[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 864-873]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               TARP REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2009

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 111-3.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Holt:
       Page 19, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 108. TREASURY FACILITATED AUCTION.

       Section 113(b) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 
     of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5223(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Use of Market Mechanisms.--
       ``(1) In general.--In making purchases under this Act, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) make such purchases at the lowest price that the 
     Secretary determines to be consistent with the purposes of 
     this Act; and
       ``(B) maximize the efficiency of the use of taxpayer 
     resources by using market mechanisms, including auctions or 
     reverse auctions, where appropriate.
       ``(2) Auction facilitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, in coordination 
     with institutions that volunteer to participate, and not 
     using any funds under this title for purchases, facilitate an 
     auction of troubled assets owned by such institutions to 
     third party purchasers.
       ``(B) Report.--If the auction described in subparagraph (A) 
     does not take place within the 3 month period following the 
     date of the enactment of the TARP Reform and Accountability 
     Act of 2009, the Secretary shall issue a report to the 
     Congress stating--
       ``(i) why such auction has not taken place; and
       ``(ii) by what mechanism the Secretary feels that troubled 
     assets could most expeditiously be valued and liquidated.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 62, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward.
  One of the difficulties with the troubled assets is assigning values 
to them. One way of doing that is through auctions. This amendment 
encourages--in fact, directs--the Secretary, without using taxpayer 
funds, to facilitate an auction. It will allow the TARP assets to be 
valued and should help to liquidate and dispose of those assets in the 
way that was intended.

                              {time}  1230

  Now, I should say that this amendment, although approved by the Rules 
Committee, is also included in its entirety in the manager's amendment 
as accepted.

[[Page 865]]




          Modification to Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Holt

  Mr. HOLT. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment 
before us in a manner that is before you at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Holt:
       Amendment No. 4 is modified to read as follows:
       Page 7, line 18, strike the quotation marks and the last 
     period.
       Page 7, after line 18, insert the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Reconsideration.--
       ``(1) Any institution that has submitted, pursuant to 
     procedures established by the Secretary and in consultation 
     with the appropriate Federal banking agencies, an application 
     for assistance under this title that has been denied by the 
     Secretary, may seek reconsideration of its application from 
     the Financial Stability Oversight Board within 30 days.
       ``(2) The Oversight Board shall promptly review such 
     requests for reconsideration and provide its findings and 
     conclusions to the Secretary within 30 days after receipt of 
     such a request.
       ``(3) Pendency of a request for reconsideration pursuant to 
     this subsection shall not in any way impede or stay the 
     ability of the appropriate Federal banking agencies from 
     taking any supervisory or other action necessary with respect 
     to the safety and soundness of the institution.
       Page 63, line 15, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(i)''.

