[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3532-3539]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 830, FHA REFINANCE PROGRAM 
                            TERMINATION ACT

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 150 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 150

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 830) to rescind the unobligated funding for 
     the FHA Refinance Program and to terminate the program. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Financial Services now printed in the bill. Each section of 
     the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. 
     No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those received for 
     printing in the portion of the Congressional Record 
     designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII in a 
     daily issue dated March 9, 2011, or earlier and except pro 
     forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so 
     received may be offered only by the Member who caused it to 
     be printed or a designee and shall be considered as read if 
     printed. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a 
modified open rule for the consideration of H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance 
Program Termination Act. It provides for 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Financial Services, and for consideration of 
any amendments proposed by Members that conform to House rules and 
which were preprinted in the Congressional Record no later than March 
9, today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to stand before the House today in 
support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 830, the FHA 
Refinance Program Termination Act.
  I appreciate the hard work of the distinguished chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee, Mr. Bachus, as well as the hard work of 
the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman from Illinois

[[Page 3533]]

(Mr. Dold), in creating this piece of legislation which will help this 
Congress continue to take concrete steps to rein in the out-of-control 
Federal mandatory spending.
  The FHA Refinance Program was originally promoted by the current 
administration as a way to bail out the so-called underwater borrowers 
who for whatever reason found themselves in over their heads in 
personal and mortgage debt and unable to pay their mortgages.
  The 110th Congress passed TARP, which was enabling legislation for 
this new program, thereby effectively allowing lenders to transfer 
high-risk mortgages, through the FHA, onto the backs of taxpayers in 
the case of likely default. The $8 billion in TARP funds was originally 
identified for this new expansive program.
  While no one likes to see homeowners in distress and at risk of 
losing their homes, the fact of the matter is that this new program, no 
matter how well intentioned, is expensive and has also proven to be a 
woefully ineffective program at its best.

