January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H359 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman 

from Massachusetts yielded back the 

balance of his time. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. 

Chairman, I did that, but I did that because I had asked—as I think the transcript would show—how much time he 

had consumed. We apparently had a 

miscommunication. So I would ask 

unanimous consent that any remaining 

time be allowed. 

The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection 

to the request of the gentleman from 

Massachusetts? 

There was no objection. 

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman 

from Massachusetts is recognized for 

the 10 seconds remaining before he 

yielded back the balance of his time. 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will 

use the 10 seconds to say that the gentleman from Texas said ‘‘may’’ may become ‘‘shall.’’ ‘‘May’’ does not become 

‘‘shall’’ without our voting. 

The Acting CHAIR. The question is 

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. HENSARLING). 

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I 

demand a recorded vote. 

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to 

clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Texas will be postponed. 

The Acting CHAIR. The Committee 

will rise informally. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. HIGGINS) assumed the chair. 

f 

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT 

A message in writing from the President of the United States was communicated to the House by Ms. Wanda 

Evans, one of his secretaries. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Committee will resume its sitting. 

f 

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. 

b 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. 

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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H360 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 15, 2009 

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 21⁄2

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 

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 to. 

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 obstreperousness and 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. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H361 

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. 

b 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, 

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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H362 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 15, 2009 

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 it 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 atrisk 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 

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 rockthrowing 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 21⁄2 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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H363 

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 

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. 

b 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. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H364 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 15, 2009 

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). 

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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H365 

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: 

[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 

Luja ́n 

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 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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 

b 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. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H366 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 15, 2009 

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 

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 

Luja ́n 

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 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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. 

b 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) 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H367 

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 

Luja ́n 

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 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walden 

Walz 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watson 

Watt 

Waxman 

Weiner 

Welch 

Wexler 

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. 

b 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 

Luja ́n 

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 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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. 

b 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. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H368 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 15, 2009 

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 

(Mr. CANTOR asked and was given 

permission to address the House for 1 

minute.) 

Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I 

yield to the gentleman from Maryland, 

the majority leader, for the purpose of 

announcing next week’s schedule. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend, the 

Republican whip, for yielding. 

On Monday, the House is not in session. Monday is the Federal holiday to 

celebrate the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. I might observe, as I am 

sure all the Members know, that today 

is in fact Martin Luther King’s birthday, January 15. Extraordinary life. 

His bust is in the Rotunda. It is a real 

honor to be able to honor his birth and 

his message and his vision on Monday. 

This is a particularly auspicious recognition of the life of Martin Luther 

King, Jr. How proud he would be to 

know that the day after we recognize 

his birth and his message and his contribution to our country, we will inaugurate the 44th President of the United 

States of America, an African American; a statement that the dream, although not clearly still fully recognized, nevertheless is a dream shared 

by all of America. 

On Wednesday, Madam Speaker, the 

House will meet at 12 p.m. for legislative business with votes no earlier than 

3 p.m. Let me reiterate that. We will be 

meeting on Wednesday at 12 p.m., with 

votes not expected before 3 p.m. Obviously, with the inaugural day, we don’t 

want to have people have to come in 

too early, not necessarily because of 

anything they may be doing the night 

before, but because of scheduling they 

may or may not be here the night before. 

On Thursday, the House will meet at 

10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected. 

We will consider several bills under 

suspension of the rules. A complete list 

of suspension bills will be announced 

by the close of business tomorrow. 

In addition, Madam Speaker, we will 

complete consideration of H.R. 384, the 

bill we were just considering, the 

TARP Reform and Accountability Act, 

we expect to complete. We also expect 

to consider a privileged resolution relating to the disapproval of the obligations under the Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act of 2008. 

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman, 

Madam Speaker. 

And I would like to bring the gentleman back to a conversation that we 

had last week regarding the SCHIP 

bill. Because, frankly, Madam Speaker, 

I’m a little bit concerned that the 

Democrat majority is not fulfilling 

President-elect Obama’s calls for bipartisanship. Because I would say to the 

gentleman, last week you told the 

House that you were working towards 

having the SCHIP bill available to us 

for a full 48 hours before bringing it to 

the floor; and as the gentleman knows, 

that did not happen. 

And I know the American people are 

not concerned about the process here 

in this House, but I do know that the 

public wants their Congress to function 

openly. This truly is about bipartisanship and transparency, and I believe 

that the American people deserve both. 

And as we discussed, Madam Speaker, last week, there are 55 new Members of this House. Those 55 new Members had less than 24 hours to review a 

285-page bill that spent $72 billion in 

American taxpayer dollars, and none of 

these Members were even allowed to 

offer an amendment. 

