielding on 
this.
  Everybody deserves as much notice as possible when their obligations 
in life are going to change. Every mortgage describes the terms of how 
the note and the loan will change.
  One of the problems I see with this bill is when you are required to 
give a borrower 6-months' notice on what their interest rate is going 
to be, my understanding is that some mortgages are triggered off dates 
that may be only 3 or 4 months in advance of the reset date. For 
example, does a lender have to guess high? Does a lender have to 
estimate 3 or 4 months out rates are going to go up so they are going 
to basically send the borrower notice 6 or 7 or 8 months ahead of time 
so they comply with this very burdensome notice regulation, and they 
are basically going to stick a borrower, perhaps, with a higher 
interest rate if the market actually lets interest rates come down than 
they would have otherwise been able to do.

                              {time}  1700

  I don't know whether you have to send a new notice or an adjusted 
notice also in terms of the alternatives that

[[Page 31759]]

we have to describe. There are lots of alternatives if you are going to 
have trouble making your mortgage payment. You could hit the lottery, I 
suppose. You could hope that a rich uncle passes away and endows you. 
There are all sorts of potential alternatives.
  Now, if we had a form list of three or four potential things that a 
borrower could do, that might make sense. But I think this is very 
subjective.
  And speaking of the subjectivity, something I wanted to get to 
earlier, one of the big problems with this bill is that it has all 
sorts of subjective requirements, for example, that lenders cannot make 
loans that are not the most appropriate loans. Who knows, other than 
20/20 hindsight, whether a loan was appropriate in specific 
circumstances? Supposing that a family gets divorced? A loan that might 
have been appropriate one day may be inappropriate. Suppose somebody 
loses their job or gets sick?
  And the other huge subjective part of this entire bill is the net 
tangible benefits test. Supposing I go take out a loan for $100,000. I 
decide to go down and decide to play the ponies and I win a 10:1 
payment, I become a millionaire. Well, that loan after the fact turned 
out to have huge net tangible benefits to me.
  On the other hand, supposing I take out a $100,000 loan and put it in 
investments in the stock market and the market gets jittery because 
Congress is talking about all sorts of tax hikes. Supposing my stocks 
decrease from $100,000 to $50,000. Well, it turns out after the fact 
that my taking out that loan to put the money in the stock market did 
not have much net tangible benefit.
  These subjective tests are a nightmare for people trying to provide 
credit in America.
  Ms. SUTTON. I would inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Holden). The gentlewoman from Ohio has 1\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, requiring lenders and servicers to include 
their best estimate of the amount that will be incurred when the loan 
resets is a commonsense way to deal with providing these borrowers with 
information that is essential if they are in a position to avoid 
foreclosure, and all we are asking under this amendment is for a good-
faith estimate based on accepted industry standards.
  The estimate need not be exact. A lender or servicer simply needs to 
make a good-faith effort to estimate the payment that will apply after 
reset.
  It is important to keep consumers informed about the date of reset, 
but if they are not sure what they will face when the loan resets, it 
will be much more difficult for them to prepare what is coming. This is 
a simple requirement to insure that not only will homeowners know when 
this will happen, but also what will happen.
  I appreciate greatly the remarks of the ranking member, Mr. Bachus, 
and of course the support of the chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-450 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 16 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 15 by Mr. McHenry of North Carolina.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


            Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 249, not voting 16, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1114]

                               AYES--172

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--249

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman

[[Page 31760]]


     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Akin
     Blunt
     Bono
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Doyle
     Everett
     Fortuno
     Jindal
     Kucinich
     Mack
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Velazquez
     Weller

                              {time}  1724

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York and Messrs. CLEAVER, MORAN of Virginia and 
TURNER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BAKER and BROWN of South Carolina changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


         Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Garrett) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 229, not voting 20, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1115]

                               AYES--188

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--229

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Akin
     Allen
     Bono
     Carson
     Cubin
     Doyle
     Everett
     Fortuno
     Gilchrest
     Jindal
     Kucinich
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Moore (WI)
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Weller


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 
minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1729

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. McHenry

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. McHenry) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 245, not voting 24, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1116]

                               AYES--168

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)