  Mr. HOLT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment 
be considered as read.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to modifying the amendment?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, I appreciate the gentleman's initial amendment, and I think I 
appreciate the gentleman's intention of the subsequent amendment.
  Can the gentleman explain the reason why the gentleman is on the 
floor with the subsequent amendment as opposed to having proposed that 
amendment through the regular committee process?
  Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Yes, I can explain. I submitted both of these amendments 
for committee consideration and for Rules Committee consideration. It 
was my understanding that they were both included in the manager's 
amendment, and, in fact, the chairman tells me that it was his 
intention to include both of them in the manager's amendment. Only one 
of them was actually included in the manager's amendment. So I'm asking 
unanimous consent to modify the one amendment that is already in the 
manager's amendment but also approved for floor consideration to 
represent the one that was not included in the manager's amendment but 
should have been.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, wasn't your amendment, 
I'm told, dated, though, just this morning?
  Mr. HOLT. If the Member who controls the floor would yield to 
Chairman Frank, I think we can get a better explanation.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I will let the chairman speak during his 
time. So you're not aware, though?
  Reclaiming my time, I'm looking at it as January 15, 2009, 9:59 a.m., 
which would have been this morning.
  Mr. HOLT. That is because I learned only this morning that it was not 
included in the manager's amendment, as I had understood and been led 
to believe, and, therefore, I typed it up so that it could be 
considered on the floor.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Thank you.
  At this point, Mr. Chairman, I object to the modification.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is recognized on 
the original amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. HOLT. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to express my disappointment 
at this lack of comity. I had the explanation. There was an error that 
was not the gentleman from New Jersey's fault. The gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett) on the other side asked him a question to which he 
could not have had the answer because he was not in control of the 
process. I was willing to give the answer. I don't know why the 
gentleman from New Jersey would refuse to allow it since he suggested 
things that were not accurate as to this.
  The gentleman has already objected, and that will stand as a 
precedent that we will all follow in certain cases, but the refusal to 
allow an explanation really dismays me.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) submitted this amendment on 
Tuesday. We had some questions about the form of it. He and I had 
conversations yesterday in which we came to an agreement that this part 
of the amendment would be easily accepted, that other parts would not 
be. So he modified it, and he modified it yesterday, and the formal 
modification was what we then came to. So he submitted it in a timely 
fashion on Tuesday in a bigger version. We agreed yesterday to remove 
part of it and leave this part of it. The gentleman has in every case 
acted in a timely fashion. He exceeded the conversations we had. My 
error and misunderstanding of my instructions led to the wrong 
amendment being put in order at the Rules Committee rather than this 
revised version.
  Mr. HOLT. Reclaiming my time to talk about the substance, let me ask 
the Chair the time remaining, please.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems that needs to be 
addressed is something that has outraged the country, my constituents, 
Mr. Garrett's constituents, I'm sure many. It occurred when TARP funds 
were denied to a bank, awarded to another bank. The first bank then was 
overtaken by the second bank using, presumably, TARP funds. This was 
not something that taxpayers appreciated.
  In Mr. Frank's legislation before us today, there are some 
protections against that happening. I would like to see still further 
protections against that happening, and I believe the taxpayers would, 
and, in fact, I believe Mr. Garrett would because the gentleman has 
expressed concern about choosing winners and losers, using TARP funds 
where the Treasury will say, well, this institution is not worthy of 
TARP funds, that institution is worthy of TARP funds, and the one that 
gets the funds can take over the loser. That is what so many taxpayers 
have found outrageous. I think that's what Mr. Garrett has spoken 
against.
  The amendment that I am asking to have considered would simply allow 
that entity denied the TARP funds to appeal. It would provide some 
insurance, meager perhaps, against the kind of National City Bank 
occurrence from happening again. It would provide a certain measure of 
protection against a winner overtaking a loser only because of the 
decisions of the Treasury. It's a small protection but I think a 
valuable protection, and I wish that the gentleman, my colleague from 
New Jersey, were more amenable to it.
  I would be happy to yield any remaining seconds to the chairman of 
the committee if he has further comment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes. It is to say that the gentleman has 
a very good idea. I regret that what I believe to be obstruction kept 
us from incorporating it, but I will be strongly urging the 
administration to work with us to see that this is made a part of the 
overall proposal.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. To the gentleman from New Jersey on the 
amendment that's actually before us I'm in general agreement with and 
also with the amendment that he proposed through his U.C., I believe 
that I also would be in favor of that as well. The general idea sounds 
basically like what we think alike on in how do you add

[[Page 866]]

that protection to the taxpayer and also to the little bank that's 
being bought out. And were we in a different situation where this bill 
actually was going to have the force of law and be signed into law by 
the President, there may be some expediency as far as necessary in 
order to get this thing through as we speak here today.
  But we have already heard from the chairman and the point has been 
made repeatedly that this underlying piece of legislation that we're 
talking about here today is not going anywhere, and that's a shame 
because there are a number of other provisions in the underlying bill 
that are important as is the provision that you're suggesting.
  What is disconcerting is that good amendments such as this and, quite 
honestly, some other good amendments from both sides of the aisle that 
I've heard about just literally as I'm sitting here talking to people 
didn't have the opportunity to go through the process and to be fleshed 
out, and I'm not saying your bill needed any more fleshing out, but 
needed to have a hearing and have experts on both sides of the equation 
give their 2 cents too.
  As I sit here right now, it sounds like a good idea. I'm not sure 
whether there might be some aspects of it from the banking community 
that they may say tweak it here or what have it there. That, of course, 
is the whole process of the committee process. And as you know, 
unfortunately, we didn't have a hearing. We didn't have a markup. And 
had we done that, I'm sure you would have been right there making that 
case and I probably would have been right there saying great amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I sure will.
  Mr. HOLT. Putting aside the gentleman's sense of the ultimate 
disposition of this legislation, I would ask wouldn't he like to make 
it as good as possible as we are considering it now and wouldn't he 
care to reconsider his objection?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, I'm not going to 
reconsider my objection for the underlying reason of amendments that 
I'm just seeing 10 minutes ago or less without having the opportunity 
to consider the ramifications that they may have. As good as they 
sound, as much as I think I 99 percent or so would support them had we 
gone through the process, I'm not going to withdraw my objection.
  But I will say this, that should the good chairman decide to do what 
I think is appropriate here, and that is to go forward with additional 
hearings and additional legislation and additional opportunities to 
direct the next administration on the $350 billion that he's about to 
get and who knows how many other pieces of authorization of dollars 
that he has, I hope that the chairman will actually afford all of us 
from both sides the opportunity to present this amendment and other 
amendments as well to go through and be vetted in the committee process 
and at which time I give my pledge to work from this side of the aisle 
with the gentleman to do all that I can to see that it facilitates 
through should the chairman actually give us that opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I ask, with disappointment at the gentleman's 
intransigence, to withdraw amendment No. 4 because it is unnecessary. 
It's already included in the manager's amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Bachmann

