others and not himself. and i think when the good lord sees coach wooden he's going to ask him how in the world he pulled off those 88 straight wins. and i know one of the things i'd like to do with my life is leave it a little bit better than i found it. i certainly know john wooden left it much better than he found it. i too say job well-done. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlen reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new hampshire is recognized. . >> i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: i'm pleased to recognize the life of jon wooden who passed away in los angeles last friday. i want to begin by expressing my condolences on his passing to his family and the countless people whose lives he touched.

jon wooden coached at ucla when i was there earning my undergraduate and law school degrees. i was in my last year of law school when the bruins had their first perfect season under coach wooden, a season that cullmy nate in a championship win over duke. everybody on campus was thrilled. no one could have possibly imagined that this was only the beginning of a historic run that will probably never be matched. jon wooden would go on to coach the bruins to an unprecedented 10 ncaa championships, including an incredible seven in a row and a record four perfect seasons, which includes an 88-game win streak from 1971 to 1974. the full list of records broken and accolades earned is far too long to cover here. his accomplishments made his name synonymous with success and it is unlikely that anyone

will ever be table match the accomplishments that he has achieved. incredibly, his coaching success was never the most remarkable thing about it. what was most remarkable was how he inspired people and motivated them to excel on the court and off. as soon as the game started, it was clear that he wasn't your typical coach. absent were the outbursts and cursing so typical from other coaches. instead, coach wooden led with the calmness and poise of soone who knew he had prepared his players for anything they could face. basketball was just a means for coach wooden to influence his players by instilling life lessons and the value of chacter. he relished the practice and the preparation far more than the games that brought him glory because they provided him

the opportunity to teach hundreds of ucla players attribute so much of the success in their lives to the years they spent with jon wooden and he was most proud about that. while coach wooden could never be replaced, he will be remembered and celebrated for all time because of his love of the game, his love for his players, and his love for his family. jon wooden often said, you can't live a perfect day until you do something for someone who will never be able to repay you. madam speaker, coach wooden lived a lot of perfect days. i yield back the balance of my time. the speer pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. buier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is -- mr. buyer.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. buyer: i also would like to rise to pay tribute to a fellow hoozer. he was raised on a family farm that had neither running water or electricity. money was in short supply. he played basketball with his brothers in a barn using a tomato basket and a makeshift ball made with old rags he would credit his success to the hard work and discipline he learned growing up on the family farm. his family moved to martinsville, indiana, where he led the local basketball team ta championship for three consecutive years, winning the -- he led them for three years then actually won the championship in 1927. for his efforts, he was selected three-time allstate. after graduating high school in 1928, jon wooden attended purdue university where he helped the boilermakers as team captain inhe 1932 national

championship. he was named all big ten, all mid western conference. while at purdue, he also was the first player ever to be named three-time consensus all american guard. his nickname was the indiana rubber man, for his hard play on theasketball court. when jon wooden graduated from purdue in 1932, he began not only then as a professional basketball player but he started teaching and coach big accepting a job as athletic director and english teacher at dayton high school in dayton, kentucky. the first year at dayton was his only losing season as a high school coach. in 1934, wooden and his wife nellie moved to south bend, indiana where he accepted another coaching and teaching position as south bend high school. overall in 11 years of coaching high school, his record was an incredible 218 wins and 42 losses.

in 1942 the united states entered world war ii and like many other -- others of his geral railings, coach wooden answered the call to serve the country, serving as a lieutenant in the navy as a physical education instructor. after completing military service, he found work at what is now known as indiana state university he coached basketball at the school and resumed his string of winning seasons. in 1948, coach wooden then moved to ucla, which offered him the head coaching position and the rest is history arks desgribed mr. waxman. coach wooden will be remembered as an exceptional basketball player, an inspiring coach and mentor to many, many people. according to bill walton, ucla's three-time all american center, quote, he taught us how to focus on one primary objective, be the best in whatever endeavor you undertake, don't worry about the score, don't worry about the image, don't worry about

the opponent. it sounds easy but it's actually very difficult. will the gentleman yield me an additional minute? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana has an adecisional minute. mr. buyer: it sounds easy but it's very difficult. coach wooden showed us how to accomplish that,nd quote. today the highest award in basketball is the wooden award, which honors the best player in men and women's basketball. coach wooden coached, taught, and lived with honor. he was a special human being and this is a hoodser many of us are proud of. i know california also loves to claim him. i think all of america can claim him. he's a distinguished gentleman. with that, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlewoman from new hampshire is recognized. ms. shea-porter: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized.

mr. roe: i would like to yield three minutes to mr. dreier of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. i have to say with the exception of the two floor managers here, we have a hoosier, mr. buyer, and of course two ucla graduate, mr. waxman who has already spoken, and mr. lewis who is going to follow, as we take this time to very appropriately remember an amazing life, someone who, as was pointed out when mr. buyer mentioned his birth date, october would have marked his 100th birthday. coach wooden lived virtually an entire century and i was struck with the quote that mr. waxman reminded us of that you've never lived a perfect day until you've done something for someone that cannot -- who cannot repay you. coach wood season an individual who had a humility, but a great

inner strength. one of the things that was very apparent as you watched him coach and as you saw him involve himself with students and with so many others in the community, there was that gentlemanness and strength of character that did belie that resolve that he had, but at the same time he is someone who was able to be a real winner and i think it was pointed out very appropriately right after his passing when bill walton and kareem abdul-jabbar stood on the floor of the court for the team that in the not too distant future is going to become the nba champion, los angeles lakers, and remember ared the life of coach wooden.

so i want to join with my colleagues in extending our thoughts and prayers to the family members, and to all the students who were able to benefit from the amazing life of coach jon wooden. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new hampshire. ms. shea-porter: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee. mr. roe: i yield to the honorablierry lewis of california. the speaker pro tempore: if the gentleman will suspend for a second. mr. lewis: madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the chamber has gotten a little noisy, i can hear individual words up here, sir. mr. lewis: you have good ears. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lewis: thank you, madam speaker. i, t, rise today to express

my deep appreciation for the life and work of jon wooden, the great coach from ucla. the resolution, by the way, we are discussing today, was introduced by my colleague henry waxman who spoke a while ago. henry's district includes ucla within its territory and henry and i have worked together for many, many years and have had in common the fact that we are both sind of red-hot graduates of ucla. we don't agree upon everything, in fa, some would suggest we almost never agree. the reality is that henry and i worked together for many, many years and i'm proud of the fact that he's a close friend beyond that, as asked -- as i ask annapolis consent to revise and extend my remarks, let me say that the mouse might be interested to know henry and i are such fans of ucla that he actually allowed me to name mying dog bruin. bruin walks to work with me

every day. he's over watching this on the floor and will be pleased to know people are recognizing john and nell wooden for the contribution they made to our country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new hampshire is recognized. ms. shea-porter: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. roe: i'll close by saying that this country has been much better for the presence of jon wooden here and the role model he has apply -- supplied for so many young people. i would suggest you go out and read his book, or books, and one of the quotes, and i'm paraphrasing this, that struck me is that he has said, i think his players would say woodenisms, but it is, it is much more impoant what kind of individual you are than what kind of athlete you were. we all need to keep that in mind as we go forward in our day. i appreciate the opportunity to be able to honor coach wooden,

one of my heroes. i yield back the balance of myism -- the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new hampshire. ms. shea-porter: i have a basketball player in my home and the gentleman we're talking about, jon wooden, showed american house to play sport, thousand play honorably and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: all time has been yielded back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1427? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of t chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk -- for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> madampeaker, by direction of the committee on rule, i call up house resolution 1424 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 202, house resolution 1425, resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 5072, to improve the financial safety and soundness of the f.h.a. mortgage insurance program. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bi are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21.

general debate shall be confined to the bill and l not exceed one ho 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. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committ amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21. notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be

offered only by a member designated in the report, shal be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. all points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. 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. section 2. the chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the committee on financial services or his designee. the chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the

enacting words of the bill as described in clause 9 of rule 18. section 3. shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of june 11, 20, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules. the speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one hour. mr. perlmutter: thank you. for purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, mr. sessions from texas. all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: thank you. i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 1424.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: thank you. the rule provides for consideration of house bill 5072, the f.h.a. reform act of 2010. it is a structured rule which makes in order 13 amendments. the rule waives all points of order against the bill except those arising under clause 9 and 10 of rule 21. it further considers the amendment in the nature of a substitute from the financial services committee be considered as read. and, finally, the rule provides authority to the speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rule on thursday and friday of this week. madam speaker, h.r. 5072, the federal housing authority reform act of 2010, provides f.h.a. with the opportunity to strengthen its insurance program and overall strength.

it left a large void in the housing market. banks didn't have the capital to lend, so potential homebuyers were left out in the cold. f.h.a. played a critical role in filling this void providing a much-needed catalyst to the real estate industry which was left reeling from the subprime debacle. this preserved hundreds of thousands ojobs in the real estate industry. as a result of taking on a more prominenrole, f.h.a.'s market share increased from about 4% to now more than 30% of total purchases. 88% of which are first-time homebuyers. this bill makes several necessary reforms which will make it more efficient and accountable. first, it provides f.h.a. with the authority to raise the annual mortgage premium for new borrowers.

it also provides f.h.a. with enhanced authority when f.h.a. finds fraud or noncompliance by a mortgagee. if a lender or underwriter is found to be violating f.h.a. regulations when underwriting loans by making risky loans or cutting corners, the f.h.a. can terminate hat underwriter or lender's ability to lend under the program. 4 -- the bill improves the risk management and under the bill the f.h.a. will provide additional data which will give a clearer overview of f.h.a.'s fiscal position. the bill we are consering here today is bipartisan and incorporates many changes sought by the housing and urban development department, industry stakeholders and members of congress. it passed the financial services committee a voice vote with little opposition. and most important,the congressional budget office analyzed the bill and estimates

it will save $2.5 billion over the next five years. f.h.a. plays a critical role in the marketplace, and this bill strengthens the program so that it can continue its role in a sound manner. h.a. was created during the great depression to stimulate the economy, particularly with regard to real estate. this purpose is equally important today so it is crucial that we make reforms to the program that will allow it to keep up with the industry. this bill will promote responsible lending and reduce the deficit by $2.5 billion. i look forward to the debate on this bill which will restore greater confidence in the housing industry. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank the gentleman, my friend from colorado, for giving me such time as the republicans may have.

madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro temporethe gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: madam speaker, this will be the 31st time that i have handled a rule on this house floorn this congress, and this is the 31st te that i have yet to handle an open rule. in fact, out of the over 120 rules this congress, we have not debated one open rule, not one open rule this congress. i don't believe that closing debate, limiting amendments, shoveling democrats and republicans out of thoughtful ideas is a good way to run this house. and i know and you know and i say this often that our speaker, speaker pelosi, promised when she told the american people that she would run the most open, honest and ethical congress, i don't think she had this in mind. and i know we didn't as repubcans, and i don't think the american people did, not to have one open rule this

congress. i know we're getting ready to finish this congress in a couple of months, but one would think that when the speaker spoke those words she had something in mind other than closed rules or some modified rules. open, honest, ethical. not one open rule this congress. one thing that i do have the opportunity to say today, however, madam speaker, is that in the call for a vote on the previous question to allow for this week's youcut winner will be good. youcut is the new republican onlineoting tool for americans to pick what wasteful government spending that they would like to see cut every week and which should be an agenda on this floor every week.