[[Page 31761]]


     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--245

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Akin
     Bono
     Capuano
     Carson
     Cubin
     Deal (GA)
     Doyle
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fortuno
     Heller
     Holt
     Jindal
     Jones (OH)
     Kucinich
     Mack
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Radanovich
     Spratt
     Sullivan
     Weiner
     Weller


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 
minute remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1733

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 1114, 1115 and 1116, had I 
been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all 3 votes.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ross) having assumed the chair, Mr. Holden, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
the Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3915) to 
amend the Truth in Lending Act to reform consumer mortgage practices 
and provide accountability for such practices, to establish licensing 
and registration requirements for residential mortgage originators, to 
provide certain minimum standards for consumer mortgage loans, and for 
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 825, reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted by 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 to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


              Motion to Recommit Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Blackburn moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3915 to the 
     Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 71, line 5, strike the closing quotation marks and the 
     second period.
       Page 71, after line 5, insert the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Approved Identification to Obtain a Residential 
     Mortgage Loan.--
       ``(1) Verification required.--A creditor may not extend any 
     credit in connection with a residential mortgage loan unless 
     the creditor verifies the identity of an individual seeking 
     to obtain any such loan.
       ``(2) Form of identity.--A creditor may not accept, for the 
     purpose of verifying the identity of an individual seeking to 
     obtain a residential mortgage loan, any form of 
     identification of the individual other than the following:
       ``(A) Social security card with photo identification 
     card.--A social security card accompanied by a photo 
     identification card issued by the Federal Government or a 
     State Government.
       ``(B) REAL id act identification.-- A driver's license or 
     identification card issued by a State in the case of a State 
     that is in compliance with title II of the REAL ID Act of 
     2005 (title II of division B of Public Law 109-13; 49 U.S.C. 
     30301 note) other than an identification card issued under 
     section 202(d)(11) of such Act.
       ``(C) Passport.--A passport issued by the United States or 
     a foreign government.
       ``(D) USCIS photo identification card.--A photo 
     identification card issued by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security (acting through the Director of the United States 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot today about H.R. 3915 
and how it is a dramatic departure from current law that I believe will 
have an unintended negative impact on banks and creditworthy home 
buyers.

[[Page 31762]]

  I think it's the opinion of many in this Chamber, certainly it's my 
opinion, that in an attempt to improve conditions in the housing 
market, this bill instead will likely prevent more hardworking 
Americans from obtaining a mortgage in a market that is already feeling 
the pinch. They need more help; they do not need roadblocks.
  The legislation before the House today may do more harm than good. 
Yet reasonable people, which we are in this Chamber, can choose to 
disagree on issues, and this is one of those where we are in 
disagreement. I respect my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
their varying positions on this legislation, but there is disagreement.
  I believe most of my colleagues cannot disagree with the following 
proposition, and it is this: American creditors should not be able to 
extend any credit in connection with a residential mortgage loan unless 
they verify the identity and legal immigration status of a potential 
debtor and verify the status with only a secure ID.
  Mr. Speaker, this recommittal makes good, solid common sense. The 
American people do not believe that illegal immigrants and other 
individuals without proper identification are entitled to the same 
benefits, privileges and services as U.S. citizens and legal aliens. To 
extend such benefits only reinforces their notion that the laws of this 
land exist only on paper.
  This motion to recommit will help preserve the faith the American 
people have left with this government and show that we are serious 
about denying services to those who are not entitled.
  It is quite simple. The motion, number one, requires creditors to 
verify the identity of an individual seeking to obtain a loan for a 
residential mortgage; and, number two, prevents a creditor from 
accepting, for the purpose of verification, any form of identification 
other than a Social Security card with photo ID, a REAL ID 
identification card, a passport, or a USCIS-issued photo ID card.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken out loud and clear on 
this issue. They do not believe that illegal immigrants, international 
criminals, and those who may wish this Nation harm should have access 
to American financial markets. That is why I had previously introduced 
H.R. 1314, the Photo ID Security Act. The legislation responded to 
plans and actions by firms in the financial services sector to 
affirmatively target this population by accepting insecure 
identification. My office was flooded with phone calls, e-mails, 
letters from across the country; many included credit cards that people 
had cut up in protest to their bank's decisions.
  The motion to recommit adopts much of the language that was found and 
cosponsored in a bipartisan basis in H.R. 1314 and will provide 
American citizens the reassurance they need that the American financial 
services sector is, indeed, secure. It doesn't solve all the problems 
of the underlying legislation, but it is certainly a start.
  Let's take one step forward for the security of the financial 
services market, Mr. Speaker, and let's all support this motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We have, from time to time, debated the 
issue as to whether or not we could make sure that no one who is not a 
legal resident or a citizen could qualify, but that's not what we're 
debating today. Let me read from page 2.
  There are four kinds of identification that you must show. By the 
way, the mortgage industry and the real estate industry will not like 
the further paperwork here, but listen to this, lines 14 and 15, ``You 
must show a passport issued by the United States or a foreign 
government.'' Now, what makes anyone think that people who are in the 
United States with a foreign passport are here legally? They have 
foreign passports from other countries.
  I think the problem is some on the other side have taken the word 
``alien'' too literally, that is, they think an alien is someone who's 
not from the Earth. Because someone who is in America illegally who is 
from the Earth might have an Iranian passport or a Venezuelan passport 
or a Burmese passport.
  So understand, what I think is happening is this. I've been seeing 
these a lot. I do a lot of recommits; it's a heck of a way to spend 
your life, but that's my job. This foreign government passport is new. 
I think what happened was this. I think the real estate industry, this 
is literally my speculation, the real estate industry said to the 
Republicans, Hey, wait a minute, we make a lot of money selling houses 
to foreigners. Don't cut out the foreigners.