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 111-3.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 62, the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise now to offer an amendment to the 
bill before us, H.R. 384, which would strike the bill's misguided 
provisions that, in effect, water down important taxpayer protections 
in the hope for homeowners----


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentlewoman is referring to amendment 
No. 6. She offered amendment No. 5.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I am going in order of the amendments. I 
am going in order of the amendments as they're offered.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We had No. 5 first, and the gentleman 
said No. 5. No. 5 is the auto amendment. The order we were given had 
No. 5 as the automobile one.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I am going according to the rule.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman may proceed.

                              {time}  1245

  Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  Under the rule, amendment No. 5, which was introduced, deals with 
automobiles, not with the subject of this. The gentlewoman introduced, 
was asked for amendment 5, rose and introduced, we were told it was No. 
5. That deals with automobiles.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman has the time for 5 minutes on her 
amendment, No. 5. Regarding automobiles?
  Mrs. BACHMANN. No, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. Amendment No. 5 is pending.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If I could make a point of order. 
Apparently we were given a misprinted copy of the rule. So I apologize. 
The copy of the rule we got was misprinted, and the order was reversed 
on the copy we got.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mrs. Bachmann:
       Strike line 1 on page 65 and all that follows through page 
     69, line 2.

  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota may continue.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Again, I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 384, which would strike 
the bill's misguided provisions that would water down the important 
taxpayer protections in the Hope for Homeowners Program.
  When the majority created this program, Mr. Chair, 3 months ago, it 
was not that long ago, Mr. Chair, they promised that it would help a 
lofty 400,000 families who were behind on mortgage payments and 
possibly facing foreclosure.
  This was a worthy goal, Mr. Chairman, but it seems that the majority 
created a government program for which there has been very little 
public demand.
  With a little over 300 applications in the pipeline, it's clear that 
this program has been an enormous waste of time, of energy, of money 
and of other taxpayer resources. Just 12 days ago, Mr. Chair, as of 
January 3, 2009, the Hope for Homeowners Program, which cost taxpayers 
$300 billion, can be credited with helping, not 400,000 families, just 
13 families actually refinance.
  So what will the majority do? How far will they go to prove that 
their failing program is a success and not a boondoggle?
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, today we are seeing the answer before this 
body. My Democrat colleagues are willing to strip out the essential 
taxpayer protections in an effort to spur more participation in this 
program.
  Mr. Chair, we are talking about taxpayer protections which were 
already weak at their very best light. In the underlying bill, they are 
virtually nonexistent. The people who will benefit,

[[Page 867]]