i admire the majority for finally having a bill that saves the taxpayers money. don't know how many times that's happened in this congress or under this speaker, but what i can tell you is hundreds of thousands americans this week have been on the youcut site an they came up with lots ofnswers. so i applaud the democrat majority for coming up with finally a bill which will save taxpayers money. additionally, here today we are here to discuss an important step in providing the housing and urban development, also known as h.u.d., with the tools it needs to supervise and monitor the mortgage insurance program run through the federal housing authority known as f.h.a. that's what we're here for and i'm glad that's what we're here for, saving money and running the government more efficiently and providing the tools is what congress should be for.

it is necessary to understand why these changes are important , and in my opinion, my colleagues, o really work across party lines, need to do more of this kind of work of helping rather than providing more rules and regulations. the continued importance of protecting the taxpayer is primary and important to people who are paying the taxes. they want to know that there should be more work like this being done in washington. as the housing market collapsed over the last two years, private lenders have cailed back their activities -- scaled back their activities with the f.h.a., significantly increasing its share of the single family mortgage market from less than 5% to now more than 30%. with higher market share comes increased taxpayer exposure. the elevated level to delinquencies and foreclosures across this nation have had a detrimental effect on the financial health of the f.h.a..

which is why reforms in this legislation are an essential piece of fixing a addressing this problem today. i applaud the gentleman, mr. frank. i applaud the gentlewoman, mrs. capito, for working together, for essentially bringing a huge part of mrs. capito's bill to the floor today. the taxpayers have already paid their fair share for bailouts and failed stimulus programs resulting in record debts and record deficits. it's important to bring some stability and to recognize problems before they happen. h.r. 5072 incorporates a majority of the provisions from my friend, the ranking member, shelly moore capito's legislation, h.r. 4811, the f.h.a. safety and soundness and taxpayer protection act. this legislation from representative capito provides

additional enforce, the financial and risk assessment tools necessary to adequately administer the the program, to detect fraud and abuse, and to strengthen underwriting standards, and perhaps best of all, to protect the taxpayer. while the legislation is a step in the right direction, it is important to note that the benefits of using government subsidies to promote homeownership to be more balance against -- credit worthiness with borrowers and exposing the taxpayers to additional risk is perhaps the best part of this bill. it is extremely important to have proper underwriting and to ensure that potential homebuyers have the appropriate amount of personal funds invested in the transaction to make sure that the housing market does not collapse again. madam speaker, while this legislation is an important

step, congress should do more to protect the taxpayer from having to suffer the consequences of bailouts and another government housing program. congressman scott garrett of new jersey also on the financial services committee offered several amendments which were not made in order by the rules cmittee, and so they will not be voted on today on the floor. these amendments, however, are worthy of speaking about. they would have protected taxpayers from yet another government bailout. as we were setting the rules for the future to say the federal government should not be in the bailout business. my friends on the other side of the aisle, once again, continued to shut out not just scott garrett but taxpayers and people who had ideas that are called members of congress and not allow a debate on commonsense solutions that save the taxpayers money. once again, i applaud the

gentleman, mr. frank, for bringing this bill to the floor, but we need more and more discussion about how we limit taxpayer exposure. i believe that congress and the administration must be extremely cautious and always vigilant in their oversight of thiprogram and others to make certain that the program is adequately capitalized and is run in a safe and sound manner, that protects the taxpayer from the need the not only another bailout but wasteful spending. as the housing market begins to stabilize, we must look for ways to decrease, decrease reliance on the federal government guarantees and encourage the re-entry of private capital and investment in the mortgage market. madam speaker at this time, i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor to discuss his ideas on this bill. the speaker proempore: the

gentleman from virginia is recognized for four minutes. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, recently we found out that the national debt has surpassed $13 trillion. that means that each american owes approximately $42,000. i align myself with the remarks from the gentleman from texas in applauding the gentleman from colorado and massachusetts in bringing this bill to the floor that actually does save taxpayer dollars for the american people. i also want to recognize the leadership of mrs. capito from west virginia whorks bill this originally was. here's an idea, madam speaker. rather than simply talking about how shocking our dangerous level of national debt is, why don't we actually do something about it today? south america at a crossroads and the choices we make today

will determine the kind of country we will be. the republican economic recovery working group launched the youcut program to change the culture in washington. it's clear from news reports, madam speaker that it's starting to do so. we saw the white house just last week ask each government agency to kit 5% from their budgets. while we applaud their intentions, house republicans are offering a way to cut spending, not tomorrow, not next week, but right now with youcut. there's no doubt that our debt situation is reaching a crisis point that demands a united, bipartisan effort to solve it. i'll be the first raise my hand to say that the republicans have played a part to contributing to problems in the past. but for those americans out there struggling to pay their mortgages, does it really matter to them whose fault it

was? i come to the floor today, madam speaker to urge my democratic colleagues to join us in supporting this week's winning youcut proposal to reform fannie mae and freddie mac which received 45% of the vote on youcut. scott garrett and jeb hensarling's proposal would save $35 billion in taxpayer money over the next decade. the two government-sponsored enterprises have wracked una tab of $45 billion and counting. if we dot reform fannie and freddie that price tag will only rise. there's no doubt that reformin fannie and freddie will be a challenging task. but taking on this kind of challenge is why our constituents gave us the privilege of serving in this house in the first place. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: i thank you, madam speaker and i appreciate the gentleman's support ofhe underlying bill and the saving of $2.5 billion and they'd like to proceed and make some cuts to fan knee mae and freddie mac over the course of the next year and that's something we ultimately have to address. under mr. frank and this democratic congress we worked on reforms to fannie mae and freddie -- freddie mac, unlike my friends on the republican side of the aisle, i remind them what their chairman of the house financial services said about the efforts to reform and revamp fannie mae and freddie mac back when the republicans were in charge of both the white house and this congress. they tried to reform -- there was an effort to reform fannie mae and freddie mac between mr. oxley and mr. frank but instead of getting any assistance, he

fumed particularly about the white house. all the hand wring, this was from an article in the "financial times." it was by mr. oxley. this is an article written and voted from mr. oxley in the "financial times" last september, september 9, 2008 where he fumes against criticism that the house didn't try to rerm fannie mae and freddie mac a few years ago. he said all the hand wringing and bed-wetting is going on without remembering how the house stepped up on this to try to reform fannie mae and freddie mac he says what did we get from the white house? a white house that was controlled by the republicans. we got a, quote, one-finger is a lute, in trying to reform fannie -- salute, -- absolute in trying to reform -- salute in trying to reform fannie mae and freddie mac. we have been looking to reform

fannie mae and freddie mac and looking for ways to cut costs and expenses. one of those places we're already doing something about which makes their suggestion look like peanut, that's in iraq. the republicans under the leadership of george bush and the republican congress cut the taxes for the wealthiest 1%, prosecuted two wars without paying for them, left wall street in disarray by failing to police wall street and what do we get? we got a financial meltdown and a giant debt, $1.3 billion when barack obama took office, and now they're complaining about the cost that they left in place based on their way of running the country. with that, i give my -- with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: we got into this debate about blaming george bush for everything and i would

remind my colleague, i would pin the tail on the donkey. we know who controls spending and taxes around here. at this time, i yield three minutes to the favorite son from dallas, texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the american people understand that this nation is facing a debt crisis. congress, under control of our friends on the other side of the aisle, the democrats, and seeing the deficit increase almost 10 fold since they took control of congress. we know that president obama has now submitted a budget which will uble the national debt in five year, triple it in 10 from 2008. madam speaker, i serve on the president's fiscal responsibility commission and we have recently heard testimony that when a nation's gross debt equals 90% of its

economy, in this case g.d.p., that the needle has hit the red zone. that you can lose economic growth and on average, history tells us you can lose one percentage point a full third, congressional budget office is expecting 3% economic growth, it could be 2%. the united states gross debt is now at 89% of g.d.p. and the american people now know it's either youcut or your children may one day face bankruptcy. spending is out of control. our children are facing a future with fewer jobs, shrinking paychecks, smaller homes, an american dream that is constricted and diminished. we are on the verge of being the first generation in america's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.

just this morning, on the budget committee, chairman bernanke said that it is important that the congress act today on the government sponsored enterprise. it's important that the government act today on enacting a budget. it's important that the government act today to reduce the national debt that has an impact on economic growth in jobs today. but we have no plan, at least listening to the gentleman from colorado. if we had a plan to deal with the g.s.e.'s, it has not ended in a success that the american people recognize. we're now looking at $147 billion of taxpayer bailouts, between the government sponsored enterprises and the f.h.a., they now control approximately 95% of the market, more gornment control. that's why the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, and i have been reduced to h.r. 4889, the g.s.e. bailout elimination and bailout protection act to end this.

instead, what we have from our friends on the other side of the aisle is they actually exempt the government-sponsored enterprises at the epicenter of the new legislation. it is time we put fannie and freddie on a road to market competition to end the perpetual bailouts to save money, because it's either youcut or your children go bankrupt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: madam speaker, i would now yield five minutes to my friend from massachusetts, mr. franks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. franks: i want to acknowledge the phrase given mr. frank: i want to acknowledge the phrase given on the other side.