                              {time}  1745

  But you forgot to say legal foreigners. This is what this bill says. 
So you may have some Americans who don't have all this ID, who don't 
have a passport, who don't live in a REAL ID State. They may not have 
this. They may have a driver's license that they can use and it's not a 
REAL ID State.
  An American in a REAL ID State who doesn't have a passport can't make 
it. But an Iranian with an Iranian passport, Welcome to my home. Here's 
your mortgage.
  Now, I understand the impulse to prevent illegal aliens from getting 
predatory mortgages. That's a very kind thing that the Republicans want 
to do for them. But they don't do it competently. Read the bill. It 
says if you have a foreign passport, you qualify. You vote for this and 
you will be favoring people from other countries who are here illegally 
over Americans who don't have a passport and don't live in a REAL ID 
State. Now, that's irrefutable.
  In your desire to further the profitability of the real estate 
industry, and a lot of them are my friends and I have nothing against 
their profitability, but why would we want to vote for a recommit that 
elevates a foreigner who has no legal right to be in the United States 
and say they can qualify under this recommit, but an American who 
doesn't have a passport and doesn't live in a REAL ID State, has a 
driver's license and therefore didn't think they needed something, they 
wouldn't qualify. So we say to Americans, if you happen to be American, 
you had better get a passport and, now, it could be a Venezuelan 
passport, could be a Canadian passport, we don't care where it's from, 
just get a passport. I am baffled by this and I just think somebody 
didn't think this one through.
  The point is that this recommit says nothing about restricting the 
mortgage process to people who are here only legally, because if you 
really think that people who are here illegally don't have a foreign 
passport, then you don't understand the situation.
  So I say let's reject this effort to elevate foreign passports from 
people who may be here illegally over Americans who happen to not live 
in a REAL ID State and reject this recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 231, not voting 13, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1117]

                               AYES--188

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany

[[Page 31763]]


     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ryan (WI)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--231

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bono
     Carson
     Cubin
     Doyle
     Everett
     Jindal
     Kucinich
     Mack
     Marshall
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Royce
     Weller


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1804

  Mr. ALTMIRE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above stated.
  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. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 291, 
nays 127, not voting 14, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1118]

                               YEAS--291

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--127

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Boustany

[[Page 31764]]


     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bono
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Carson
     Cubin
     Doyle
     Everett
     Jindal
     Kucinich
     Mack
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Salazar
     Weller


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised less 
than 2 minutes are remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1812

  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 against:
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1118, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________