the participants, will no longer be required to pay any up-front 
premiums. In other words, Mr. Chair, they will have no skin in the 
game, which was originally required to help sustain this program.
  The annual premiums are even significantly decreased under H.R. 384 
and, in fact, the Federal Housing Administration is given the authority 
to weigh them all together whenever they see fit.
  These two mechanisms were common sense. They were regularly touted, 
with all due respect, by our Chairman Frank and other supporters of 
Hope for Homeowners as important safeguards to protect the taxpayers 
when the program was established. We agreed to that.
  Yet today they seek to eliminate those protections from title V. 
Additionally, title V removes the requirement in the current program 
that ensures taxpayers will receive a home equity appreciation share as 
payment for the taxpayers' investment through Hope for Homeowners.
  In other words, people will be permitted to receive assistance from 
the government to pay their mortgages, but should their home values 
rise, they can make a profit, and they won't have to give anything back 
to those same taxpayers who lent them a helping hand in the first place 
to keep their home.
  Our chairman, again, explained this issue best once upon a time when 
our chairman stated you are not going to get a program approved that 
helps people refinance loans on their homes and then allows them to 
turn around the following year and make a profit on that home. However, 
that's exactly the direction that the bill before us, H.R. 384, takes 
for this program.
  This bill scales back the haircut that lenders must take to 
participate in Hope for Homeowners from 90 percent to 93 percent of the 
loan-to-value ratio, but it simultaneously removes the already weak 
taxpayer protections that are in the program.
  This provision also authorizes payments to servicers for every loan 
ensured under the Hope For Homeowners Program.
  While I too have concerns that some servicers may not be refinancing 
loans as quickly or as often as they could, this is real. The bill's 
language, unfortunately, is so vague, Mr. Chairman, so open ended, that 
servicers could be paid billions of dollars in return for refinancing 
loans.
  This provision essentially increases the risk to the cost of the 
taxpayers while reducing the burden on investors and servicers to 
submit bad loans to the government for modification, not the direction 
we want to go, I submit.
  Title V also allows taxpayer dollars authorized under TARP to be used 
to further fund Hope for Homeowners should it run out of the 300 
billion the program has already received. What that means is that this 
bill gives an already failing government program an unlimited supply of 
tax dollars under TARP should they run out of money. Now how in the 
world does this make sense for American taxpayers?
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will just finish this 
sentence.
  At the very least shouldn't we wait to see how the current $300 
billion, yes, billion, should be spent.
  If this is near the end of my time, Mr. Chair, I would submit my 
remarks for the Record.
  It's as if the Democrats are predicting that their own program will 
face a shortfall due to re-defaults or some other course of events. At 
the very least, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. With an unlimited 
supply of funds on which to draw, there will be no incentive to improve 
and Hope for Homeowners will continue to bleed taxpayers dry without 
any benefit to the homeowners it is meant to help.
  Mr. Chair, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Steve 
Preston recently stated that the Hope for Homeowners Program has been a 
failure, in part, because ``Congress dotted the i's and crossed the t's 
for [HUD], and unfortunately it has made this program tough to use.''
  Yet here we are again watching Democrats legislate their way to the 
impossible--only this time they have rejected even the appearance of 
protecting taxpayers.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and restore what little 
taxpayer protection was in place in the Hope for Homeowners Program.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition. I apologize again. The Rules Committee report was 
misprinted. It listed them in the wrong order, so I apologize to the 
gentlewoman. That's why we were reacting to a misprint.
  I oppose this in part because----
  The CHAIR. Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The proposal that the gentlewoman singled 
out to object to is a recommendation from Mr. Preston, the Bush 
administration Secretary of HUD.
  Members have pointed out that the Hope for Homeowners Program has not 
worked, and we are disappointed.
  It hasn't worked because, I think, we have tightened it up 
excessively. What we are trying to do here is relax it. Part of the 
impetus for this came from the secretary of HUD and the commissioner of 
the FHA, Mr. Montgomery, two Bush appointees.
  In an article of December 17 from the Washington Post, which I will 
submit for the Record, Secretary Preston said that we have made this 
much too implicated and much too restrictive.
  He singled out, as one of the provisions that was objectionable, the 
provision the gentlewoman from Minnesota just talked about. It's the 
secretary of HUD who told us to drop that if we wanted to make it 
workable.
  How do you do that, Preston said? That was legislated. The article 
says it becomes more difficult to get people to refinance.
  So we have on the one hand Republicans correctly pointing out that 
our effort for Hope for Homeowners failed, but we don't want that to be 
a permanent failure. We want to improve it. Now when we put in the 
improvements, some of which were recommended by the secretary of HUD, 
we were told that that's going to be too generous.
  So this is kind of like the question that you were asked who do you 
like better, your mother or your father? There is no right answer.
  Should the program be very tough, should it be very relaxed? Whatever 
we do, people are going to oppose it. That's because, and there is--and 
I go back to 2007 when we voted on the subprime bill. I go back to the 
Wall Street Journal editorial at that time and this morning. There are 
people who do not want us to respond to the foreclosure crisis.
  Now, responding to it will be uneven because it's a messy problem. 
But people who voted in 2007 against banning irresponsible subprime 
loans, I am not surprised that they don't want us to be effective right 
now. And I am not surprised--I am a little surprised that they would 
single out our effort to act on a recommendation of Secretary Preston 
to correct this.

               [From the Washington Post, Dec. 17, 2008]

               HUD Chief Calls Aid on Mortgages a Failure

                          (By Dina ElBoghdady)

       Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Steve Preston 
     said the centerpiece of the federal government's effort to 
     help struggling homeowners has been a failure and he's 
     blaming Congress.
       The three-year program was supposed to help 400,000 
     borrowers avoid foreclosure. But it has attracted only 312 
     applications since its October launch because it is too 
     expensive and onerous for lenders and borrowers alike, 
     Preston said in an interview.
       ``What most people don't understand is that this program 
     was designed to the detail by Congress,'' Preston said. 
     ``Congress dotted the i's and crossed the t's for us, and 
     unfortunately it has made this program tough to use.''
       The criticism comes as Congress prepares to weigh in with 
     further plans to help distressed borrowers facing 
     foreclosures, which are at the root of the financial 
     meltdown. This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) 
     demanded that the Treasury Department use some of the money 
     from the $700 billion emergency rescue package to help at-
     risk homeowners.
       One of several federal and state foreclosure prevention 
     initiatives facing difficulties, HUD's Hope for Homeowners 
     program has been especially hamstrung. For instance, a 
     program launched by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. on 
     behalf of IndyMac Bank