                              {time}  1320

  Originally it was asserted by the administration that this program 
would allow up to 1\1/2\ million homeowners or, as some reports in the 
papers said, 3 million to 4 million distressed homeowners to obtain 
more favorable mortgage terms, all guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers in case 
of ultimate default.
  However, Mr. Speaker, there are several problems with this new 
mortgage bailout program.
  First, in some and perhaps in many cases, this program would 
subsidize irresponsible lenders and borrowers and insulate them from 
the consequences of bad choices and, in some cases, intentionally 
speculative financial choices that were made during the housing boom, 
thus shifting the economic impact of those bad choices and decisions 
onto the backs of responsible homeowners and the taxpayers. This is 
troubling, for this should not be the role of the Federal Government--
to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
  While homeownership in this country is certainly to be encouraged, 
this program is exactly the wrong way to go about it. The program 
basically tells a lender, Don't worry, it's okay. So what if you 
knowingly encouraged or lent more than you knew the borrower could 
afford? We'll bail you out of your predicament so you don't have to 
feel any of the economic consequences of your actions. The program 
tells borrowers, So what if you took out the maximum loan and got the 
most expensive house that you could buy even though you knew it was 
highly unlikely that you would be able to afford those payments in the 
future. We will bail you out too and insulate you from the consequences 
of actions as well, and we'll shift all the costs and send the bill, 
via the FHA, onto the backs of the already overburdened taxpayers.
  That's apparently where the buck stops in this program. It stops on 
the back of already burdened taxpayers and the Nation that itself is 
$14 trillion underwater in a crushing and unprecedented debt.
  Second, it appears that in spite of the urgent housing crisis, this 
so-called emergency program to bail out underwater mortgages hasn't 
actually helped anyone. According to the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development statistics, as of February 3, only 44 refinancing 
applications have been processed by the agency. That's 44 homeowners 
out of the potentially 3 million to 4 million as originally asserted by 
the program's sponsors. Mr. Lamar Wooley, a spokesman for HUD, was 
quoted in a National Journal Daily article last week as saying ``the 
department has not yet spent any of the money for the FHA program.''
  Even the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief 
Program testified before the Financial Services Committee last week 
that it was ``somewhat shameful'' how the administration has mishandled 
this program. Those are his words, not mine. And, finally, FHA 
Administrator Stevens also testified before that committee last week 
that ``these new loans may perform worse than refinanced loans that 
were not previously underwater.'' In other words, Mr. Stevens' 
statement indicates that many new loans made under this program for 
underwater loans are far less likely to be repaid, which will weaken 
the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, hurting other taxpayers and 
other potential homeowners and exposing them to an even higher risk.
  As a result, this program privatizes profit, socializes losses, and 
at its foundation, this program appears to be built on a misguided 
economic principle of income redistribution, leaving other taxpayers 
and future generations to hold the bag with interest.
  In testimony before the Rules Committee yesterday, it was mentioned 
that the private sector, the private mortgage industry, has on its own 
and without any interference by the Federal Government worked with 
troubled borrowers to refinance over 3 million loans in order to keep 
these homes from foreclosure.
  So there clearly appears to be a far more effective private sector 
solution to this crisis than to inject a layer of Federal Government 
regulation and spending through this expensive program.
  We must have the courage to admit when a program is ineffective or 
too expensive or based on wrong-headed principles of subsidizing 
personal greed and irresponsibility. With our Nation itself underwater 
with monstrous debt, passage of this bill to terminate this expensive 
and ineffective program is a step in the right direction.
  It's a good and fair rule. It opens it up for anyone to have access 
to this bill, and a good underlying bill, and I urge their adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for the time, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, now more than ever it's critical that we focus our 
efforts on creating jobs, continuing to stabilize our economy and the 
housing market, and I am happy to say there's some good news on that 
front.
  Just last month, Mr. Speaker, it was reported that we added 192,000 
jobs and that unemployment dipped below 9 percent for the first time in 
almost 2 years. We're talking about private sector jobs. This was due 
in part to the recovery efforts that were passed in the 111th Congress 
and signed by the President.
  Now, however, instead of building on the successes of the previous 
Congress and introducing legislation to continue this economic growth, 
my colleagues are seeking to pull the plug and return us to policies 
that got us into this economic mess. Instead of talking about on the 
floor of the House creating jobs, the Republican leadership is focused 
on repealing the Patient Bill of Rights; passing H.R. 1, a spending 
bill that Chairman Bernanke stated will kill 200,000 jobs over the next 
2 years; and now removing critical support for homeowners who are 
struggling to pay their mortgages in this tough economic time.
  H.R. 830 is more of the same. At a time when housing markets are 
beginning to show signs of life, signs of recovery, my Republican 
colleagues want to eliminate programs that keep families in their homes 
and protect communities from the crippling consequences of 
foreclosures.
  Democrats want to empower homeowners to get their debts under 
control, not undermine our economic recovery for political gain. It's 
critical to preserve the American Dream by keeping families in their 
homes and out of shelters and unemployment lines, and preserving the 
integrity of neighborhoods that suffer when homes are foreclosed upon.
  Repealing the FHA refinance program would empower collection agencies 
and municipal eviction squads rather than empower hardworking American 
families who are suffering in this difficult economic climate or are 
victims of lenders that created financial products through the housing 
crisis that led to reckless lending.
  The bill we have before us today would be harmful to middle class 
families who are struggling to stay in their