i will be at a meet, the gentleman from texas, mr. paul, and i are begin an enterprise to pull back the excessive overreach of america militarily. we are spend manager money now defending western europe from enemy unknown to anybody, including those in western europe, than we're spending on any domestic program. i welcome that. i'll look to see where we are on that i support president obama's efforts to save money in the space program. when people tell me we've got a serious debt crisis but they're willing to commit hundreds of billions of dollars to send a human being to mars so he or she can be brought back, then i'm also skeptical. some of my friends in the agriculture committee and in the south who support sending $147 million of american tax dollars to the brazilian cotton farmers to offset the subsidy given to american cotton farmers, i doubt the depths of

their commitment to cutting the budget. but let me talk about revisionist history. the republican party controlled the depronk 1995 to 2006 no legislation changing fannie mae or freddie mac went through. president bush controlled the executive branch from 2000 to 2008. what he did he said he wanted some reform. you heard the former chairman, the former republican chairman, denigrate mr. bush's cooperation there but in 2004, the bush administration ordered fannie mae and freddie mac to increase the number of mortgages they bought for people below the median income. at the time, i said i thought that was a mistake, wrong for the people being pushed into this, wrong for fannie mae and freddie mac. in 2003, i didn't think fannie mae and freddie mac needed change but george bush converted me. he converted me when he sent them much too deeply, by his

decision, into more subprime mortgages. i thought it was better to use them for affordable rental housing. once that happened, i joined many oxley in 2005 in an effort to pass the billism supported a bill that passed in the houseful we'll hear from some republican members who say nothing was done. you know what their problem was, madam speaker? they couldn't get the support of their own republicans, the republican leadership of the financial services committee today, the republican leadership of the house today, join police department oxley -- to join mr. oxley. the bill which passed the house in 20 which i voted against, not because of anything to do with fannie mae or freddie mac but because of restrictions add by the rule committees and the self-executing rule for housing programs that would have kept the catholic church from participating in that, but on the substance of the bill, you will hear there were amendments and many of us

opposed those amendments. i opposed some of those amendments. the chairman of the committee, mr. oxley, opposed some amendments. mr. boehner opposed the amendment, the majority of republicans on the financial services committee today opposed the amendments no amendment offered in either the committee or on the floor of the house by the handful of republicans who will be here today blaming the democrats, when the republicans controlled the white house and the republicans controlled the house and the republicans controlled the senate, the house passed a bill and a handful of republican os posed it and no amendment they offered on the floor or in committee got a majority of republican votes. a majority of republican -- no demoat had voted on that bill, the outcome would have been exactly the same. in 2007, when the democrats took the majority, i became the chairman and for the first time, the congress did in that congress pass a bill to reform fannie mae and freddie mac. it was held up in the senate, unfortunately. we did in it 2007.

under that bill, secretary of the treasury paul zen, acting on behalf of president bush, put fannie mae and freddie mac into conservatorship. the most drastic reform to date in the financial area came when secretary paulson, under authority given to him by the democratic congress, put fannie mae and freddie mac into conservatorship. the debts owed are the debts incurred in the period when george bush was president and when the republicans were unable to enact legislation to reform fannie mae and freddie mac. there were some here on the other side. i was -- i was committed to doing that in 2003. in 2004, when the bush administration pushed fannie mae and fred key macmore deeply into buying subprime mortgages, i opposed that, as i will put it to the record and then join police department oxley in trying to reform it. fannie mae and freddie mac are today in conservatorship. the secretary testified before

our committee, unchallenged by any republicans, who were much tougher in his absence, fannie mae and freddie mac, -- i ask for an additional two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has two additional minutes. mr. frank: unchallenged by any of the republicans, fannie mae and freddie mac are not now costing the taxpayer any money. the money owed is from the prior activity, before secretary paulson put them into conservatorship with authority he did not get from a republican congress but from a democratic congress. it was a bill he could work with. since then, fannie mae and freddie mac have been in conservave -- conservatorship and they are not costing the taxpayer money. clearly we have to take the next step. we are consulted with the realtors, with the builders, with advocates from low-income housing and their recommendation is, yes, keep them in conservatorship and

replace them. the republican plan that you've heard -- the plan of the mirity of republicans from 2006 or 2005 abolishes them with no replacement so housing finance is left in a turmoil. we have the f.h.a., we have the federal homeowner banks, we have fannie mae and freddie mac. just to summarize -- and i have been told that it was my fault that during the republican years in congress we didn't pass a bill on fannie mae and freddie mac. well, mr. delay of recent memory, was in charge of the house agenda then. and i have to disclaim the notion that i was secretly advising mr. delay. and i'll prove that to you, madam speaker. if i were giving mr. delay advice i would have told him not to go on the show. it would not have been fannie mae and freddie mac that would have benefited. a lot would have been

benefited. we were frustrated by him. he was in charge of the housing agenda. a few republicans wanted to change it. they were outvoted by the republican majority. when the democrats took office -- and you can read that in secretary paulson's book -- we cooperated with the paulson administration, we told them to put it in conservatorship and we await the next steps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much, madam speaker. i'm glad that the gentleman tried to kill the bill that pasd the house when the senate died, the g.s.e. reform bill, the gentleman say he voted against it and did he. i would also remind the gentleman today is today and where's the budget? where's the budget for the house to vote on? where's the budget? deafening silence. we should be doing the budget. the budget that people of the united states find out what the

glide path and direction should be for this country for all this spending. deafening silence, madam speaker. where's the leadership there? now, we were talking abo a small f.h.a. bill. how about for the united states ? once again, pin the tail on the donkey. madam speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. garrett: i'd like to say to listen to what the gentleman from virginia said before. we are not about looking back. we are about looking forward. we are not looking at pointing blame. i know you have been speaking for over an hour saying you are not at fault, you are not the responsible party, nothing to do with the g.s.e.'s, fannie mae and freddie mac and it's all the republicans' fault.

we are not here to point blame when you said, let's roll the dice d see what happens. we're not here to point blame at you when you said repeatedly in the past that there's not a systemic risk with the g.s.e.'s. we are here where the american public is to look forward to see what we can do now with the crisis that we're in and i rise today with a message from the american people and that they are simply tired of pointing blame and they are tired of the hollowed promise of reform by speaker pelosi and the democratic majority. they're tired of hearing that fannie mae and freddie mac are projected to cost the taxpayers upwards of $389 billion. so they're probably a little bit shocked to hear you say it will not cost the american public anything. we know it will cost in the past upwards -- for past actions $389 billion and going forward, o knows exactly what it will cost the american taxpayers. y know, since taking over fannie mae and freddie mac, the two government sponsored

mortgage-backed companies, american taxpayers have spent so far $145 billion for these two companies. and yet -- and here's the important point. this is what we're trying to make here. congress still has not had any proposals whatsoever to reform these companies and recoup the taxpayer dollars. we're about to go into conference and the is nothing in the senate or the house bills that deal with that situation. we on the other hand in this youcut proposal that's on the floor right now would suggest that we can save the american taxpayers, how much money, up to $30 billion. look, i know that originally congress put a cap of $200 billion on it, and the administration lifted that cap and raised it up to $400 billion it would cost the taxpayers. then in the dead of night on christmas e, 2009, they lifted that cap and went even further and said unlimited over the next three years what it would cost the american taxpayers to bail out fannie and freddie. i know that the administration did all that.

i also know that it's nowhere projected or listed really honestly in the budget that we're still waiting to hear, as the gentleman from texas just pointed out. we know, also, as we say, there is no plan from the majority or from this administration to try to rein that in, to save these $30 billion, and that's whye come to the floor to do just that because the american taxpayers, american voters have said through youcut that that is exactly what we need to do. you know, professors hal scott from the harvard law school noted, he noted how incomplete the financial services regulatory reform is. fannie mae and freddie mac is the most costly part of the ilout. the g.s.e.'s are costing us billions and there is no solution from the white house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garrett: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks in debate to the chair and not in the second person.

the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: thank you, madam speaker. and just remind the body that we're here on the f.h.a. bill, the reformation of f.h.a., which my friends have applauded. that's what we're here to really talk about, savings of $2.5 billion, more accountabili from f.h.a. which has had to fill a vacuum in the housing market because of the loss of so many lenders who got so involved with subprime loans. so i'd also say to my friend, mr. garrett, madam speaker, that i think that sometimes if you take a look at the past actions that we saw under the republican party and their failure to rein in fannie mae and freddie mac, rein in a wall streethat was out of control, cut taxes and not pay for wars, that gives you an idea of what

they may be doing in the future. and that's what the peop of this country want to have an idea of what to expect and look back at the past actions, i would say, gives you a good indication. with that i yield two minutes to my friend from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: my good friend is absolutely right, we're here today to talk about the reform of f.h.a. and to really give relief to the borrowers who will have the ability to see the current cap on mortgage insurance premiums increased and generally give opportunity for americans to make whole and make good on the homebuyers market, to get back into the market. the subprime debacle, the whole foreclosure devastation, tragedy happened on the last administration's clock. the republicans' administration's clock. so i wonder when we're standing here trying to help new homebuyers get into the market, work with the real estate industry and make people home, there seems to be an

opposition. the whole g.s.e. reform was something that could have been done under the last administration's clock, but they wanted to take a sledgehammer and axe and destroy the nds of resources to get into a home. i support this bill, h.r. 5072, the f.h.a. reform act, because it will allow americans to buy homes, give them the insurance premiums that they need and to get us back on track. this is a right direction. let's keep going forward to help america stay strong. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman, mrs. biggert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. biggert: thank you, madam speaker. and i rise today on behalf of thousands of americans who through youcut have overwhelmingly asked that congress address one of the most egregious examples of

waington's fiscal irresponsibility, the ongoing bailout of fannie mae and freddie mac. these two failed mortgage giants directly fueled the financial turmoil that has cost millions of americans thr jobs, their savings and their homes. already bailouts of fannie and freddie have cost taxpayers $145 million with a final tab estimated to reach over $380 billion, more than the entire tarp bailout. despite these alarming facts, the democrat overhaul proposal designed to address the financial crisis completely ignore the two most visible and costly contributors to the crisis. madam speaker, there are two 800-pound gorilla named fannie and freddie in this room. they are responsible for over $5 trillion for outstanding liabilities, and they are now owned by the taxpayers. the american people cannot

afford the risk, and they are tired of watching congress fail to act. today with the support of over thousands of youcut participants, we have an opportunity to save taxpayers $30 million -- $30 billion or more by taking immediate action to reform the failed mortgage giants. i urge my colleagues to vote against the bailouts and show the american people that congress is listening. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: i'd ask the speaker how much time i have left and how much time mr. sessions has left and i'd ask my friend how many speakers he has left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado has 15 minutes. the gentleman from texas has 10 1/2. and the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: if i could answer his question first, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. perlmutter: please. mr. sessions: at your question how many more speakers, i have

three or more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: i'd reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mad speaker. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from charleston, west virginia, mrs. capito. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized for three minutes. mrs. capito: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to thank mr. sessions from texas, and i'd like to thank mr. frank, the chairman of our committee, for the work that we've done on the underlying bill, the f.h.a. reform bill. it is an important bill and we'll debate that and talk about that quite a bit through the next two days. what i've heard over the last week when i was home for district work period is that people are really concerned about the spending and overspending that's going on here in washington. folks in west virginia are tightening their belts and making difficult decisions but they don't see that happening here in washington. and right today we have before us in this previous question vote we are going to have an opportunity to make a cut in government.