[[Page 868]]

     customers has modified more than 3,500 mortgages in two 
     months of operation.
       Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who helped steer the HUD 
     program through Congress, said some of the federal bailout 
     money should be used to revamp it. Frank acknowledged the 
     initiative has its problems, but he blamed them on the Bush 
     administration.
       ``That's partly their fault,'' said Frank, chairman of the 
     House Financial Services Committee. ``The administration was 
     critical of the program and kept putting pressure on us to 
     make it cheaper and more restrictive. . . . If it hadn't been 
     for the Bush administration's opposition, we would have 
     written it in a better way in the first place.''
       The goal of the program, run by the Federal Housing 
     Administration, was to allow borrowers who owe more than 
     their homes are worth to refinance into more affordable 30-
     year fixed-rate mortgages insured by the government.
       But part of the problem is that the program's success 
     hinges on the lenders' willingness to participate.
       Congress originally allowed the FHA to insure new loans for 
     only 90 percent of a home's value. With home prices plunging, 
     borrowers who have little or no equity in their homes and 
     cannot otherwise come up with the remaining 10 percent 
     qualify only if the lender forgives this balance. Lenders 
     balked.
       Late last month, Congress granted HUD permission to 
     increase the amount that's insured and the department decided 
     to guarantee up to 96.5 percent of the value of new loans. 
     Preston in the interview praised that change. But its impact 
     remains unclear.
       ``Getting the lenders to agree . . . has been our biggest 
     challenge,'' said Peyton Herbert, director of foreclosure 
     services at HomeFree USA, a housing counseling firm in 
     Hyattsville. ``They want dollar for dollar what's owed on 
     that loan or something close to it. That's the fly in the 
     ointment.''
       The list of impediments goes on. Borrowers who participate 
     in the program must pay hefty fees and high interest rates, 
     and they must split any increased value with the federal 
     government when the home is sold.
       ``You're paying a premium to borrow the money already, and 
     that ought to be enough,'' said John Taylor, chief executive 
     of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. ``To me 
     this falls into the category of, we want your firstborn.''
       A further hindrance: The mortgage payment must exceed 31 
     percent of a borrower's income as of March, which does not 
     help people who have since fallen into trouble.
       Add to that the fact that borrowers must also provide two-
     years of financial records and sign a statement that they did 
     not give false or misleading information on their original 
     loan application and the bar gets even higher. It becomes 
     even more difficult to attract borrowers who took out loans 
     without verifying their income.
       ``How do you do that?'' Preston said. ``That was 
     legislated.''
       For all those reasons, FHA Commissioner Brian Montgomery 
     said he got an earful from agitated lenders, housing 
     counselors and real estate agents at a seminar last month in 
     Atlanta designed to educate housing professionals about the 
     Hope for Homeowners program.
       ``What we thought would be a civil and cordial exchange 
     with the several hundred people gathered turned into an 
     almost rock-throwing episode,'' Montgomery said.
       He said Capitol Hill lawmakers were hampered by a 
     philosophical divide within their ranks when they cobbled the 
     program together and that led to a compromise that made 
     little sense.
       ``There were two philosophies on the Hill: Let's throw the 
     barn door open and help as many people as we can regardless 
     of the reasons. Or we need to make them pay because they 
     should have known what they were doing,'' Montgomery said. 
     ``They found some middle philosophical ground, but that 
     philosophical middle ground made [the program] unworkable.''
       Montgomery complained that any minor adjustment to the 
     program must be passed through an oversight board, which 
     further slows the FHA's response time.
       Frank called Montgomery's assessment of Congress's handling 
     of the legislation ``dishonest.''
       As for oversight, he said the board is made up of Bush 
     appointees. ``Shame on them if that's the problem.''
       Frank acknowledged, however, that concessions had to be 
     made to make the program palatable to the American public. 
     This is why borrowers who take part in it must share any 
     gains from appreciation in home values with the government.
       ``You're not going to get a program approved that helps 
     people refinance loans on their homes and then allows them to 
     turn around the following year and make a profit on that 
     home,'' Frank said.
       Frank provided a letter he wrote to Treasury Secretary 
     Henry M. Paulson Jr. in late November urging him to use the 
     bailout money Congress approved for rescuing the financial 
     markets to reduce the upfront and annual fees, because these 
     are reducing use of the Hope for Homeowners program.
       In another letter to Paulson, Preston, Federal Reserve 
     Chairman Ben Bernanke and FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair, Frank 
     made a few more suggestions and praised HUD's decision to 
     increase the proportion of loans that the FHA can insure to 
     96.5 percent from 90 percent.
       But yesterday, he said the FHA's leadership in these trying 
     times has been a ``disappointment.''
       Montgomery said Frank's ire at his agency is misdirected. 
     ``Barney Frank may have a beef with some of the 
     Republicans,'' he said, ``but he shouldn't have a beef with 
     us.''