[[Page 3534]]

homes. Middle class Americans hurt by this bill are exactly the people 
we should be protecting in this Congress as we start to build a 
stronger and more stable economic future for our country. Instead, we 
saw that this House has raised their taxes with the passage of H.R. 4, 
and now the Republicans are threatening to remove working families from 
their homes.
  Mr. Speaker, we do all agree that this Nation needs to get its fiscal 
house in order and resolve the housing crisis. But this bill, an 
outright repeal of the FHA program, is not the right approach. A strong 
rebound in the housing market is critical to our economic recovery, 
creating jobs and ensuring that our banks remain stable.
  A good indication of the housing market is the amount of 
delinquencies or the number of mortgages that are at least 30 days late 
on their payment. According to Jay Brinkmann, the chief economist for 
the Mortgage Bankers Association, the latest delinquency numbers 
represent significant across-the-board decreases in mortgage 
delinquency rates in the U.S. More importantly, loans that are past due 
by 90 days or more fell 28 percent.
  It's clear that through programs like the FHA short refinance option, 
which the Republicans are trying to eliminate, we have begun to 
stabilize the housing market while helping Americans pay their 
mortgages and stay in their homes. These numbers coincide with signs of 
a recovery in the job market, and now is not the time to abandon the 
program.
  The FHA refinance program allows people who have mortgages that are 
worth more than their homes to refinance to a more affordable FHA-
insured mortgage. This program allows lenders to write down at least 10 
percent of the outstanding principal to help bring monthly payments 
down to affordable levels. According to CoreLogic, in December of last 
year, about 22\1/2\ percent of all residential properties with 
mortgages were underwater. We are no stranger to that in Colorado. Many 
homes in Adams County and Boulder County are underwater. These 
distressed mortgages pose a threat to our economy and the integrity of 
the banking system. We can't risk another housing crisis and banking 
crisis by removing programs that help keep families in their homes and 
keep the homes out of foreclosure.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle will argue that this 
program has fallen short of its original goals. I agree that this 
program is not perfect. Instead of scrapping it entirely, we should 
work to strengthen it, build on success, and figure out how best to 
resolve the housing crisis this Nation faces. We need to mend it, not 
end it.

                              {time}  1330

  Until just recently, many homeowners weren't even able to partake in 
this program. Borrowers had difficulty finding banks that had the 
capacity to refinance under the stringent guidelines of this program. 
But recently, we've had some good news. Two major banks who underwrite 
many loans in Colorado, Wells Fargo and Allied Financial, announced 
pilot projects that would allow underwater borrowers to refinance under 
this FHA program. By adding these two giants to the mix, the FHA 
Refinance Program will begin to grow and prosper while it continues to 
add more banks and increase accessibility. Terminating this project now 
would result in many families losing their homes and would be a tragic 
mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, banks support this program; homeowners support this 
program. It's critical that we all allow this program the chance to 
succeed, rather than make arbitrary budget cuts rather than help 
struggling families.
  This program does not bail out individuals who made mistakes, who 
made poor decisions, who bought houses they couldn't afford or are 
looking for a way out of foreclosure. It's not a program to protect 
vacation homes or mega-mansions. It's not a free line of credit for 
anybody. This program is a helping hand to the many hardworking 
Americans who are in a difficult spot, individuals with good credit 
scores who can help themselves and the banks who hold their mortgages 
by participating in this program.
  In my home State of Colorado, almost 20 percent of all homes were in 
negative equity. This means about 220,000 families in Colorado are 
stuck with mortgages that are worth more than their homes. According to 
The New York Times, ending this program would squander an important 
chance to prevent foreclosures. In addition, Mark Fleming, the chief 
economist at CoreLogic, stated, ``Negative equity is a primary factor 
holding back the housing market and broader economy.'' With so many 
families underwater, it would be irresponsible of us to eliminate this 
program and unnecessarily put more Americans at risk of foreclosure.
  Mr. Speaker, to date, not a single mortgage that has been refinanced 
through this program has gone into default. The majority of costs 
associated with this program occur if these FHA-insured mortgages go 
into default.
  Now, there's no way my friends on the other side of the aisle can 
call this a waste of taxpayer money because it has yet to spend $1 of 
the funds it was allocated. In fact, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
and Consumer Protection Act that Congress passed and the President 
signed last year requires all unused funds from the program to be 
returned to the Treasury.
  By strengthening this program, improving this program, we can 
continue to keep Americans in their homes at a minimal cost to 
taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, we must improve this program so we can keep 
families from defaulting, strengthen the economy, save taxpayer 
dollars, and stabilize the real estate market.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time 
as he may consume to the sponsor of this bill who has found a program 
that flat-out doesn't work, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).
  Mr. DOLD. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding, and I 
certainly want to take this opportunity to outline what this program 
has been.
  It is undeniable that this program has been what anybody that looks 
at it can say is a failure. It doesn't work for the homeowners; it 
doesn't work for hardworking American families that are paying taxes; 
and it doesn't work for future generations, children and grandchildren 
that will certainly be burdened with an enormous debt that the 
government continues to heap on them.
  If I can, I will just go back. As a small business owner, I employ 
just under 100 people--for me, that's 100 families. And I do stay awake 
at night trying to make sure that these families have the opportunity 
to put food on the table and provide an education for their children. 
But one of the things I have learned in business is the fact that you 
have to recognize when something is not working. This is an instance of 
something not working in our government.
  Let's go back down to just the raw basics. Let's look at the facts of 
this program. While well-intentioned, the program facts are simply 
these: We have obligated $8.12 billion out of TARP funds. We have 
disbursed $50 million. Fifty million dollars has been disbursed, and 
yet in the downturn we have seen that what should have been--what, $1.5 
million is what the administration is saying, the number of homeowners 
that are coming into this program? We've seen 245 applicants in the 
last 6 months, 245 applicants. Out of the $50 million disbursed, we 
have received 44 loan modifications. Just doing the quick, back-of-the-
envelope math, $1.1 million per refinanced loan. The average loan is 
$300,000.
  Now, I have to tell you, for the American public, for future 
generations, that is not a good use of the American taxpayer dollar. We 
can and must do better. There is no question that there are good and 
laudable programs out there that we need to be financing. This is not 
one of them.
  Let me just say again that this doesn't work for the homeowners 
themselves. Why are there so few in a downturn? I would argue because 
many of the homeowners recognize that this is not a program that they 
want to be