it makes a lot of sense, and over 315,000 americans have voted to perform this cut on government spending by voting to reform fannie and freddie. we estimate that we could save approximately $30 billion over 10 years. that's significant by ending some of the government conservatorship, shrinking their portfolios of fannie and freddie, establishing minimum capital standards, and bringing tans pearnsy to taxpayer exposure. -- transparency to tax pear exposure. -- taxpayer exposure. as we heard from mr. garrett from new jersey, that is limitless how far that can go. one of the things i don't think taxpayers realize when they made this vote on youcut was that recently the treasury department and the federal housing finance agency approved compensation packages for the chief executive officers of fannie and freddie of $6

million each, including $2 million incentive payments for each executive. these compensation levels are 30 times that of the cabinet secretary, and they were approved for entities that are owned basically by the taxpayers and entities that are borrowed large sums from the taxpayers. i thnk by this youcut vote what americans are saying is enough is enough. and we've heard a lot about the past and whose fault it is, quite frankly, over the past week. i didn't hear anybody wanting to cast blame. they wanted people to solve problems. that's what they sent us here to washington to do, and we look forward to solve these problems. so as we all know, both republicans and democrats, lots of times the american people are ahead of us in their thinking and in their commonsense solutions and one of them is this youcut proposal before us today, which will give us an opportunity to put their voices before us and for us to give them a sign of

approval that, yes, $30 billion from fannie and freddie to save government money, to also end the conservatorship of fannie and freddie. that's another thing i hear in town hall meetings across the district, people don't know who fannie or freddie are. . they are costing amerin taxpayers dollars every day to the tune of $145 billion in total. so with that i would ask that we vote yes on this youcut proposal. it makes good common sense. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: thank you. i'd remind my friend from west virginia, and i a appreciate that $30 billion over 10 years, take a look at their proposition, it's for another bill for another day. we are dealing with f.h.a. which saves $2.5 billion today. also i would remind her, madam speaker, that over the course of this year andast year, started drawing down in iraq, which was costing this country upwards of

$100 billion a year, not $30 billion over 10 years, $100 billion a year not paid for by the bush administration. as we draw down from 160,000 troops to some 50,000 or 40,000 troops this summer, we are going to save far more money than the republicans and this fannie mae proposal project. so with that i yieltwo minutes to my friend from massachusetts to respond to some of the things my friend from west virginia said. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. frank clo -- mr. frank: under the authority the bush administration asked for and didn't get until the democrats took over congress, fannie and freddie were put into conservativeship. that's a very drastic reform of where they were. the $145 billion that regrettably is being lost was lost before the conservativeship. we put an end to those losses. and that's the current testimony

of secretary donovan. as to compensation, i welcome my friend from west virginia belatedly to the cause of limiting the compensation, because the committee on financial services put a bill out to specifically limit the compensation of the g.s.e.'s. we had compensation limitations for tarp recipients. but we had one that would have limited g.s.e. recipients as well. and the gentlewoman from west virginia voted against it as did most of the republicans. so we had a bill. we had a general compensation restriction and we had one for -- i take it back it was any recipient, including the g.s.e.'s, and the tarp recipient. and the republican party voted no. so they are now opposed to raises which they refused to vote. that's the pattern. i stress again, fannie and freddie have already been drastically reformed.

they are in conservativeship. that is a very significant form of limitation. they are not being run remotely the way they were in the past when the bush administration d others pushed them into buying too many loans, and we do believe they need to be replaced. but a way that does doesn't further destabilize the house markets. those concerned about the deficit oppose this republican plan simply to alish them without replacing housi finance mechanisms. they are currently being run into conservativeship. again i repeat as secretary donovan said unchallenged by the republicans when he was testifying, it's not -- they are not now losing money. the losses predated the conservativeship and the responsible thing to do is replace them responsibly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: appreciate that, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to eld two minutes to the gentlewoman, former mayor of charlotte, nor carolina, now a member of congress, mrs. myrick. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. mrs. myrick: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you for yielding. the american people get it. they understand fannie mae and freddie mac need to be reformed. but -- the federal government has spent as you heard over and over $145 billion in taxpayer dollars to drop up these two government entities. and through youcut the american people have voted to shri the port yole foes of fannie and -- portfolios of fannie and freddie. and they demand transparency, something that's been missing for a long time in federal government, relative to spending. the congressional budget office estimates that these changes will save up to 30 billion taxpayer dollars. and it's no secret, we can't keep spending money that we don't have. the american people know this and they have goo youcut to cast hundreds thousands of votes over the last three weeks to demand to cut reckless spending out of our budget. we need to do what we were sent

to d.c. to do and that's vote for the wishes of the people that we represent back home. and a vote to reform fannie and freddie is a vote to save the american people, taxpayer $0 billion. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: how much time do i have? how much time does mr. sessions have? the speaker pro tempore:he gentleman from colorado has 12 minutes. the gentleman from texas has 6 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: i continue to reserve. the gentleman from colorado. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman fr wheaton, illinois, mr. roskam. the speaker o tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i cam here to the floor a couple minutes ago and i thought surely i'm not going tohear and see the tired old symbolic show pony

of george w. bush and his administration being trotted out in this chamber once again, but i wasn't disappointed. it just amazes me, mr. speaker, at the lack of creativity and forward thinking and problem solving that we see animated on the other side of the aisle that all they can do is look in this rear-view mirror and wring their hands and moan and grown and say it's george w. bush's fault. i think the american public is just tired of that. i think the american public isn't persuaded by it. i offered an amendmenvery straightforwardly last night, it was offered by mr. sessions of texas, in the rules committee, that would have said a very simple thing. uld have said, if you are running fannie and freddie, if you are an employee of fannie and freddie, new rules. and the new rule is you are not going to make any more than you're going to make that we pay

the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. not particularly controversial. not particularly groundeaking. but it makes a lot of sense. why in the world -- if the majority has now found its robust desire to truncate compensation, why in the world wouldn't we focus in -- i'll yield in a minute. why in the world wouldn't we focus in on this area that we tend to agree with? and frankly the argument -- these entities are no longer losing money, i think, is not persuading the citizens of the sixth district. i see the chairman wants to be recognized. mr. frank: the fact is they are not losing money. the fact is uncontested it's not losing money. c.b.o. talks about past debts. the other question, about a year ago or more, the committee on financial services -- mr. ross kim: you made that -- mr. roskam: you made that

argument earlier. i learned to mr. frank's school of floor management and learned well. reclaiming my time. mr. speaker, here was the opportunity for the majority to say we are going to focus in on this. we are not going to put up with anymore nonsense of spending $145 billion. and the price tag is up to $400 billion and rising. we know what we need to do here, mr. speaker. we know when to do it. and i urge us to be like-minded in stopping this approach that the majority has and a complete failure to deal with fannie and freddie in a response way in my view and not support the motion. eld back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from corado. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. also sometimes you have to remind people from time to time about what happened in the past because it's important. history is important. and i'd remind my friend from illinois that there was an effort to refor fannie mae and

freddie mac when it was purchasing a lot of lousy loans that resulted in these losses. but instead what did the reforming of fannie mae and freddie mac get back when you could have stopped these losss? the one finger salute from the republican white house that for some reason or another did not want to reform fannie mae and freddie mac. i got to tell you mr. oxley by giving that statement, we got a one finger salute, when he made his statement on september 9, 2008, he described perfectly what the white house wante to do with fannie mae and freddie mac. the white house at that point under the bush administration just let's buy out these lousy loans. let's just keep it going. and the american people and democratic congress and the democratic administration are having to pick up the pieces now from that imprudent, improper

approach to housing finance. we want people to have homes that they can afford in this country. they can't afford them, then, ok, they don't get them. the f.h.a. bill that's before the house today provides in a proper and prudent way insurance for those home purchases to people who can afford and can show their ability to make these payments. that's the purpose of the bill today. my fend on the other side want to talk about some other thing that they didn't do three or four years ago. and i refer -- i yield 30 seconds to my friend from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i just want to talk about the past the gentleman from illinois is so desperate to cover up. the house voted on a bill that would have limited compensation to fannie mae and freddie mac executives a year ago. it was not another corporation.

it was on tarp recipient freddie mac and fannie mae and the gentleman voted against it. if we had been able to get that bill through, we would have eliminated these. so the gentleman offer a year ago, i know that's history, let's not talk abt history, particularly when it doesn't reflect well on his argument, he voted against that limitation. 15 more seconds. mr. perlmutter: yield the gentleman 15. mr. frank: the reason we talk about the history is very simple. every dollar that's lost and is about to be lost is lost because there s a delay in reform. the losses are not resulting from current operations. second donovan said that before the committee and no republican challenged him. we are stuck with losses that happened before we were ever put into conservativeship by our votes and stop the bleeding. mr. perlmutter: may i ask how much time we each have?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from coloradhas 9 1/4. mr. perlmutter: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. perlmutter: we don't have any other speakers. i take that back. i'd ask my friend, mr. sessions, do you have any more speakers? mr. sessions: at this time i'll let the gentleman run through the list of his speakers. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: yield five nutes to the gentleman from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: i thank my friend. and appreciate the revised view of history itself. for some time my republican colleagues have been trying to blame those us who try to expand housing, decent housing, for the crisis, including fannie mae and freddie mac. i think the reco is very clear. 12 years of republican rule, no bill became law to change

freddie mac and fannie mae's operation. george bush in 2004, expands by his mandate, the number of low-income loans they have to purchase. lobes from -- loans from low-income people. that's why we have the debt. that's why this is relevant. the democrats take power in twetch and working with secretary paulson as he documents in his book, he notes by the way some republicans were mad at him for working with us, but the result was a good bill that allowed him to put fannie and freddie into conservativeship. and postconservativeship we have not had the problems. if you abolish fannie and freddie tomorrow you wouldn't save a penny because we would still have the debts that was accrued priously, unreformed because the republicans wouldn't touch it, unreformed in part because president bush pushed them into more loans, to talk about what you do in the future you have to understand the source of the problem. that's why we got history. so fannie and freddie have been

changed and in conservativeship. the question is what do you do next? they have played an important role in housing finance. they are playing a constructive role now as opposed to the destructive role they played before. i was slow in recognizing that. it wasn't until 2004 that i did, but in 2005 i joined many republicans to try to support a bill until it was hydrogened -- hijacked. by bought the fact i voted against the bill finally had no imfact. it passed the house. it died in the senate because senate republicans didn't like it. senate democrats offered the house republican bill. let's talk about going forward. fannie mae and freddie mac are now run by a conservative. unfortunately the salaries aren't capped because the republicans helped sabotage a bill which we supported to cap their salaries. but it's now being run in a way that helps promote finance and does not have the mistakes of the past. there are not these problems. the money owed is money that results from past decisions that

are no longer being taken because of the conservativeship. the question is what do you do going forward? e national association of realtors, national associati of home builders, everybody involved in housing finance argues very correctly, ithink, that simply having fannie and freddie disappear -- again, not the only fannie and freddie, they have disappeared. the agency that caused it no loer exists. . my colleague from illinois with a fresh figure of speech said there were 800-pound gorillas. well, if they are gorillas, they are deeply chained, they are in cages and are being fed and quite docile. housing finance and figure out how to do it going forward. reeling against the mistakes the past and they said i don't like history but their bill is a firm statement against the operation of fannie mae and

freddie mac before it was put into conservatorship and deals, unfortunately, with debts that we are stuck with. going forward, how do you create -- untangle the private shareholder corporation and a public mandate to try to subsidize housing to some extent? what agency should you have? what's the role of the federal housing authority and jennie mae and the private sector and the secondary market entities? we need to think about that. they haven't done that. their bill includes nothing to replace fannie mae and freddie mac. so passing that bill tomorrow or last week wouldn't save us anythinbecause their current operations aren't long money and it wouldn't discharge us from the debt that was occurred when it was being run under their watch under their rules. we do stop the bleeding by putting them in a tough conservatorship. you can read hank paulson's book and he tells you how they resist that and shares how they fired the people and new loans

are going forward that aren't the kind of bad loans that were made. and now our job is responsibly to try and replace it. and what you get from the republicans is confession. they are very angry at the fact that when they were running the place and the white house and here fannie mae and freddie mac are able to run up all those debts and they weren't able to do anything to stop it. i didn't see it early on. i saw it -- and i acted on it quicker than many of them. we have now stopped the bad stuff and we are not incurring losses. and the question is, what do you do going forward? and that's a harder question than my republicans are ready to grabble with. i thank my colleague from colorado. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. i gather that the gentleman from colorado is now, by shaking his head, through with other speakers and i will go ahead and offer my close. i thank the gentleman very much.

