[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[House]
[Pages 31737-31741]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         MORTGAGE REFORM AND ANTI-PREDATORY LENDING ACT OF 2007

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

                              {time}  1332


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3915) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to reform 
consumer mortgage practices and provide accountability for such 
practices, to establish licensing and registration requirements for 
residential mortgage originators, to provide certain minimum standards 
for consumer mortgage loans, and for other purposes, with Mr. Cardoza 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 2 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) had 
been disposed of.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 110-450.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
       Page 66, after line 3, insert the following new paragraph 
     (and redesignate the subsequent paragraph accordingly):
       ``(2) Phased-out penalties on qualified mortgages.--A 
     qualified mortgage (as defined in subsection (c)) may not 
     contain terms under which a consumer must pay a prepayment 
     penalty for paying all or part of the principal after the 
     loan is consummated in excess of the following limitations:
       ``(A) During the 1-year period beginning on the date the 
     loan is consummated, the prepayment penalty shall not exceed 
     an amount equal to 3 percent of the outstanding balance on 
     the loan.
       ``(B) During the 1-year period beginning after the period 
     described in subparagraph (A), the prepayment penalty shall 
     not exceed an amount equal to 2 percent of the outstanding 
     balance on the loan.
       ``(C) During the 1-year period beginning after the 1-year 
     period described in subparagraph (B), the prepayment penalty 
     shall not exceed an amount equal to 1 percent of the 
     outstanding balance on the loan.
       ``(D) After the end of the 3-year period beginning on the 
     date the loan is consummated, no prepayment penalty may be 
     imposed on a qualified mortgage.''.
       Page 66, after line 11, insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Option for no prepayment penalty required.--A 
     creditor may not offer a consumer a residential mortgage loan 
     product that has a prepayment penalty for paying all or part 
     of the principal after the loan is consummated as a term of 
     the loan without offering the consumer a residential mortgage 
     loan product that does not have a prepayment penalty as a 
     term of the loan.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  This amendment, which I am offering with my good friend and colleague 
from New Jersey, Albio Sires, addresses prepayment penalties and prime 
loans. This is a well-balanced amendment that has gained the support 
both of consumer groups and industry.
  Prepayment penalties are designed to deter borrowers from 
refinancing, or just paying off their loans. This seems unfair; why 
should anyone be penalized for paying off their loans? Why should 
borrowers not be able to take advantage of a better offer if it becomes 
available? Isn't that how the free market system is supposed to work?
  The underlying bill prohibits prepayment penalties on subprime loans 
and requires that prepayment penalties on prime loans expire 3 months 
before a loan resets. But I think we need to offer all borrowers, 
including prime borrowers, an alternative to loans with prepayment 
penalties. At the most, prepayment penalties should last 3 years, the 
time needed for lenders to recover their investment.
  Mortgage lenders argue that prepayment penalties enable them to offer 
loans at lower interest rates because they are assured of income for a 
period of time. Our amendment just requires them to offer prime 
borrowers an informed choice. If a lender offers a borrower a loan with 
a prepayment penalty, they also have to offer that borrower a loan with 
no prepayment penalty.
  Also, our amendment would limit the period of prepayment penalties to 
3 years and limit the amount of the penalty to 3 percent of the 
outstanding balance in the first year, 2 percent in the second, and 1 
percent in the third. This standard has already been adopted in many 
States and is often referred to as the ``California standard.'' It 
represents what reputable lenders consider best practices. Prepayment 
penalties beyond 3 years are simply unjustified by any market need.
  This is a balanced amendment that gives lenders adequate security and 
the option to offer prime loans with prepayment penalties, but also 
gives prime borrowers a choice to avoid prepayment penalties if they so 
wish. It is a sensible and necessary step to improved disclosure and 
improved choice.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FEENEY. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Ms. Kaptur). The gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FEENEY. I appreciate the gentlelady's amendment. And I suppose I 
can't argue that it does a great deal of harm under the bill, because 
what the bill essentially does is it takes millions of potential 
homebuyers and makes them ineligible, as a practical matter, for loans. 
And so all we're