[[Page 3535]]

involved with. You can't be engaged in this program if you, first of 
all, have any equity in your home. You can't be engaged in this program 
if you're delinquent on any one of your mortgage payments. There are a 
whole litany of things that prevent you from getting into this program. 
But if you do get into this program, your credit will be decimated for 
years to come. The average credit score, according to the experts, is 
711. Well, it won't be 711 for long as soon as they take this and get 
access to this program.
  The question is: Will it reduce your monthly payments? Well, after 
going through this, the homeowners actually have to pay the closing 
costs, then they have to actually purchase private homeowners' 
insurance, the mortgage insurance. The chance of them actually reducing 
their payments is actually not that great. So they're going to go 
through the hoops and the pains to not reduce their monthly payment. 
Again, this is not a win for the homeowners.
  It's also not a win for the taxpaying American families; $8.12 
billion obligated. We have to go in and look at this. When you tuck 
your children in bed this evening, ask yourself: Is this in the best 
interests of the future generations? Is this the best use of our 
taxpayer funds?
  We have to be truthful with the American taxpayer. We have to be 
truthful with the American people. That's what you sent us here to 
Washington to do is to look you in the eye and be truthful with you. 
This is a program that doesn't work. That doesn't mean that we don't 
want to help out homeowners. We do not want to be wasteful with your 
tax dollars. We have to go back to the drawing board because right now 
this absolutely is a program that, by all accounts, has failed.
  So when you look at your children and grandchildren, know that we can 
and must do better. I think that we have an obligation to ask 
ourselves, when we look at the American family: Is this the best use of 
our resources? Is this the best that we can do? I don't believe that it 
is.
  As a small business owner, we make mistakes. We're going to make 
mistakes here in this Congress. How will we be judged? I hope we're 
judged on the fact that we can admit when we've made mistakes and try 
to then go back to the drawing board.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a strong look 
at this, to know when something is not working. We have refinanced 
literally millions of mortgages in other vehicles. Out of the 6 months 
that this has been alive, 44 mortgages at the tune of about $1.1 
million for the disbursed funds into this FHA Refinance Program.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 830 and support 
this rule.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say that if we went to a mall this 
afternoon in our country, or a diner, or some other place where people 
gather--maybe people waiting outside of school to pick up their kids--
and said, ``What would you like to see Congress work on this week?'' I 
think most of them would say, ``Why don't you work together to create 
an environment where small businesses and entrepreneurs can create 
jobs, because there are 15 million unemployed Americans and we need to 
put people back to work.'' Others of them might say, ``I'm concerned 
about educating my children. I have college-age children, and I'm 
looking at the cost of paying for college education, and I'm extremely 
concerned I'm not going to be able to educate my kids.'' Others might 
say, ``I'm worried about my parents. My mom or my dad live with me and 
their prescription costs are going through the roof and it's a major 
problem for them. I'm worried about health care for my parents.''