mr. speaker, i think it's interesting that we blame george bush and yet never got a bill to sign. it's a pretty interesting conpt when we blame the president for something that never came to his desk. mr. speaker, republicans continue to offer commonsense solutions to rein in the current spending spree by our current democratic colleagues. we, like the erican people, would like to see some transparency and accountability from our elected leaders. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: thout objection. mr. sessions: legislation before us today brings some stabilitto the currently waivering housing market, but americans are still concerned, america, about the democratic agenda of tax -- mr. speaker, about the democratic he agenda of taxing and spending. the three largest polical items, speaker nancy pelosi,

lost 10 million american jobs. 10 million american jobs still hang in the balance based upon the whims of this majority party. mr. speaker, i think at increasing deficits, increasing spending, more taxes on business, shrinking job numbers, it's a sad day. we want to look back and blame everything on george bush and yet we know why this is happening. for that reason i encourage a no vote on the previous question to bring some fiscal sanity and restraint to this body and a no vote on the rule, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the geleman yields back the balanc of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciated the initial comments by mr. sessions and a number of the other republicans about the bill that is before us or hopefully will be before us, the f.h.a. reform act of

2010, which is a bill that provides more accountability to f.h.a., saves money, $2.5 billion over five years with f.h.a., and f.h.a. has had to fill a vacuum left by a lot of the subprime lenders that made lousy loans and are now out of business. so it is a substantial agency that helps move housing in america. and it's done in a prudent fashion, and the bill, the reforms in the bill make it even more prudent. now, my friends on the other side want to turn it into a fannie mae and freddie mac bill, but that is not what's before us. apparently they want to do it because they have a lot of guilt that they didn't do it five years ago when we could have saved this country $100 billion or more. but it wasn't done. even the chairman, the republican chairman of the house financial services at

that time, wanted to see some reforms, but the reican senate and the republican administration under mr. bush didn't want to. and you can't be more descriptive than what mr. oxley was when he said that e reforms, the reception that the reforms got from the white house when he said we got a one-finger salute. that's about as descriptive as it gets. they didn't want to reform it. now they want to reform it and they want to forget about history. we're here, though, on the f.h.a. bill. we're here to help turn this economy around. we want to take -- talk about cuts. well, let's look at iraq. let's look at some other things that there may be savings in fannie mae and freddie mac over a period of time. there are bigger savings elsewhere, and we should be looking at those things. but we got to get this country back to work, and that's what democrats are doing. under the bush administration,

the january, 2009 -- in jan, 2009, we lost 780,000 jobs in that month alone -- in january, 2009, we lost 780,000 in that month alone. in april we gained a swing of well over one million jobs per month. we have to get people back to work. we have to watch spending but we have to get the revenue side and get people back to work. we have to help them with their homes. this f.h.a. insurance bill provides a reasonable and prudent insurer to assist with the purchase and sale of homes. i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule, and i yield back the balae of my time, and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tpore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

mr. sessions: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: with that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays

laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the geneman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 22 and by the committee on

financial services, i move to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 4173 with the senate amendments thereto to agree with the senate amendments and agree to the conference requested by the senate. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will repo the title. the clerk: h.r. 4173, an act to provide for financial regulatory reform to protect consumers and investors, to enhance federal understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives markets, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the motion is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. bachus of boom moves that the conference -- of alabama moves that the conference on the sene amendment to the bill h.r. 4173 be instructed as follows -- one, to disagree to the

provisions contained in subtitle g of title 1 of the house bill. two, to disagree to section 202 relating to the commencement of orderly liquidation and the appointment of the federal deposit insurance corporation as seaver and section 210, relating to the powers and duties at the federal deposit insurance corporation as receiver of title 2 of the senate amendment. three, to not record their approval at the final conference agreement within the meaning of the clause 12-a-4 of house rule 22, unless such agreent has been made available to the managers and in electronic, searchable and downloadable form for at least 72 hours prior to the time described in such clause. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause of rule 22, the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, ea will control 20 minutes. the chair recoizes the gentleman from alabama. before he begins, the house will be in order.

the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. speaker. this motion to instruct directs the conferees to insist that this legislation end the possibility of taxpayer-funded bailouts once and for all by stipulating that bankruptcy is the only available option for liquid ating a failed financial firm. the motion also requires that the conferees and the public by extension have at least 72 hours to review the contentof the conference report before its inal approval. we've heard time and time again that the democrats, quote, resolution authority to wind down systemically significant

financial institution ends the too big to fail doctrine and protects taxpayers. that's an outrageous and false claim. read the bills. both the house and the senate let the fdic do the following -- lend to a failing firm, purchase the assets of a failing firm, guarantee its obligations to creditors, take a security interest in its assets, and even sell or transfer assets that the fdic has acquired from it. and while the house establishes $150 billion bailout fund to pay for the resolution of a failed fund with an extra $50 billion line of credit with the treasury if the original $150 billion is exhausted and cannot fully fund the bailout, the senate approach is no better. the senate would allow the fdic to potentially provide

trillions of dollars from the treasury in order to pay off a failed firm's creditors. and counterparties in the aftermath of its failure with the hopes that the funds can be recouped at some later date but only a hope. the senate bill institutionalizes backdoor bailouts that have so infuriated the american people. by conferring on the fdic the exact same tools that were used to rescue the creditors of bear stearns, a.i.g., fannie mae and freddie mac with a taxpayer price tag today of over $1 trillion. this would continue the misguided too big to fail bailouts that allowed u.s. regulators to pay goldman sachs and other large european banks 100 cents on the dollar at the expense of smaller institutions

and companies which were considered too insignificant or all to save or to pay. the democrats like to call their plan a death panel for large financial firms. but if you read the bill, in reality it's nothing less than a taxpayer-funded life support to pay off the creditors of the failed institutions but not necessarily all of the creditors. they could pay some of the creditors and let others hang out to dry. we saw that with a.i.g. and other bailouts. and don't forget the so-called too big to fail institutions have only grown larger and more dominant through the regulator directed taxpayer-funded bailout process, a process this legislation institutionalizes. a better, more equitable approach to dealing with failed nonbank financial institutions, the only wayto make sure taxpayers are protected from

paying for lost -- past mistakes is bankruptcy, first proposed by republicans. unlike the fdic, which is funnel unlimited of taxpayer cash to failing firm's creditor as part of a so-called resolution, a bankruptcy court has need -- neither the authority nor the funds to make creditors whole. bankruptcy is an open, transparent process administered according to clear rules, subtle preferences, preferences that in this bill can be disregarded. by contrast, the resolution authority proposed by the democrats would be carried out entirely behind closed doors with no guarantee of adequate stakeholder participation and protection and without a bankruptcy judge to ensure a fair and equitable outcome. the democrats have been careful to include in their bill a provision that explicitly

statethat taxpayers will bear no lses from the government's exercise of resolution authority, but that promise, like the promise we heard in fannie and freddie, is an empty one, not worth the paper it is printed on. you remember on this floor we heard the secretary of tresury say $300 billion that will never be used. it was used and almost another $1 trillion more was guaranteed. the only way to ensure that the pockets of taxpayers will not again be picked by wall street and government bureaucrats with the help of congress is a coalition which sometimes i refer to as the reckless and the clueless is to insist that failing firms be resolved through bankruptcy. in conclusion, let me remind my colleagues that for 99.9% of core companies and all individuals who find themselves

unable to meet their obligations are their creditors -- or their creditors, bankruptcy, not a government bailout, is the only alternative. it ought to be the alternative for failing too big to save corporations as well. this motion to instruct would eliminate the too big to fail, too small to save double standard in the democrat bill that has so infuriated the american people and made -- makes bankruptcy the only option for the systemically significant firm many of which created the crisis that our economy and the american people face today. i urge my colleagues to support it and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frank: we have just seen an elephant stick wielded on the

floor of the house. the elephant stick refers to the man who is walking around the floor here in washington carrying a big stick and people say, why do you have that big stick? people he says, i have to keep away the elephants. people say, there are no elephants here. he says, right, my stick works. my friend from alabama is determined to prevent from happening what is not going to happen and what is not authorized in the bill. it is true, we have bailouts. what we also have is the latest in a sees of bailouts and a series of stunning repudiations of the bush administration from its former supporters. i believe president bush's administration will do the best they can work weak tools at the time to deal with the problem. what we have are ways to avoid that from happening.

there was referee to too big to fail. they will fail. the question is will their failure lead to consequences that you should have some ability to deal. with we do model some of this after the fdic. the fdic, run by an able appointee, a republican, appoint to the job by president bush, had a major role in helping us decide how to do this. it is to say, first of all, the institutions that get too far into debt will die. my republican colleagues were actually right in the wrong place. earlier this year. which is better than their usual average when they talked about death tanls -- death panels. we are legislating death panels this year but they're for financial institutions, not elderly women. we don't havehem in the health care bill, we have them in the financial bill. there is no too big to fail institution. some things that were done were not done as well as they should

have been. that's why we go to a final conference. to the extent there are discussions that some of these might survive, we'll clean them out. the senate bill has some provisions i don't like. 202 of the senate bill, i hope to change. on the other hand, the notion that in this very complex system we have with the debts that are out there, going into bankruptcy is simplistic. by the way if think republican colleagues really believe that bankruptcy is the only way to deal with these institutions, they would have an amendment or would have had an amendment to do away with the disillusion authority of the fdi -- the dissolution authority of the fdic. we don't have simple bankruptcy for banks, we have a particular method given their importance in society and how you wind them down. as for the conference report being opened, i welcome my republican colleagues as converts to the cause of

openness and interbranch negotiations. when the republicans controlled this institution for 12 years and had the senate for most of that time, conferences were so rare that i've had to explain to members who came during the years of republican rule how a conference works. now they have become great advocates of an openness they never implemented themselves. we will have a conferee, which i announced was my intention, last year, last fall. it will be open, things will be presented, they will be debated they will be subject to amendment they will be voted on. i was asked if they were going to be televise ared. i am not the editorial director of c-span. i hope it will be covered. i hope tv will be there. i hope it will be widely covered. i think it probably will be, given the interest. when they talk about a 72-hour requirement, i expect we will beat that. the timetable i am hoping for