[[Page 31738]]

doing is taking those million people that can't get loans and saying 
one more type of loan they can't get is a loan with a prepayment 
penalty that lasts longer than 3 years built in.
  Having said that, assuming some potential homebuyers escape the 
penalties under this bill and they actually do qualify to get a loan 
that puts them in a house that they like and that's affordable, what 
the gentlelady's amendment does is to make the marginal interest rate 
they may have to pay higher.
  As the gentlelady said, lenders have demonstrated, I think 
conclusively, that there are lower interest rates available at times if 
you have a prepayment penalty built in because they know that that loan 
is going to be out there for 15, 20 or 30 years putting a stream of 
money into the pocket of the lender. That's why they do the more 
attractive long-term interest rate.
  Now, I happen to not like prepayment penalties. Most Americans move a 
lot. But there are Americans, for example, on a fixed income that are 
retired and have a pension and they know they're going to be in a house 
for a long period of time and they don't mind a prepayment penalty.
  What the gentlelady does is to take choices away from homeowners. By 
the way, I agree with the notion that we ought to have informed 
consent. There is nobody here arguing that we shouldn't inform 
consumers what the prepayment penalty is, what the consequences can be. 
What we are suggesting is that when you limit for 3 years the amount of 
the prepayment penalty, there are some homebuyers that otherwise would 
be able to get an attractive interest rate, buy the home of their 
dreams, stay in that home for 15 or 20 years and never pay the penalty 
that will never, ever get to move into that home because the gentlelady 
thought, in general, prepayment penalties are a bad idea for everybody. 
They are a bad idea for some people. If you move a lot, if you're going 
to have your circumstances changed, they can be a very bad idea. I 
negotiated a slightly higher interest rate because I do not have a 
prepayment penalty on my mortgage, but I think that individual free men 
and women, after they are informed, ought to be making these choices 
and not the Congress of the United States.
  Again, I don't think this is a horrendous amendment because what the 
bill does is to say to millions of potential borrowers, as a practical 
matter, they will be ineligible going forward to get access to credit. 
But this makes a really bad bill marginally worse.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my 
time to my colleague who has personal experience with prepayment 
penalty abuses.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. SIRES. I rise in support of this amendment. And this amendment, 
all it affords is a choice.
  I want to thank Congresswoman Maloney for her hard work and 
leadership on this issue, and I appreciate some of the concerns that I 
had on this amendment.
  Let me just share a personal story. Before coming to Congress, I was 
part owner of a title insurance agency, and I have taken out a couple 
of mortgages in my time. It is fair to say that I had more knowledge 
about mortgages than the average consumer, and certainly more than a 
first-time home buyer. Yet, when I sold my home, I sold my home for the 
reason to come to Congress, I was shocked to learn that I owed $7,500 
as a prepayment penalty. The circumstances that I sold the home were 
the fact that I was elected to Congress, that I had to disassociate 
myself with the property. If I was surprised by this penalty, imagine 
how surprised someone with less experience and knowledge would be. That 
is why I strongly support this amendment. It presents the consumer with 
the necessary information so they can make an appropriate choice for 
their family.
  The amendment also recognizes that the market should have the 
flexibility to offer prepayment penalties, and that the secondary 
market must have confidence that the mortgages they buy and sell are 
more secure.
  Our amendment does not prohibit prepayment penalties on prime 
mortgages, nor does it cap the penalties at unreasonable levels. The 
penalties allowed by this amendment conform to industry best practices.
  And I said it before, I strongly support this amendment. It is 
friendly to consumers and business. It would only serve to improve all 
mortgage transactions, which will ensure that the mortgage market has 
some stability.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Watt

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 110-450.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Watt:
       Page 46, line 7, insert ``the greater of actual damages 
     or'' after ``shall not exceed''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The bill, as currently constructed, caps damages at the amount of 
three times the broker or lender fees for steering. It's crucial to 
increase the remedies for steering so that a limited remedy does not 
simply get figured into the cost of doing business. A more effective 
way of changing broker behavior would be to provide a remedy that 
provides for the greater of actual damages, or three times the broker 
or lender fees, because it is unlikely that we will incentivize people 
not to steer unless we make the penalties sufficiently onerous.
  We want to eliminate the possibility that a lender will simply treat 
the remedy in the bill as a cost of doing business, and we believe that 
making the damages alternatively three times the broker's fees or 
actual damages will have more impact on reducing this bad kind of 
conduct. That's what the amendment does.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment and claim 
time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, in my opening statement I talked about the 
fact that we had had negotiations over the past 2 years trying to 
really gain a balance in this legislation between lender and borrower 
to ensure that credit is still available to borrowers, to ensure that 
there was proper incentive for lenders to make loans which did not 
violate this act. And I believe, in fact, we have done that. It's a 
careful balance. And I must say that I think the sense of 
proportionality in the amount of damages to be awarded that we have it 
right. But I believe this amendment would increase potential damages 
and is not warranted.
  We are not trying to create a right of actions in this lawsuit. We 
are trying to discourage lenders from making predatory loans. And if 
they do make predatory loans, then our function here is for them to pay 
reasonable compensation and also to cure that loan or to make things 
right. And I believe that the underlying bill, not this amendment, 
strikes the right balance between consumers and originators.
  I also believe that this amendment might unknowingly remove the 
incentive for an originator to originate a loan. As some of my 
colleagues on this side have cautioned, they believe the bill already 
does that. And I believe this would just be additional evidence

[[Page 31739]]

to those who are already opposed to the bill that we have the right set 
of incentives and rights and liabilities under the bill.
  At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill, and I appreciate 
the work that my friend Mr. Watt has performed. But with respect to 
this amendment, I have to oppose this amendment.
  One of the things that Mrs. Biggert talked about was five principles 
that she saw in this bill. There is also a sixth principle of real 
estate and financing, and that is certainty. And what I fear is by 
making this the greater of actual damages or triple damages, triple 
being the amount of money that the mortgage originator made, at least 
he can figure out what that is. Actual damages really does just set the 
prelude for a lawsuit or a major controversy.
  So I support this bill. I don't support the amendment. And I am going 
to urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I continue to be concerned about the increased 
liability exposure that is being introduced into the market creating 
even greater uncertainty at a time that many of us believe that we need 
even more liquidity in the market as we're looking at facing all of 
these subprime adjustable resets.
  So, again, I find it somewhat odd that when we look at the Federal 
Reserve that appears to be pushing on the accelerator, this committee 
wants to push further on the brake.
  And anytime you add increased liability upon a standard that many of 
us believe to be highly subjective, dealing with such terms as 
``appropriate,'' ``net tangible benefit,'' ``predatory 
characteristics,'' you are going to chase more people out of the 
marketplace. Fewer people are going to want to originate these 
mortgages. You are deciding de facto with this amendment that there is 
some portion of Americans who are going to be denied their 
homeownership opportunities. Now, I can't tell you what their names 
are. I don't know exactly who they are. But there are just millions and 
millions of Americans who are just barely going to qualify to be able 
to get into their own home or keep their own home. And I hear from them 
every single day.
  I've heard from the Kirkland family in Athens, Texas, in the Fifth 
Congressional District that I have the honor of representing. They 
wrote to me: ``Dear Congressman, I think Congress should not ban 
subprime loans. I think it lets people buy a home, improve their life, 
and own a piece of the dream.''
  Now, this bill doesn't outlaw all subprime loans. The amendment 
doesn't outlaw all subprime loans. But there is a universe of subprime 
loans that de facto are going to be outlawed by the increased liability 
exposure in this amendment, and people like the Kirkland family will no 
longer own their home, and that is wrong.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have said before that 
the remedies under this bill are very modest. They are so modest, in 
fact, that a great many consumers who have actually been harmed, who 
have clearly been wronged, who have clearly entered into a mortgage 
that violated the law are not going to have much they can do about it.
  The other side calls this bill a trial lawyer bonanza, Mr. Chairman. 
Not many people are going to even find a lawyer who can bring a claim 
like this.
  This takes very modest remedies and improves them only slightly. It's 
not going to provide for punitive damages or pain and suffering. It's 
just their out-of-pocket loss if they entered into a mortgage that 
violated the law. Again, the remedies are very modest. This makes them 
only slightly less modest.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I have listened to and acknowledged the concerns that are raised by 
the other side and by Mr. Perlmutter from our side about this 
provision.
  It is clear that certainty has value. But certainty when certainty is 
unfair and when you are trying to discourage a particular act such as 
steering a borrower to a higher priced loan, if you don't put in the 
bill the ability of people to get the actual damages that they incur as 
a result of being steered to a higher priced loan, then you are not 
going to deter the activity. Many unsavory people will treat this just 
as a cost of doing business because the reward for steering is so high 
that they can incur that risk for nine transactions and get rewarded 
and pay the cost of the risk on the one transaction that they might get 
caught on.
  So if you really want to deter people from steering to the highest 
cost loan, you've got to provide an effective remedy that deters them 
from doing that. That's all I am trying to do. If people don't engage 
in this activity, there are no remedies. We don't even need any 
remedies. But where they engage in an activity that we have 
acknowledged under the bill is an undesirable activity, we have 
outlawed it. We have said thou shalt not steer to a higher cost loan. 
If you don't provide a remedy that is commensurate with that, then what 
you are saying to the market is you don't really care.
  So I think this amendment is good, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina will be 
postponed.


            Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed 
in House Report 110-450.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       Page 36, line 25, insert ``or a qualified mortgage (as 
     defined in section 129B(c)(3)(B))'' before the period at the 
     end.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 825, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to draw my colleagues' 
attention to what it is we are doing here today and what they think we 
might be doing. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, today we are considering 
legislation that will change the way the mortgage industry is regulated 
in its entirety. Not just for the subprime market, in its entirety.
  I and others are fond of saying that Congress does two things very 
well: one is nothing and two is overreact. And here today we are 
considering what the Wall Street Journal has dubbed the Sarbanes-Oxley 
for the housing industry. As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, there is 
general consensus that the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation that was passed 
was indeed an overreaction and resulted in damage to the business arena 
and also decreased jobs across our Nation.
  What the Wall Street Journal has said about this bill is that it's 
``an attempt to punish business in general for the excesses of an 
unscrupulous few and the perverse incentives created by Washington 
policy.'' Hence Sarbanes-Oxley for the housing industry.
  Now, we have had a period here where some credit, some loans were 
unwisely given and that allowing individuals, allowing Americans to 
purchase homes and to realize their American Dream is a good thing.

[[Page 31740]]

  For this reason I am offering an amendment that would limit this 
legislation to the area of lending that is of most concern today, that 
is, the subprime arena. Again, this bill regulates more than just the 
subprime market. Despite the fact that at our hearing in our committee 
on the legislative proposals, and we had an array of witnesses from all 
across the market and all across the political spectrum, during 9 hours 
of hearings, not a single individual, not one, advocated that we change 
the way that all mortgages are regulated. But that's what we are doing 
here with this bill today.
  What we heard from those testifying was that they agreed that the 
subprime market might be underregulated, but not the prime market, not 
the jumbo market, not the other markets. What they said was that 
something needed to be done with the subprime market. Now, why are we 
here today? Well, there must be something else going on.
  Later in that hearing, Chairman Frank asked the third panel, 
comprised of representatives of various segments of the industry, a 
similar question: Do you think that all of the loans that were made 
over the last couple of years in the subprime area should have been 
made? And the panel's answer was clear: no, not all loans.
  It's worth noting that Mr. Lackritz, the president and CEO of the 
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, appropriately 
pointed out to the chairman that there was obviously credit that was 
imprudently granted, but that we have to also think at the same time 
that it's important that we take a lot of pride in what this committee 
has done and in what the industry has done to broaden the circle of 
homeownership. Don't ban that, he said. Don't ban that. Yet that's 
exactly what will happen if this legislation passes.
  Mr. Dugan, from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 
testified that as a result of this legislation ``some creditworthy 
borrowers would be denied loans.''
  For that reason, I believe it is important that we focus and take a 
measured approach. Adopt this amendment and we will confine the bill to 
the area that everyone says needs some assistance, where everyone says 
there is a problem: the subprime arena.
  Mr. Chairman, there are 44 million mortgages out there across our 
Nation. Fourteen percent of them are in the subprime arena. Fifteen 
percent of those are challenged. That is a challenge for those 
individuals who are having that difficulty right now, but that doesn't 
call for entire re-regulation of the overall market. In the prime area, 
3 percent of those loans are challenged. All loans, all loans, 
including prime loans, would be subject to the murky new requirements 
of this legislation which would require lenders to determine if 
borrowers have ``a reasonable ability to pay'' or a ``net tangible 
benefit'' from the refinancing of their loan. There is no reason to 
restrict the availability and the affordability of prime loans to 
eligible borrowers, especially when we have demonstrated how well these 
loans are operating even in today's market.
  For that reason, I urge the adoption of the amendment. Let's not 
subject prime loans that are operating well today to the same 
burdensome regulation that is proposed for subprime loans.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I rise to oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the Price amendment attempts to 
exempt prime loans from the requirement of the bill. The Price 
amendment takes out prime loans from the definition of residential 
mortgage loans. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most significant 
financial crises that has impacted every sphere of our economy. While, 
yes, subprime issues may be at the eye of the storm, these winds are 
howling and they are blowing fierce and hard throughout every length 