  I would ask how much time is remaining on our side.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time on the other side?
  The CHAIR. The time is expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Then I would yield my remaining time to 
the gentlewoman from California, who has been the House leader in 
fighting foreclosures.
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and Members.
  I had to come to the floor in defense of the Hope for Homeowners 
Program, simply because I think that the gentlelady from Minnesota does 
not understand this program, just as she has demonstrated that she did 
not understand the subprime meltdown and the problems that caused us to 
be in this economic crisis based on statements that she made earlier.
  I am here to not only give support to the Hope For Homeowners Program 
and oppose her amendment, but I would like to remind our Members that 
one in six American homeowners is currently under water on their 
mortgages, owe more on their home than it's worth, and Hope For 
Homeowners is a critical program for struggling homeowners who are 
under water on their mortgages. The principal write down in home for 
homeowners is key to helping families get into more affordable homes.
  If this program is not changed in this bill, foreclosures would 
continue to rise. In 2008, foreclosures were up a record 81 percent 
with 861,664 families losing their home to foreclosure. Credit Suisse 
estimates that 8 million American homes will enter foreclosure in the 
next 4 years.
  It's one thing to object to programs even when the chairman was 
trying to work with everybody and getting their input and taking their 
suggestions, which led to the original bill.
  But to have objection now to improving the program, based on 
information we have gotten from the Federal Reserve, who suggested 
precisely the amendments that are being done, is just not 
understandable.
  I would ask my colleagues to disregard the attack on the Hope For 
Homeowners Program by the gentlelady from Minnesota and support 
homeowners and one more effort to keep homeowners in their homes, 
recognizing that many of them are under water now, precisely meaning 
that they are not worth what they contracted for in the mortgage that 
they have.
  I think that we should be understanding of that. I think we should be 
supportive of homeowners being able to work with their lenders to get a 
writedown and to have these mortgages modified or refinanced through 
FHA so that they, again, can keep their homes.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota will be 
postponed.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 6 will not be 
offered.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Because I was confused before by the 
Rules Committee report misprint, what's the amendment that's not going

[[Page 869]]

to be offered that was to be offered by whom?
  The CHAIR. The amendment is amendment No. 6 offered by the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Parliamentary inquiry. Is that the one 
that would have stricken the aid for the automobile industry?
  The CHAIR. The Chair is not aware of the content of the amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But amendment No. 6 as printed now, as we 
understand it, is the one that would strike aid to the automobile 
industry. So we understand that will not be offered?
  The CHAIR. Amendment No. 6 will not be offered.


    Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
House Report 111-3.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of 
     Pennsylvania:
       Page 74, after line 17, add the following new title (and 
     conform the Table of Contents accordingly):

           TITLE VIII--AGENCY MBS PURCHASE PROGRAM DISCLOSURE

     SEC. 801. DISCLOSURE REQUIRED.

       Not later than 1 month after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System shall issue to the Congress a report 
     disclosing--
       (1) the details of the competitive request for proposal 
     process that was used to select the investment managers of 
     the Federal Reserve System's Agency Mortgage-Backed Security 
     Purchase Program announced by the Federal Reserve System on 
     November 25, 2008;
       (2) all details of the contracts, including contract price, 
     made between the Federal Reserve System and such investment 
     managers; and
       (3) steps that each such investment manager has taken to 
     ensure that the investment manager has appropriately 
     segregated the investment management team that implements the 
     Agency Mortgage-Backed Security Purchase Program from other 
     advisory and propriety trading activities undertaken by the 
     investment manager and the members of the investment 
     management team.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 62, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 
as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, last fall we had to take emergency action to try and 
stop the falling stock market and weakening credit markets. But I was 
not pleased when it took a subpoena threat to force financial 
institutions to release program details about the TARP, the Troubled 
Asset Relief Program.
  Mr. Chairman, most folks in America are not aware, but the Federal 
Reserve, shortly before Thanksgiving, announced a half a trillion 
dollar effort to purchase MBS, Mortgage-Backed Securities, and 
contracted with four outside investment firms to manage it.
  With another $500 billion, half a trillion dollars at stake, Mr. 
Chairman, we cannot let or allow history to repeat itself.