will have this bill done in a couple of weeks and it should be reported out if we can work this out by a thursday and not come to the house until tuesday which is more than 72 hours. one never knows whether there will be some emergency, what might happen this will be a fully debated bill system of there are aspects of the inspection report i agree with. there are aspects with which i disagree. of course, we have to go to the senate, that's why instruction motions are not binding. i do disagree with two points. first of all, the entirely inaccurate allegation that this perpetuates bailouts, they have us confused with the situation in 2008. i don't blame the bush administration for the bailouts, but some of them could have been conducted better but they didn't have the tools this gives them the tools that first the bush administration and now the obama administration has asked

for, not to keep institutions alive but to put them to death in a way that does not cause great problems in the rest of the economy. there will be no taxpayer money expended here. that's already done. i do not doubt that years from now they'll take credit for what we had already decided to do. the instruction motion, in other words is a mixed bag. some parts of it, i hope we will act on. the fund of $150 billion recommended to us, again, by the chairwoman of the fdic. many of us thought that made sense. the senate and th administration were opposed to it. it will not survive the conference, everyone knows that, so that is going to disappear anyway. saying you have only bankruptcy and nothing else that helps you buffer the consequences of the failure of these institutions and failures they will be. they will be failednd dissolved, i think is reckless. i plan to vote against the

conference -- against the motion to instruction and given that it is such a mixed bag of things an given that it's not binding, i will predict that the outcome is likely to be very similar, no matter how it votes, there are some things we'll do, some things we have to negotiate with the senate we haven't got the power to order so i think this will be useful discussion but i will go back to test the central points. there will be no taxpayer funds and no institutions that do not -- are not allowed to fail. there will be an effort, and it has to be negotiated, to work with the senate so that we do not simply say that the consequences are of no interest. i repeat again, those who genuinely believe that only bankruptcy should be used have made a major concession by not applying those rules to the banking system. if only bankruptcy should be used, then where is the motion,

where was the amendment during the process to convert the fdic dissolution process on which this is modeled to a bankruptcy model. i reserve the balance of hi time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balancof his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. paul. or mr. hensarling. sorry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. . speaker, the question before us, with apologies to william shake spafere to bail out or not to bail out, that is the question. the motion to instruct by the ranking member says, no more bailouts. quite simply, it cannot be said any other way. unfortunately, whether you're dealing with the house bill or the senate bill, there's still

-- there are still firms that are in their view too big to fail. the phrase used is systemically significant, stemically risky, but they are identifying firms for a specific regulatory scheme and in the house version, as the distinguished chairman of the financial services committee pointed out, has a prefunded bailout fund. in the senate version they drop their prefunded but there's an infinite line of credit that the fdic can draw upon with respect to the treasury. again if you have firms, mr. speaker, that are too big to fail, then you are saying they can't fail, so if they can't fail, then at some point, you're going to bail them out. now, i've heard the distinguished chairman of the financial services committee, the gentleman from massachusetts, on many occasions say, no taxpayer funds will be used. i heard him say it seconds

earlier. and i know he believes it and i know he means it but unfortunately, the track record for him and many of his colleagues on that side of the aisle, and predictably such is not very good. the distinguished chairman was the same one who told us he didn't believe that taxpayers would be called upon to bail out fannie and freddie. well, approximately $150 billion later, we know that fannie and freddie did have to be bailed out that rolling the dice was not a good strategy. we know that we were told these are the same folks who also told us that the national flood insurance program would never go broke, the crop insurance prram, medicare will never go broke. we've heard it before, mr. speaker. to somehow believe that ultimately taxpayers will not be called upon to have to bail out these firms is asking us, frankly to ignore history and

to suspend disbelief. again, it is time to end the bailouts in the motion to instruct -- and the motion to instruct would do that. too big to fail. becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. in many respect the bill ought to be renamed the perpetual bailout act of 2010. it as the wrong scheme. bankruptcy ishe proper scheme. i know the chairman has told us, well, we have death panels for these financial firms. well, what happened on chrysler and their so-called death panels? we know that washington decided to play favorites. certain creditors were benefited at the expense of others. unsecured creditors, particularly the u.a.w., united automobile workers, somehow they jet to the front of the line.

secured creditors go to the back of the line. it's being used, it creates avenues for political favoritism in washington, d.c., it will again lead to washington picking winners and losers. we know how this ends. we know that a.i.g. was used to make counterparties whole. c.i.t. was designate today big to fail they got billions of dollars, they failed anyway, but it was resolved quickly. it is time to end the bailout the nation cannot afford to be on the road to bankruptcy. it is time to end the bailouts, mr. speaker. it is time to approve this motion to instruct. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from alabama reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i would like to yield to any of my republican colleagues who can tell me why they never moved to require bankruptcy as a way of dealing with failing

banks. if bankruptcy is the only way to do it, why have the republicans never proposed that we substitute for the current fdic proposal, bankruptcy? i'm used to being unanswered when i ask hard questions. thing proves a point. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i would say to the distinguished chairman that depositors are different from investors. when we have taxpayer money specifically at risk, it calls for a different regime. mr. frank: the gentleman is wrong about that. yes depositors are different than investor, depositors are insured. but we have deposit insurance. if you on the other side generally believe this, they would provide deposs sit insurance and bankruptcy. the gentleman has iorrectly answered the question. deposit insurance takes care of depositors but there are other ways to reduce the cost to the government. bankruptcy and deposit insurance has not been the

method. i'll yield again. mr. hensarling: is the distinguished gentleman suggesting we need deposit insurance for firms like citigroup and goldman sachs? mr. frank: that's even by the standards of this debate wholly illogical. what i'm suggesting is the glaring inconsistency between saying bankruptcy is the only way you put an institution out of business and the failure to apply that to the banking institution. by the way, i don't -- i don't mean to be rude but the gentleman mentioned city corp., but there's a bank there that has deposit insurance. there's another error -- there's another error i tried twice, this is that the bill designates institutions too big to fail or systemically important. that's misleading as stated. in fact, the bill in the house does not designate any

institution as being systemically important. the only way an institution would be designated as systemically important is if it was found to be troubled. so there would be no situation in which an institution would havehat label and go out and be able to do things with it. under the bill we have, only a finding that the institution is in difficulty triggers a systemic importance designation and it's accoanied with restrictions on the institution. it's exactly the opposite of this being a badge to get more loans. it is publicly identified as a public institution. the last point i'd make is this. there's flood insurance, medicare a number of things, none of them have the language we have in this bill this bill has very specific language banning those things because we have learned from experience. we've learned from the experience of 2008, with all those bailouts and remember, every single bailout activity was initiated by the bush

administration. i s that not for they are political purposes but to inindicate the difficulties here. it was the people in the bush administration who said to us, give us different tools. we've got to be to be able to deal with putting these institutions out of business but not ignore the consequence. with that, mr. speaker, i reiterate this bill prevents bailouts, designates no institution as systemically important and says regulators may step in when they find an institution to be troubled and if they think that troubled institution can cause damage, they don't just designate it, they put severe restrictions on it. it's exactly the opposite of the suggestion that it's too big to fail. they have to increase capital, decrease activity and people will be told if that institution does fail under the bill, those who have invested, etc., will be wiped out, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield four minutes to another gentleman from texas, mr. paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is yielding how much time? mr. bachus: four minutes. four. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paul: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this motion to instruct. i think it's a good idea that we don't have the taxpayers bailing out ernally institutions that are bankrupt. but this is an important thing to remember that when an economy gets out of kilter, the marketplace demands a correction of that, that is a recession. we are not how we get into the excesses but we do.

and unfortunately debt gets too high and malinvestment gets too excessive and the market wants to correct it. this excessive debt can be liquid ated. it can be written out by inflationary currency d paid off by bad money or be liquid ated by actually the -- through the bankruptcy process. so i'm in strong support of this. but i also want to make a point here and a suggestion to the conferees that they pay attention to the provision in the house version of our bill dealing with the federal reserve. and that provision is called h.r. 1207 which deals with the auditing. and there's a difference between the senate version and the house version, so although we're not talking about that specifically, to me it's important, not for the issue of oversight and transparency, but there's also an opportunity for the federal reserve to provide bailout provisions for certain

organizations as well. we are talking about taxpayers fund, the appropriated funds, tarp funds and others. but when we come to extending loans in a way this very much is a bailout, so i would like to suggest that we look at that and stand by the house provision. we do have 319 co-sponsors of this provision. mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? i can guarantee because the senate has acted we will have tough provisions for the federal verve in the final bill. i will note to my friend from texas when they did a motion to recommit, they would have wiped out an older provision. despite that my friend from texas temporarily abandoned his recommital motion, i join with him in reviving it. we have in our bill a severe limitation on this power under section 13-3.

there will no be no more loans. i continue to work with him to make sure it's well done. mr. paul: i thank the chairman and i would just like to re-emphasize that it is the responsibility of the congress to commit to oversight of the federal reserve, something we have been derelict in doing. i think the mood of this house and the mood of the senate and the mood of the country is more transparency and more oversight. the senate version is not adequate for an audit of the fed. so i am encouraged that we are getting more attention because ultimately it is necessary that we understand exactly how the business cycle comes about and how the federal reserve participates in this because under the circumstances of today on what we're doing, we're prolonging our agony and someday i would hope to see that our reinvestigations and now we're talking -- recessions and now we're talking about depressions are shortened.