                              {time}  1340

  I'm sure there are some--there are many--who would say that they're 
worried about wasteful government spending, that they do want to see 
this government not waste their hard-earned money. And I guess there 
are some who would say there's this mortgage program that's been 
running for a couple of months, and I really think you should do 
something about that and get rid of it. There are some, and there will 
be debate about the merits of doing that.
  But if we look at the record of this majority, 10 weeks of hearing 
those concerns and they are 0 for 10. Ten weeks, not one bill about 
jobs. Not one idea about jobs, not one effort to create an environment 
that small businesses and entrepreneurs would thrive in, and this is 
week number 10 and not a word.
  Earlier, in the last debate, the gentleman from Texas said that the 
Republican job plan was to repeal the health care bill. That was their 
jobs plan. Well, that ignores the reality that since the health care 
plan was enacted, about 1.4 million jobs have been added to the 
economy, almost a quarter of a million of them in health care itself. 
So that's their jobs plan.
  Their education plan is to go to a woman who's working part-time, 
raising children and trying to go to school, and reduce her college 
scholarship by $845, so that she probably has to either stretch the 
years in which she's in school or throw in the towel on her education 
altogether.
  Their education plan is to take 10,000 reading teachers out of 
America's classrooms and 7,000 special education teachers out of 
America's classrooms. That doesn't sound like a very educated education 
plan to me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman.
  And, frankly, as far as the price of health care is concerned, if 
they succeed in repealing the health care bill, the price of 
prescription drugs will go up for people's moms and dads, not down. 
Jobs. Ten weeks. No plan. The cost of education. Ten weeks. A bad plan 
that raises the price of education. The prescription drug problem for 
seniors. Ten weeks. A bad plan that raises the price of prescriptions 
for seniors.
  A lot of Americans would probably say they don't like the idea of 
paying $4 or $5 a gallon for gasoline at the gas pump. No plan from the 
majority. So we'll have a debate on the merits of this bill; but with 
all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong bill at the wrong time. 
The American people want us to work together to create jobs, make 
education affordable, and make health care affordable, particularly for 
senior citizens in this country.
  The majority is 0 for 10. Let's make this week the one that we break 
their losing streak and work for the people of our country.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in support of the 
FHA refinancing bill that is one of four bills that will be on the 
floor coming out of the Financial Services Committee on which I serve 
that is terminating programs that will literally help people stay in 
their homes and help in the economic recovery.
  My Republican colleagues are proposing to terminate these programs, 
but they are not putting forward any alternative to help these people 
stay in their homes. There are nearly 11 million homes that are 
underwater now, meaning that the value of the home is less than the 
loan the homeowner has taken out to pay for it. Seven million homes 
have been foreclosed on so far, and another 3 million are expected to 
be foreclosed on through 2012.
  This vote will be on continuing the refinancing of FHA loans that 
will keep people in these homes, keep these homes filled so that 
they're not eyesores or pulling down the economy in certain areas.
  Last week, Citibank, Wells and GMAC voluntarily came forward and said 
they intend to participate in this program. It's a voluntary program. 
These are three of the largest mortgage