                              {time}  1300

  We demand the details of the Fed's MBS program, and it is our duty to 
demand the information about how the Federal Reserve will run this 
program.
  For example, the Fed has refused to make clear details about how they 
chose the four firms and who will manage the purchases. They have 
refused to share how much those firms are getting paid. And it is still 
unclear what steps have been taken to ensure strict conflict of 
interest provisions are put in place so that these four firms are not 
given an unfair market advantage because of their role in the mortgage 
backed securities program. Despite half a trillion dollars at stake, 
Mr. Chairman, there are still too many things we do not know.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It will force the Fed to do 
three things.
  First, it will force the Federal Reserve to disclose the details of 
the request process used to select the investment managers.
  Second, it would force the Fed to disclose the details of the 
contracts reached with these four investment managers, including price.
  And, third, it will force the Fed to disclose the steps that each 
investment manager has taken to ensure that the program is free of 
conflicts of interest or an unfair advantage.
  Despite many requests from my office and news organizations, we have 
been unable to get the information relating to these contracts. With 
$500 billion and the public trust at stake, this information is not too 
much to ask or an undue burden on the Federal Reserve.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
claim the time in opposition, but I am not in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I think the intention and the language of the amendment is good, and 
I support the amendment to the underlying bill. There are just two 
points I want to make.
  First of all, to the chairman, I support his comments the other day 
in committee when we had the Federal Reserve folks there when he said 
that he is going to be conducting hearings on the Federal Reserve come 
February. At that time I asked Mr. Cohen from the Fed if any of the 
provisions in the bill that we were looking at or discussing at the 
time, we didn't actually have the bill before us as a committee markup, 
would any of these provisions apply to the Fed as far as the way they 
conduct themselves in the future, and his answer was in essence no. 
What you are trying to do now is to at least put something in this 
legislation to apply to it.
  I commend the chairman for saying that we need to do a further 
investigation on the Fed on their expansive growth of power and 
authority and their use of it.
  With that said, my only regret is that this type of provision was not 
included in the first TARP, because, once again, as I have said before 
and others have said on the floor as well, we have already spent $350 
billion. Now, it wasn't on an asset acquisition program, but that is 
what the initial bill was intended to be. The initial TARP was a 
program to buy up toxic assets from the banks, and had we gone through 
regular order at that time, we could have had language in the original 
TARP bill to say that language like this, full disclosure, regulation 
on how everything is performed and who the managers are and so on and 
so forth, could have been done in the first TARP 1.
  Unfortunately, that wasn't done. We rushed through the process at 
that time. We rushed through without a full hearing on it, we rushed 
through without a markup, and we were not allowed, and I assume the 
gentleman was not facilitated with, an opportunity to offer such 
language in the first TARP 1 at that time, not necessarily with regard 
to the Fed as here, but with how TARP 1 would spend the money and how 
TARP 1 would be looking for the same accountability.
  I will close on this, just saying I commend the gentleman here. I 
will support his amendment and hopefully look forward to working with 
the chairman in February to have those hearings with regard to the Fed 
to get this job done thoroughly.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate any 
colleague from New Jersey's support of our bill and the effort for 
transparency and accountability.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

[[Page 870]]