i hope that the programs we're working with today are prolonging those changes. so the most important thing we can do is make sure we exert, our responsibilities have oversight of the federal verve, commit to these audits -- reserve, commit to these audits of the federal reserve and not endorse the idea that the federal reserve is totally secret, can do what they want, can bail out other companies and banks and foreign governments and foreign central banks without fully knowing exactly what they're doing. i once again thank the chairman of the committee for his support for auditing the fed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i yield now to the chairman of the subcommittee of financial institutions, was pushing for things like this, such time as he may consume, thgentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kanjorski.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman om pennsylvania is recognized for amuch time as he may consume. mr. kanjorski: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise maybe to make a suggestion. i know it may fall on deaf ears, but we're about to undertake an historic event both in this institution, the congress of the united states and in the united states of america and that is to enact laws by democratic society through their elected representatives that will cause occasions to happen that may actually save the economy of this nation or the economy of the world. and it seems to me if this firspreparation date we're waiting the appointment of our conferees here on the house side that we're already indicating that they'll be a political flavor to this conferences opposed to an attempt by both sides of the

aisle to find what is best for america and what is best for the economy of this country. now, i suggest, and i will concede having worked with the chairman and members on the other side, the ranking members and others for these last 15 or 16 months, that this is not a perfect bill or a perfect solution. i wish it were, but i think we'll all have to wait for another day to get to perfection. all we're trained to do here is to work in the regular order of the legal process to see if we can make certain that we don't bring down our economy or our government or the world's economy or the world governments. and that's what we're attempting to do. i'm probably as guilty as others, too big to fail, and we talk about that like that's an

easily definable entity. well, in reality it isn't. the fact of the matter is some things are so interconnected and so intertwined and involved in our economic system that for all intents and purposes they would appear not to be a risky organization, but that when you examine them and you see the tentacles that's sent throughout our societies and other organizations throughout the world that their flure can precipitate a failure of the economic system of the world. and that is the organization we know as a.i.g. you know, an organization in excess of 100,000 people working in tens of countries around the world, had a little organization in london, england, called financial products, a.i.g. those 400 people were able to take a name as a.i.g., american international insurance group,

anduality lies that to get in the -- and utilize that to get in the market without the support of adequate assets to meet their counterparty positions. and what happened? it started to fail to meet its counterparty positions and immediately would have put at risk most of the major banks of not only the united states but of the world. now, when that was happening and that occurred after other failures in the united states occurred, we had several choices. we could have sat by and say, well, the market will cure all things. and i guess if you're a curist that's not a bad a position. i'll concede to that. i'm one of those people that favor affecting the market and taking actions that will in some instances short-circuit the effects of the market when

the effect of the market will be so seve on our population that it warrants such action. and that's exactly what happened in a.i.g. if we sat back and allowed that to occur and the ripple effect around the world, we would have collapsed the economy of the united states and the world, probably some of our best economists in the world indicated within 72 hours we would have been in position of not knowing what the world's economy would look like. we were called upon to take certain actions, and that was way back in september, october of 2008, and many of us came back to washington just before our vital elections that year and we went to work and we created something. can i reconstruct for you, gentlemen, it was about? we didn't come back to the obama administration. we didn't come back to a situation --

>> i'd ask that the address be made to the speaker and not to each other. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the speaker. the gentleman is recognized. mr. kanjorski: i'm ad to address it to the speaker and i will. i'm sure we should adhere to the decorum of the house and rules of the house and i would do that. i wouldn't think of calling my attention of my observations to my colleagues on the other side. that could be frightful if we did that because they may have to respond to those observations. so we won't call those observations. i was going through how we got here and why we're here, and how we got here was we made -- met in rooms around this capitol for a number of weeks, two or three weeks, as i recall, and the president of the united states, george w. bush, in his last year of his

presidency -- in his last several years of his presidency, indicated that his secretary of treasury and the chairman of the federal reserve were his designees to work with congress to see what we could do to prevent the potential meltdown or catastrophe to the world's economy and i was in some of those meetings, not all those meetings, we would tune in to the conference telephone to economists, nobel prize-winning economists around the world of all political persuasions and philosophical positions. and to my best recollection there were several dozen, and to a man, not a man or woman, not one of them disagreed that what we were facing was total meltdown and precipitous action had to be taken. and the precipitous action that

was taken was to provide a rescue package giving unusual incredible authority tthe executive branch of government to be utilized by the secretary of the treasury to do what we could to prevent a meltdown in the united states. now, as i recall, those economists were telling us it was their opinion that even if we did these strange and unusual activities of empowering the president and the secretary of treasury to borrow money, use money, buy assets, do all kinds of things, the chance of success was rated at about 50/50. as i recall, we worked for about two or three weeks crafting what originally was a three-page bill that ultimately became a 400-page bill and became known as the rescue bill. we brought it to the house

floor, if all of you will recall, and it failed. and the day that it failed, the hour that it failed, the half-hour that it failed, the new york stock exchange dropped 900 points. and finally, there was a realization across the country and across the world that if this rescue package was not passed we probably were looking at the beginning of the failure of the american economic system. and we went to work to see if we could put a coalition together to get it passed and that took another week, if i recall. now, we did those things in the midst of an election, we did those things with a republican president and a democratic congress and it seems we did it pretty successfully. and we didn't call it a bailout bill. that became a political terminology so that people could be misinformed, misdirected and

have a visceral reaction to what the congress has done when they really didn't understand. and what occurred? well, that prevailed. rather than calling th rescue bill anymore, it became known as the bailout. and i want to correct that. because i've heard that term used here at least a dozen or two dozen team times. i ask the question -- times. i ask the question, what did we bail out? we made extensive commitments to banks in the united states, to the best of my knowledge all those banks have now repaid those commitments to the treasuries or to the federal reserve. what was the success of that? most of them did not fail and our economic system did not fail in totality. so it was pretty good. but we were losing employment, falling like a rock, the economy, to the tune of, in january, when the president of the -- new president of the united states was sworn into office, this nation lost 750,000 jobs and had been losing jobs at

that rate for several months before and continued several months after. and we started to get into, as opposed to discussing economics, free market situations and legalities of how we handle this problem, we got into a political ramble that has continued to this day. i think that's what i got up to address. if we stay on this course and this direction, the only thing that's going to happen is this conference committee and ultimately the bills that are ented into law and signed by the president will beve limited-capacity pieces of legislation that will not nearly accomplish what could happen. on the other hand, i say to my friends on the other side and the members and colleagues of this congress, if we can put our personal prejudices, our political advantages to the side and spend the next 2 1/2 or

three weeks in honest effort to get the best bill possible to reform the financial markets of the united states and indeed the world we can do something that is so historic in nature that it will replace the stability of our economy for the next 75 years as it was ably put together in the 1930's. if we don't accomplish that, what we're going to end up with is a temporary solution to a disastrous problem, finding a lot of silly political questions which will long disappear before many of us do from the face of the earth, but not accomplishing anything for the american people. i will end this dialogue with saying this, gentlemen on both sides of the aisle, let's put our disagreements aside for at least the next two or three weeks.

let's listen to the chairman of the house committee and the ranking member, let's listen to the chairman of the senate committee and ranking member and the other 0 participants in this conference committee -- 30 participants in this conference committee, with the commitment of doing the best we can within our powers to prevent this from happening, certainly in the near future, or potentially ever again. and if we fail to do that, we will have failedour job. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield back? he yields back. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. >> i have a parliamentary inquiry as to how much time is remaining on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama has 16 minutes. and the gentleman from massachusetts has seven minutes. the gentleman from alabama is recogned. mr. bachus: thank you. madam speaker, at this time i recognize the very able ranking member of the oversight committee, mrs. judy biggert,

for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois will be recognized -- recognized for four minutes. mrs. biggert: thank you and i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in support of the motion to instruct. madam speaker, taxpayers are tired of paying for the mistakes of others and fed up with bailouts and it's timfor congress to recognize that financial managers that drive their firms into insolvency should be met with bankruptcy and not bailouts. unfortunately both the house and senate financial regulatory reform bills allow the government to take over any he financial business washington bureaucrats deem as too big to fail. in other words, if federal regulators like treasury secretary geithner fail to do their job, then these same regulators can simply ke over, dismantle or prop up any financial institution that they choose at taxpayers' expense and that's what i would call a bailout. that's the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace as the same reckless

approach that caused the markets to undervalue risk, inflated the bubble and left taxpayers to clean up the mess when it burst and it must end. house republicans say, never again. and we have developed a responsible alternative. bankruptcy. it's a fair and unbiased process insulated from inappropriate political pressures and removes taxpayers from the equation. due to recent hearing, federal reserve bank of kansas city president, agreed, calling enhanced bankruptcy, and i quote, a process that he ensures everyone -- that ensures that the largest instutions will be dismantled if they fail. he continued, i prefer a rule of law that takes away discretion from the bureaucrat or from the policy person so that the crisis -- so that in the crisis you don't have the option to bail out, so that you have to take certain telephones -- steps to control, to prevent a financial meltdown.

madam speaker, i couldn't agree more. effective financial reform must end the bailout and prevent the next financial meltdown. bankruptcy is central to the solution. it will give certainty to the marketplace, discourage risky practices and eliminate taxpayer liability and political interference. the bottom line is that stronger, nimble and more coordinated regulators must do their jobs, exercise strong oversight and bar excessive risky, deceptive and fraudulent marketplace behavior. washington shouldn't control the market. it should regulate it. through smarter regulation and epchanced bankruptcy rules we can prevent the next financial meltdown, millions of american businesses and families that work together every day to play by the rules and invest wisely deserve nothing less. i would support the motion and i would hope that we will have a great conference and really that

we will come up with a bill but i think this is an important motion to reconsider before that. i would reserve the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from alabama reserves his time and has 12 minus remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized and has seven minutes remaining. mr. frank: i would yield myself 30 seconds to say that i'm intrigued. we were talking about bankruptcy. now we have a new concept, enhanced bankruptcy. we were told earlier that it should be plain bankruptcy like everybody else. now apparently there's something special so we got enhanced bankruptcy. maybe we'll have enhanced bankruptcy explained to us and if bankruptcy is good for everybody why does enhanced bankruptcy need to be done here and what is it? is it another name for doing more than bankruptcy? i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama correctly has 13 mites remaing. and is recognized. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. speaker.

at this time i yield three minutes to the ranking member of the government oversight committee from californiamr. issa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman and i thank the speaker. three minutes is all i need because we're going into a process, one you in which i would like to be optimistic. one in which i'll have 72 hours to pour over a 2,000-page bill to see where we can make it better. mr. speaker, i too, like the gentleman from pennsylvania, remember 2008. i remember helping lead the charge against a whole sale bailout, a slush fund for then president bush to pass around $700 billion and to pass onto the next president a piece of that left over. to spend it and if you happen to get paid back, to spend it again. mr. speaker, the american people are tired of endless bailouts of the select few. when the gentleman spoke of a.i.g., a.i.g. still owes us $100 billion-plus we'll never

see back, in spite of the fact that much of that money went outside the country. i'm part of a congress that saw the bush administration make mistakes. i'm fortunate that i voted against it. and i'm happy that i voted agast it -- against it. as we go intbankruptcy -- sorry, as we go into this financial reform, i would hope that we remember milton friedman once said, capitalism is a profit and loss system. the profits encourage risk taking anthe losses encourage prudence. mr. speaker, we must have freedom to fail in this country. we cannot have too big to fail and more importantly, we cannot have the politicalization of the process by picking and choosing people like freddie and fannie to get $6 trillion worth of full faith funding from the american people in order to guarantee what ultimately was to a great extent their fault. we went into a financial

collapse because when homes became unaffordable, gimmicks were produced. the american people watched their government create most of those gimmicks and even today the american government continues to fund a 3.5% down form of financing as tugh homes will only go up in price. so i look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to get this bill right in conference. i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields bk the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i will yield three minutes to the chairman of the oversight committee, who has been a major source for stability in this system, mr. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for three minutes. mr. moore: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in op sillings to republican motion to instruct, but in support of the work the house and senate conference committee will begin in crafting a final bill on ll street reform.