[[Page 3536]]

companies in the country, and their participation will certainly 
broaden the reach to help more people.
  The program allows borrowers to write down at least 10 percent to 
reduce the debt burden. Then standard FHA loan terms will apply. As 
with all FHA-insured loans, the property must be the homeowner's 
primary residence, and the borrower must meet the FHA's full 
documentation. And they must be current on their mortgage.
  With declining home values, borrowers are caught in mortgages that 
they can no longer afford because their rates have reset or because 
their interest-only payments have not allowed them to grow any equity 
in their homes. They are making their payments--but barely. This is an 
important program.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. MALONEY. States across the country have this challenge. As I 
said, almost 11 million mortgages are underwater, or 22 percent of all 
outstanding mortgages. By passing this bill, we are saying that we have 
no solutions for these homeowners. It is not good for the homeowner, 
not good for the economy, and certainly not good for our country.
  President Obama has issued a statement that he will oppose the 
termination of this program and indicated that he will veto it when it 
gets to his desk. But I urge my colleagues to join me in vetoing this 
rule and vetoing the underlying bill in order to help our economy and 
to help homeowners stay in their homes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate listening to the gentlewoman's 
discussion of the bill actually at hand, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate I will ask my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can offer 
an amendment to bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention 
Act.
  I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question and 
against the rule. Not only is the majority passing up another 
opportunity to finally put forward a bill to create jobs; they are 
using the underlying bills to make it even tougher on American 
families, in particular, tougher on middle class homeowners. Further, 
it is clear, as the gentleman from New Jersey suggested, that 
Republicans have no plan for rapidly soaring gas prices, another threat 
to middle class families and to our economy.
  The Department of Energy forecasts gas prices could spike to a 
national average of more than $4 a gallon for regular this summer--
about 50 cents higher per gallon than Tuesday's national average of 
$3.50. In my district of eastern Long Island, regular unleaded has 
already surged by 34 cents in the last month alone and now averages 
$3.74 a gallon. In the east end of my district, it's already well over 
$4 a gallon. And AAA projects gas prices could reach 50 cents higher 
per gallon by Memorial Day.
  The Republican response: silence. Instead, we will vote today to kill 
a mortgage assistance program for the struggling homeowners and the 
recently unemployed. That is why my colleagues, Congressmen McNerney, 
Walz and McIntyre, and I have joined in introducing the Federal Price 
Gouging Act to take on this new threat to our economy. Our legislation 
gives the FTC the authority to investigate, enforce, and then to punish 
price gouging and market manipulation.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in standing up to the oil companies 
and show hardworking Americans that we are in their corner. Vote 
against the previous question which, if defeated, would allow the House 
to consider this important price gouging measure. Now is the time that 
we must act to prove that their interests are paramount, not the oil 
companies' or the bankers'.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, while it has been over 2 months, we have yet to pass a 
single piece of legislation that promotes job growth in this country. 
My friends across the aisle repeatedly speak of their mandate to create 
jobs; and yet instead of listening, the Republicans have focused on 
bills that will hurt the middle class, disempower the middle class, 
and, in this case, force more Americans into losing their home.
  The Republicans have been talking about repeal and replace. Yet so 
far all we've seen is repeal, no replace. It's not as if there aren't 
many viable alternatives when we discuss health care reform. There was 
discussion, well, what do we do with people that have preexisting 
conditions? There was an enormous leap of faith with regard to repeal. 
Oh, we'll get to it someday. Oh, we'll get to it someday.
  We're hearing the same thing here. It's not as if these viable 
alternatives, the replace part, are a mystery. In fact, in the 111th 
Congress I introduced H.R. 4877, which would have provided a capital 
gains tax waiver for private investment in community banks, giving 
local banks sorely needed capital to lend to homeowners who needed to 
be rescued, to shore up their balance sheets, to encourage primary 
offerings of equity in the private sector.