  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. It is a very 
important amendment.
  The suggestion by the gentleman from New Jersey that if this had been 
put forward by a Member in September it would have been rejected has no 
basis. A number of Members did put forward changes at that point which 
we accepted. I think the reason this did not come forward is this: This 
is here because it is tied into the TARP. I should say that this is as 
much as can be done, and I commend the gentleman for his initiative. We 
need to do much more with the Federal Reserve.
  Last September, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury came to us, 
congressional leadership, the leadership of the committees, and said 
the Federal Reserve is going to give $80 billion to AIG. I asked Mr. 
Bernanke if he had $80 billion. He said, ``I have $800 billion.''
  We had not previously focused on a statute from the thirties that 
gives the Fed of the ability to lend money it has control of to any 
entity where he thinks it is sufficiently collateralized. That has much 
moved since September, only since September. We were very shortly out 
of session. That is why in early February we will have a hearing in 
which we will ask the Fed to account for all of this.
  Now, we are able to do this here because part of the Fed's program is 
collateralized to some extent or capitalized by the TARP so we have a 
hook there. The reason this wasn't offered in the fall, my guess is 
that nobody at that point anticipated that the Fed would be in 
conjunction with the TARP capitalizing this.
  By the way, I also accept the compliment about this process. We have 
been told that we were doing this too quickly, exactly as we did too 
quickly last time. But the fact this amendment is before us contradicts 
that. A large number of amendments have been put forward, because this 
has been in discussion in the House for some time.
  So we could have done it in September. Nobody anticipated at that 
point, at least we did not, the extent to which the Fed would mushroom 
in this case. My guess is they didn't either, that they had a more 
optimistic view of the economy.
  At any rate, this does a good job of giving us this information where 
there is a linkage between the Federal Reserve and TARP money. But that 
is not enough. The gentleman has done the most that we can do in this 
bill.
  Beginning in February we will start having hearings, and I do 
believe, yes, we have to examine the enormous grant of power given to 
the Federal Reserve under this statute from the Depression. It has been 
very rarely used. It was used I think in one of the financial crises of 
the nineties.
  This is a phenomenon that really grew. So Members will understand, 
when the Federal Reserve granted $29 billion to the creditors of Bear 
Stearns, we thought that was a lot of money at the time. It turns out 
to have been a rounding error in what they are doing. So, yes, it is 
time for us now that they have mushroomed this, and I don't say this 
critically, we have to look into it.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Again, I support the gentleman's 
underlying amendment and will support the vote on it. But as I hear the 
chairman's comments, I am sitting here with regard to the idea that 
amendments were allowed, that this could have been done through TARP 1 
through an amendment.
  I am sitting hear racking my brain. To the best of my knowledge, 
there were no amendments that were going through on the floor on this 
at this time, so the gentleman or myself would not have been allowed to 
do that, and I know that we did not have a hearing or a markup in 
committee on TARP 1, so there was absolutely no possibility at that 
time for the chairman to entertain either your amendment or my 
amendment or anyone else's amendment. Of course, we didn't have a 
markup, so there was not an opportunity for either one of us to confer.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. No, I will just close on my point.
  There was not an opportunity during the first go round with TARP 1. 
There may have been ideas discussed, there may have been ideas that 
were floated up and down and with the chairman's discussions with the 
White House and what have you as to which is the best way to implement 
TARP 1 and what have you. But to the best of my knowledge, there was no 
committee hearing, there was no markup, there was no avenue for us to 
make formal amendments during the regular course of progress during 
that sequence of time, and that is the unfortunate aspect of this.
  Yes, I support the amendment. Yes, I will be working with the 
chairman on the work with regard to the work with the Fed. But no with 
regard to the process we have gone through in the past; no with the 
opportunity of anyone from either side of the aisle to have an 
opportunity to enter amendments, discussion or otherwise in the 
committee meetings, since there was no markup, neither on the floor as 
well.
  Finally we are beginning to go in the right direction as far as 
allowing amendments, but we are still not going in the right direction 
as far as allowing full committee meetings.
  We still are not going in the right direction, where we would be 
allowed to have a full committee hearing on this, where we could have 
vetted this and the other ideas that had come before. The gentleman 
from New Jersey, for example, had what I thought was a good idea, and 
had we had the opportunity there to vet that through process, we 
probably would be standing right here now and supporting that and 
getting that in this bill as well.
  If this House would only go by the rules of the House and regular 
order, we would be doing better for the American public. We would be 
passing legislation that would be protecting the American taxpayer. We 
would be passing legislation actually providing for the transparency 
and accountability I think that both of us want, both on the original 
$350 billion and on this $350 billion.
  We have not done that, unfortunately, in the past, and, 
unfortunately, quite candidly, we are not doing that that here as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a 
recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be 
postponed.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-3 on which 
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Hensarling of Texas.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mrs. Bachmann of Minnesota.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


         Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 275, 
noes 152, not voting 12, as follows:

[[Page 871]]



                             [Roll No. 19]

                               AYES--275

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--152

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Cao
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Holden
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peterson
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Christensen
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Faleomavaega
     Sablan
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shuler
     Snyder
     Solis (CA)
     Sullivan

                              {time}  1337

  Messrs. HOLDEN, CRENSHAW, McINTYRE, and CASSIDY changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WATT, HOEKSTRA, OLVER, and Mrs. BIGGERT changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California was allowed to 
speak out of order.)


              Announcing the Birth of Molly Hannah Sherman

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a very 
happy announcement.
  Our colleague, Congressman Brad Sherman, and his wife, Lisa, had 
their first child last night--a beautiful baby girl. Molly Hannah 
Sherman is 7 pounds, 15.6 ounces. I am pleased to report that mother 
and baby are doing splendidly and that the father is expected to 
recover.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 151, 
noes 274, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 20]

                               AYES--151

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (KY)
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--274

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren

[[Page 872]]


     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Boucher
     Christensen
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Faleomavaega
     Rush
     Sablan
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shuler
     Snyder
     Solis (CA)
     Sullivan
     Terry


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1347

  Messrs. FRANK of Massachusetts and OBERSTAR changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Bachmann

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. 
Bachmann) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 142, 
noes 282, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 21]

                               AYES--142

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--282

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler

[[Page 873]]


     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Boucher
     Christensen
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Faleomavaega
     Moore (WI)
     Rush
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shuler
     Snyder
     Solis (CA)
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Tonko


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). Two minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1354

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California changed his vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 21, I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


    Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Patrick J. Murphy) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 426, 
noes 0, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 22]

                               AYES--426

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Boucher
     Christensen
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Faleomavaega
     Rush
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shuler
     Snyder
     Solis (CA)
     Sullivan
     Terry


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1403

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Berkley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Salazar, Chair of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 384) to reform 
the Troubled Assets Relief Program of the Secretary of the Treasury and 
ensure accountability under such Program, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________