for most of last year my colleagues on the house financial services committee, under the outstanding leadership of chairman frk, along with other committees, worked hard to produce the wall street reform and consumer protection act. the work was bipartisan. over 50 republican amendments were accepted along with over 20 bipartisan amendments. this package contains ideas put forward by democrats and republicans as it should, creating a better and more thoughtful bill. while the bill is large and complex, it does some very important things. it ends too big to fail, it ends the need for bailouts and fully protects taxpayers and it has tough new consumer investor protections that will better protect families' retireme funds, college savings and small business owners' financial futures from unnecessary risk by wall street lenders and speculators. that's something we were careful to do in the house bill, make sure that this new financial oversight system would focus on the true problems that created the financial crisis and not responsible actors like most community banks and credit

unions. while the bill provides needed new oversight to the $600 trillion derivatives market, it's well balanced, allowing farmers and small businesses in kansas to conduct good risk management and hedge their business risks in a responsible manner. i commend the senate for also passing -- passing a tough financialverhaul bill last month. the conference committee should take the best ideas from both bills and combine them into one final bill that our colleagues can support and that will finally restore our constituents' trust in our financial system. i urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to instruct that serves as a distraction for the need for a well- -- well balanced, strong financial reform package and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from alabama -- the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> i thank the chairman. i now am pleasured to yield two minutes to the ranking member of the judiciary committee, mr.

smith from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i thank my colleague from texas for yielding me time. as congress weighs the question of wall street reform, the answer the american people want us to give is clear, no more bailouts. and we should give that answer by passing legislation that sends any failing financial institution to bankruptcy, not to a federal agency that might bail it out. the democratic senator who guided this legislation to the senate agrees that bankruptcy must be our primary response to failing institutions. bankruptcy is fair, its rules are clear, it is administered transparently by impartial courts, it has existed for generations because of one unmistakable truth. free enterprise without the possibility of failure is free enterprise without the possibility of success. the senate improved the house bill by recognizing a role for bankruptcy. but it failed to give the bankruptcy courts what they need

to make that role meaningful. as a result, the legislation escaped from bankruptcy, one that allows takeover from firms, threatens to become the first optionunder the bill. when agencies take over firms, we all kn that they will bail them out. let's finish our work, let's close every loophole that invites a bailout. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support is motion and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. . mr. bachus: i recognize the vice chairman of the financial services committee, the vice ranking member, mr. neugebauer from texas for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. neugebauer: i thank the gentleman. i rise in support of the motion to instruct. mr. speaker, the american people want financial reform and don't want a financial reform replay. regulation is what is needed but the taxpayers have picked up the tabs for the endless bailouts to get it right. the senate and house bill lead us away from getting it right and gives the government permanent authority to continue these a.i.g. bailouts of failing firms. both bills let the government pick winners and losers by deciding which financial companies will get on the too big to fail list and benefit from the government backing. these bills give the same regulators who failed to get the job done right in the first place, more authority and more power. these bills won't really perform more reform, but only make bailouts and government protection for future bailouts

permanent and leaving taxpayers on the ho indefinitely. this creases the cost of credit at a time when small businesses across the country are having a hard time getting credit. we are going to take actions that will reduce the ability for them and leading to fewer jobs and unemployment in our country. they fail to address the two companies that cost the country most, freddie mac, fannie mae, $175 million is already invested in these two entiti and this bill fails to make any reform of these two entities. to fix the biggest problems by removing all of the new and permanent bailouts,ur motion says that financial companies that fail should be aowed to fail and use bankruptcy laws and not back rm deals that give creditors more preference over others and different treatment for different creditors. our motion says the regulators

should be held accountable and not decide who is too big to fool. the taxpayers want it fixed but don'tant it fixed with permanent bailouts. insist on real protections and reforms for the taxpayers and a financial in our economy. the american people want reform and don't want another replay of bailouts. support the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from massachuset. mr. frank: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. i remember when the gentleman from texas was a little less harsh on freddie mac and fannie mae and amendment was adopted over the objection of the secretary of treasury. i want to repeat the central theme here. history is one of bailouts

initiated by the prior administration, some supported by this congress, some by the administration on its own. this bill prevents that legally. the gentleman from texas referred to thea bailout by the federal reserve with the federal reserve picking one company or the other. the power that the federal reserve has had over 75 years to do that is repealed in this bill. the federal reserve is allowed if there are solvent institutions that are liquid and have a 99% chance of repayment at least to advance money based on their paper, but there can be no more a.i.g.'s under the federal reserve's authority. the gentleman said they can get on the list of too big to fail. there is no list. this is a hard-held myth by the republicans. what there is is this, if the regulators were given more power to watch here. there were a different set of

regulators. the s.e.c. today is not the s.e.c. under the prior administration that looked the other way at madoff. but what they do is to say to an institution that is much more carefully monitored, you need to be reformed. you need to be restrained. you must have have higher capital requirements. you must reduce the amount you are doing. so there is a tight limitation on what the entities can do. so the privilege of being named important is -- an it's not called important -- it says you are going to be subject to stricter standards. and it says explicitly in the bill there can be no bailouts. there have been prior cases of bailouts, all sides, congress, president, but they never had this language. there is no example of this explicit anti-bailout language being flouted becse it never

existed before. there are no too big to fail institutions. the question is this, when an institution that has gotten overly indebted and is put out of business as this bill requires it to be, do you simply do that and ignore the consequences or should there be some capacity in the federal government to look at the consequences? my colleagues have not applied their joan logic and i hope the final speaker will explain what enhanced baruptcy is. we re told bankruptcy was the answer. bankruptcy gotten hansed somewhere and we haven't what it is. and it's the case that we tell the fdic, when you insure the depositors, they are taken care of, but there are costs. the fdic is told about this method and that means spending money to wind it down in a way that diminishes the impact. my colleagues on the other side aren't quite as devoted to

bankruptcy as theyhink. they're not prepared to put it into the fdic proposal and it's a form of enhanced bankruptcy and i hope in their remaining time they'll explain it. when they offer a recommital motion, mr. speaker, on this bill, they didn't say let's fix bankruptcy but said kill every sort of consumer and financial reform. the gentleman from texas wants to kill the consumer independent agency and kill the fiduciary responsibility for broker/dealers and leverage can never go more than 15-1. they remain oppos. their view is that the regulators in prior years didn't do a good job, yes, those who followed in the prior administration and they have been oppose todd any single form of reform. they are cloaking that in an argument that they are stopping bailouts which are made illegal by this bill.

the instruction motion has some things in it that members should support and things that members should not support. it is done in a way that i think will have an ambiguous impact. so what the vote is less important than what the message is and let's be clear about the message there are no bailouts allowed under this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time, i yield three minutes to the ranking member of the capital markets subcommittee, mr. garrett of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the gentleman. were that to be true that there are no more bailouts in this 1,500 page bill that congress is about to be considering in conference. were that to be true the american taxpayer is potentially no longer on the hook. there has been over the last year and a half under this administration and the bailouts that are costing the taxpayers

tens of billions of dollars. were it to be true that we pass a piece of legislatioand be able to keep in place the laws of this country for the last 200 -plus years to protect private property rights and protect the rights under the bankruptcy code so investors and institutions know what they are going to get when they invest in a company, more importantly when you are a secured creditor that that means what it says, you are secured by the assets of the company. we saw that that was not the case in the situation of the chrysler situation, where you had a situation where the administration basically stepped in using taxpayer dollars and used the system by saying we aren't going to go through bankruptcy court as members of this side of the aisle would suggest should have occurred, but instead, act in an extra occur can you lar matter and

allow the secured creditors to be tossed aside and the assets be difference yeed up as others would decide. that is what we would be perpetrating with this piece of legislation that is before us. what happened in that situation? in that situation, you had the unions who basically had no interest in that company whatsoever and ended up with a 55% interest in the company at the end of the day, a gift, valued at $4.5 billion. fiat was given a 20% stake to take it over and the secured creditors who thought they should have been at the front of the line, they ended up at the end of the line, where instead of 43 cents on the dollar, they got 29 cents on the dollar and were told, you should be happy about it. at the end of the day, mr. speaker, we are going to be perpetrating that same sort of ability for regulators to be making the same decisions going forward. yeah, maybe they won't be able

to give it to their friends at the unions like they did in this case -- maybe they will, but we aren't sure, but at the end of the day we are perpetrating to say to the secured creditors, you want to make an investment in the company thinking you are secured and if the company were to fail and go into bankruptcy and you will be first in line, guess what? that's not the case because we are going to put in the statute to say that a regulator, an unelected bureaucratic regulator is going to say, not so fast investor, we are going to put someone else ahead of you. that happens to real life people in the situation of the chrysler people where three pension funds, policemen thought they were secured creditors and at the end of the day were told they were stripped of their rights that this bill would perpetrate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. bachus: i would yield to the

gentleman an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: we have the idea that the rule of law should mean something in this country and has meant something for the last 200-plus years and bankruptcy code is part of that law. you know, an article published in the u.c. law school said what happened in the last year and a half said what happened was so outrageous and illegal that until march of this year, nobody ever conceptalized it. the judge i was referring to commented from the bench that the pension manager representing the teachers and firemen was like the gentlemen in tiananmen square when the tanks came rolling over. i don't want the investors, whether firemen, policemen or senior citizens to feel like they did in that case. i want them to know thatheir rights are protected by the rule of law through the bankruptcy

process and not by some politically appointed bureaucrats or regulators that can strip them of their rights. that's what the republicans stand for and we are opposed to the language in the majority's bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: mr. speaker, i would inquire as to the time left on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. the gentleman has the right to close. the gentleman from massachusetts ' time has expired. mr. bachus: we heard the gentleman from pennsylvania say that there were no bailouts. i think if you submit that statement to the american people, they would tell you that there were bailouts because in fact, there were bailouts. the majority has made the statement on the floor of the house in defense of this bill that it's all been paid back. well, in fact, it has not been all paid back and i think on further examination we would all

have to remember the inconvenient fact that a.i.g. still owes the american people about $150 billion. freddie mac and fannie mae, not only are there hundreds of billions of dollars that they owe, but the president, back on december 25, guaranteed their obligations which could run in the trillions. now, in addition to all that, a few statements by the chairman, mr. speaker. the chairman says that there has to be trouble before -- instead of going through bankruptcy, they go through this thing where you can guarantee their obligations. you can take a security interest in them. you can purchase their assets. you can lend money to them.

well, who decides that? well, according to the bill, it includes the secretary of the treasury, the head of a small group. the senate bill includes the o.c.c. it is -- mr. frank: would the gentleman suspend? mr. frank: that he says it includes aligs beth warren. i don't believe the bill refers to aliz beth -- elizabeth warren. . mr. bachus: 90% of the total consolidated assets. now, mr. chairman, or, mr.

speaker, i'd ask the chairman, maybe he can give us this figure or review my figures, but the largest corporation in america, bank of america, which would qualify under this program has total assets of $2,340 ,000,000,000. that means that the fdic could borrow $2 trillion. i would ask this, what do they borrow it from? more importantly, if they borrow $2 trillion to allow bank of america to go into this process, if they're not paid back, who pays it? and the answer is, the taxpayers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time s expired. all time h expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is is agreed to and

without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. bachus: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are