and breadth of this country. More than three-fourths of Americans with 
mortgages have prime loans. The Price amendment will do one essential 
thing. It will deprive the vast majority of Americans, 78 percent of 
Americans will be deprived by his amendment of the many important 
critical protections in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, all Americans need consumer protections against risky 
loans. This crisis has weakened the entire American economy. Look at 
Citigroup. Look at Countrywide. Major Fortune 200, 500 corporations 
have suffered tremendously. That has a ripple effect and has made 
millions of middle- and upper-income American families, as well as the 
lower-income families less secure. All Americans deserve to have the 
protections to stop bad loans from being made in the first place.
  We need to make sure that both prime and subprime consumers get 
mortgages that they can repay. We need to make sure that prime and 
subprime mortgageholders are strengthened by consumer protections 
against reckless, abusive lending practices for both prime and 
subprime, and we need to make sure that both prime and subprime 
borrowers are not steered into more expensive mortgages. For example, 
Mr. Chairman, for prime borrowers, the Price amendment removes the 
important requirement in this bill that mortgage originators comply 
with what is known as ``Federal duty of care.'' By that we mean what we 
have under this bill, where mortgage originators have to offer prime 
borrowers full disclosures that are mandated by the bill. This bill 
ensures that all borrowers can make informed decisions when taking out 
loans. All borrowers deserve that, both prime and subprime.
  Also under our bill, mortgage originators must present all borrowers, 
including prime borrowers, with the range of loan products that the 
borrowers can repay or that provide them with a net tangible benefit. 
The question was raised, what is net tangible benefit? It is making 
sure that the loan doesn't leave you in a worse-off position, for 
example, such as when you refinance, where your cash-out is less than 
the fees that you are paying.
  The Price amendment also would take away this important protection 
from our borrowers. It removes the protection of prime borrowers 
against steering. This is critically important, as the gentleman from 
North Carolina that preceded me talked about. This carefully crafted 
bill requires strong rules against talking borrowers into more 
expensive loans that they cannot afford.
  Mr. Chairman, both subprime and prime borrowers deserve that. These 
78 percent of homeowners, borrowers would not have that kind of 
protection if we adopt the Price amendment. We need to protect our 
borrowers, both prime and sub, from having borrowers being talked into 
loans that have predatory characteristics like equity stripping, they 
do that for prime as well as subprime, excessive fees that leave them 
in a worse position than they were before.
  The Price amendment would take away the important consumer protection 
that protects a consumer from loans they cannot repay, does not provide 
the tangible benefit, and then, Mr. Chairman, one important measure 
that treats borrowers differently based on race. At the bottom of this 
is this tug of war in this whole fight because this is targeted. There 
are many African Americans who are target or are prime, but they are 
targeted to move into subprime.
  This issue bleeds all across the horizon, Mr. Chairman. This 
amendment that Mr. Price is offering severely weakens and guts this 
measure and deprives all Americans from having the equality of 
protection under the law. It must be rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be 
postponed.

[[Page 31741]]




                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-450 on which 
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Watt of North Carolina.
  Amendment No. 16 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. The 
second electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Watt

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 250, not voting 18, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1112]

                               AYES--169

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Carnahan
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Markey
     Marshall
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Space
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--250

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bono
     Capuano
     Carson
     Cubin
     Doyle
     Fortuno
     Hinojosa
     Jindal
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Linder
     Mack
     Moran (VA)
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Ruppersberger
     Saxton
     Weller

                              {time}  1431

  Messrs. KELLER of Florida, SHULER, ROGERS of Alabama, DAVIS of 
Alabama, FARR, CARNEY, McINTYRE, COHEN, SPRATT, RAHALL and Mrs. BOYDA 
of Kansas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. FRANK OF Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having assumed the 
chair, Mr. Cardoza, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 3915) to amend the Truth in Lending Act to 
reform consumer mortgage practices and provide accountability for such 
practices, to establish licensing and registration requirements for 
residential mortgage originators, to provide certain minimum standards 
for consumer mortgage loans, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________