                              {time}  1350

  My bill would allow Americans to invest directly and profit directly 
from the economic recovery. I plan shortly to reintroduce this 
bipartisan bill, and I hope to see an outpouring of support from those 
who have called for repeal so that there is a replace component to what 
we actually do need to do as a country to mitigate the housing crisis 
and stabilize real estate. Republicans and Democrats alike should be 
interested in free market alternatives that don't just reduce taxes to 
revitalize the housing market, but can eliminate them.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of scrapping this program, we need to have a 
solid response to the housing crisis in this country. We welcome 
suggestions from Republicans, independents, all Americans to improve 
this program to make it accessible to more families. No program is 
perfect when it's created. And the FHA refinance program has shown that 
it can successfully keep families in their homes when given the chance. 
Our recovery is just beginning and it's fragile. We need to provide 
stability and predictability with regard to the Federal policies in 
this area.
  This is just another example of a broken promise, a repeal without a 
replace. And it is leaving what is fundamentally a critical public 
policy issue, on which Democrats and Republicans agree, namely, the 
stabilization of the housing market, without any answer. And even a 
partially correct answer, Mr. Speaker, is better than no answer. So I 
hope that the work proceeds to replace; but in the meantime, repealing 
without knowing what comes next is an enormous leap of faith that could 
cost too many middle class families their home, which is why I urge a 
``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House 
adopts this rule it will bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging 
Prevention Act. This bill, introduced today by my colleague, Mr. Bishop 
of New York, who we just heard from, would crack down on gas price 
gouging during international crises affecting oil markets, preventing 
sellers from taking unfair advantages of circumstances with prices that 
are unconscionably high.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with the extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question so we can take up a bill that will help, 
rather than hurt, struggling families. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
rule.

[[Page 3537]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I close with some trepidation, as I 
heard the debate today about continuing resolutions, health programs, 
teachers, gas prices, and capital gains. But let me risk something and 
actually talk about the bill at hand.
  First of all, it's an impeccably good rule, which allows an open 
amendment process for anyone who wants to think through an amendment 
and prefile it. Not a gotcha amendment, but a real amendment to this 
bill. It's a good way of handling the situation on the floor. I am very 
proud of the Rules Committee for presenting this type of a rule.
  Secondly, you have heard from the sponsor of this piece of 
legislation the details that are required of this particular program, 
which discourages those from actually using it. So that the CBO would 
say that if we continue this program, which is not actually attracting 
any takers, it would cost the Federal Government at least $175 million 
in failed mortgages, defaulted mortgages.
  In addition, this is one of the programs that we are talking about 
mandatory spending, not discretionary, but actually doing something 
about mandatory spending. And in the terms of the Inspector General, 
this program has failed. We can do better. And as a government we ought 
to do better than this poorly planned, poorly executed, underutilized, 
and very, very expensive failed program.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 150 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     964) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and 
     other fuels, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority 
     Leader or their respective designees. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the 
     bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 150, if 
ordered; and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 186, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               YEAS--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes

[[Page 3538]]


     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--186

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Costa
     Ellison
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Graves (MO)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Hurt
     Reichert
     Royce

                              {time}  1419

  Messrs. FRANK of Massachusetts, PASCRELL, ACKERMAN, and Ms. BASS of 
California changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on March 9, 2011, I inadvertently missed 
rollcall No. 165. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 180, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 166]

                               AYES--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--180

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

[[Page 3539]]



                             NOT VOTING--12

     Akin
     Cole
     Giffords
     Graves (MO)
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Hurt
     Lankford
     Luetkemeyer
     Marino
     Reichert

                              {time}  1426

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 166, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________