So I would like to ask the majority 

leader if he would commit to allowing 

at least 48 hours for Members and the 

American public to review bills prior 

to a vote in the House. 

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will 

yield? 

Mr. CANTOR. I yield. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman 

for yielding and I appreciate his observation. 

I did say we were going to try to give 

48 hours. I may have said we were 

going to give 48 hours, but we did not 

give 48 hours, the gentleman is correct. 

The gentleman probably knows the 

reason we didn’t give 48 hours is because we hadn’t gotten a CBO scoring, 

so we were unable to finalize the bill 

until we got that scoring. We did give 

approximately 24 hours. 

But I say to the gentleman, with all 

due respect, yes, it was a lengthy bill, 

but of course the bill had been passed 

almost in exactly the same form either 

in the CHAMP bill or in the SCHIP bill 

itself, so that clearly the overwhelming 

majority of the text of the bill and the 

provisions of the bill have been available essentially for over a year. 

But having said that, I want you to 

know and I want to reiterate my intention to give the maximum amount of 

notice; 48 hours I think is clearly a target that we want to set. I don’t want to 

make a commitment that we will not 

bring a bill without 48 hours notice. 

The gentleman, if you would confer 

with your predecessor—his predecessors, I would say—sometimes it’s 

very difficult to do that. 

But the gentleman is absolutely correct, not only new Members, but all 

Members are certainly entitled to have 

the respect for their view and their opportunity to represent their constituents, to have appropriate notice, and 

we will certainly strive for that. I’ve 

reiterated to the committee Chairs and 

to our leadership that I want to follow 

regular order to the extent possible. 

And when I say the extent possible, 

we’re in extraordinary times. This did 

not necessarily relate to the SCHIP 

bill, other than we had clearly considered that twice, had it voted upon numerous times in this House, and the 

overwhelming majority, I don’t know 

the percentage, but I would say 95 percent of the bill was exactly as we had 

passed it in either the CHAMP bill or 

the SCHIP bill. But I am aware of the 

gentleman’s concerns, and I want to 

tell him I share his concerns, and we 

will be working toward the end that he 

seeks to achieve. 

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman 

for that. 

Madam Speaker, I would also ask the 

gentleman if he would commit to allowing both Republicans and Democrats the ability to offer amendments 

on a regular basis, especially as, in this 

instance, when a bill comes to the floor 

without committee consideration. 

Mr. HOYER. I understand the gentleman’s concern. As you know, we are 

now considering a bill which has both 

Republican and Democratic amendments, very important bill, conditions 

for accountability and transparency 

and dealing with mortgage failures in 

the present bill that’s on the floor. And 

certainly that will be my objective. 

b 1415 

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. 

Madam Speaker, I would like to further inquire of the gentleman, along 

those lines, I know that we now are 

looking at next week, as you suggest, 

beginning the legislative process on the 

consideration of a stimulus bill. And I 

would note that two of the gentleman’s 

chairmen, the gentleman from New 

York (Mr. RANGEL) and Mr. OBEY from 

the Appropriations Committee, have 

released summaries of the House 

Democratic economic recovery package. However, both gentlemen have not 

publicly released legislative texts. And 

I would say to the gentleman it is one 

thing for us to have a summary of the 

bill; it is another when we are contemplating spending $825 billion of the taxpayers’ money as to when the text of a 

reported stimulus bill could be made 

publicly available. 

Mr. HOYER. I would hope and expect 

the text to be available by the end of 

business tomorrow. I’m very hopeful 

that that will be the case. 

Again, you understand the practical 

problems as they are now drafting all 

of the agreement. But we want it available, and hopefully the text will be 

available by the end of the week. 

Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. 

Madam Speaker, I further say that 

the Appropriations Committee on the 

Republican side of the aisle are extremely concerned, and they should be, 

that they will not be given the customary 3 days to review the text prior 

to any markup, and this is, after all, 

the committee rule. Our members are 

being told that today, Friday, and next 

Tuesday will count as the 3 days required under the committee rules; however, as we all know, on Tuesday almost no one will be allowed in the 

building due to the inauguration. 

So, Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Maryland, the majority 

leader, in his capacity as the leader 

and a former appropriator, can he ensure us and ensure the members of the 

Appropriations Committee that their 

markup will not begin before next 

Thursday? 

Mr. HOYER. I cannot give the gentleman that assurance given the time 

frame that Mr. OBEY is on. Obviously, 

as you know, the President and I think 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE