Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5818) to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related costs.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, I would like to first thank Chairman Frank and all of the members of the Financial Services Committee, and particularly those members who serve on the subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. I'm thanking Members on both sides of the aisle for helping to bring this bill to the floor today.

H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, authorizes a $15 billion HUD administrative grant and loan program to State and local governments to purchase, rehabilitate and resell or rent foreclosed homes. To understand the urgent need to enact this legislation, one need only consider the sobering figures on foreclosures recently released by RealtyTrac, which show that foreclosure filings during the first quarter of 2008 are 112 percent higher than 1 year ago, and that actual bank repossessions of homes during March were a shocking 129 percent above March 2007.

The human reality behind these numbers is revealed if you visit, as I have the past year, cities and communities in cities like Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; or the San Bernardino and Stockton metropolitan areas in California, where block after block is dotted by foreclosed properties, many of them suffering from neglect or actual vandalism. These abandoned and foreclosed properties drag down the value of homes still occupied by working families, and contribute to a cascade effect whereby plummeting home prices erode the tax base of State and local governments and cause real estate related industries such as the construction trades to suffer.

States and most local governments must balance their budgets each year and, as a result, 20 States have already had to make or are proposing budget cuts due largely to revenue losses resulting from the subprime crisis, which further reduces demand in the economy and deepens the recession.

On April 10, the Financial Services Committee heard from Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston, Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland, and others, that despite severe physical constraints, many States and cities are already dedicating their own shrinking tax revenues to purchase foreclosed properties and attempt to stabilize these neighborhoods. But they are overwhelmed by the scale of the problem in comparison to their shrinking tax revenues. For this reason, the National Governors Association has stated that a ``one-time Federal funding commitment to support the acquisition and rehabilitation for foreclosed properties is vital.''

The Governors are joined in their support for the stimulus contained in H.R. 5818 by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, and the National Council of State Housing Finance Agencies. H.R. 5818 is also endorsed by nearly 40 civil rights, community development, labor and low income housing groups, including the AFL-CIO, Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services of America, the NAACP, the National Urban League, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, and the National Foreclosure Prevention and Neighborhood Stabilization Task Force.

This bill targets assistance where it is most needed. The $7.5 billion in grants and $7.5 billion in loans would be allocated to States based on two factors: The number of foreclosures, and the number of subprime loans 90 days delinquent. This is then subject to a limited adjustment for median home prices, a bipartisan compromise that was worked out in mark-up with the committee's members from Ohio, which, like many midwestern States, has faced skyrocketing foreclosures but did not experience an extraordinary run up in housing prices.

Second, the bill puts flexible resources in the hands of government with the capacity to address the crisis and put funds on the street quickly enough to stimulate the economy. Rather than expect HUD to process plans from 1,200 entitlement jurisdictions, the balance we struck at mark-up was to allocate funding to States and to the Nation's largest 100 cities, largest 50 counties, and cities over 50,000 with especially high foreclosure rates. The areas of States outside of those cities and counties would be addressed in the State's plans.

Under the bill's timelines, fund obligation must begin within 6 months of enactment, be completed within a year, and fully spent within 2 years of enactment. This is no ``big government,'' immortal program, as our colleagues across the aisle suggest. Rather, it is a timely, targeted and temporary shot in the economy's arm, exactly where one is needed.

Indeed, using well-accepted construction activity multipliers, the National Foreclosure Prevention and Neighborhood Stabilization Task Force calculates that the bill's proposed $15 billion investment will generate at least $38 billion in direct and ripple effect economic activity nationwide, employ about 120,000 people, and restore nearly $225 million per year in local real estate tax collections.

Some Republicans have tried to frame this bill as a bailout bill for investors. This simply is not so. Government and their nonprofit partners will drive a hard bargain with property owners because they are highly incentivized to make this money go as far as possible in their efforts to stabilize neighborhoods where many of them have been working for years, and because they must pay the government back any funds used to purchase homes.

In no event, moreover, can they pay more than 110 percent of the average

home sale price in the area. Creaming of properties and ``sweetheart'' deals are prevented by the requirement that properties sit for 60 days before they are eligible.

What H.R. 5815 does make possible is for States, cities and counties to stabilize a few neighborhoods, especially low income ones, that are in serious danger of an overcorrection and rapid deterioration past the tipping point, where it becomes very difficult to turn them around.

I urge Members to hear the pleas of the Nation's governors, mayors, community-based organizations and ordinary citizens to provide this critical relief to stabilize neighborhoods and stimulate the economy.

The administration and my friends on the opposite side of the aisle in this Chamber argue that we cannot afford to respond. I would like to just remind this body of what Mr. Frank said earlier today, we afforded $30 billion to bail out Bear Stearns, and certainly we can afford half of that amount, $15 billion for the entire country. We simply cannot afford not to.

I urge passage of the Neighborhood Stabilization Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee 3 minutes.

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, I recognize for 1 minute the gentleman from Massachusetts to straighten out the gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle who does not know the history of CRA.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), who serves on our committee, for 1 minute.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman from Illinois evidently has not read the bill. As a matter of fact, they have to have a plan that is adopted or accepted, reviewed by HUD. And so in the plan, all of the disclosure, everything that needs to be known about that city's plans will be reviewed.

In addition to that, the amendment that the gentleman is referring to is an amendment that would bog down this ability to get money into the neighborhoods and on the street very quickly for the economic stimulus that we anticipate.

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins) 1 minute.

I yield to myself 30 seconds.

I'm glad the gentleman found the plan in the bill that I had advised him about because there is a plan, and perhaps it does not have 101 things that he

would like, and I'm sure you could add a lot more to it, but there is a plan. And the situation that he just described could not happen. As a matter of fact, you have to pay back the money that you get through the loan.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, a member of our committee, both the subcommittee and Financial Services, Mr. Keith Ellison.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, a member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Charlie Wilson.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.

I yield 1 minute to one of our newest Members, and a member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Andre Carson.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mrs. Jones) 1\1/2\ minutes and remind her that it was 2 years ago when I was in her city that she asked me to come to a town hall meeting where this issue was being discussed at that time and most of us really didn't understand the depth of it.

Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman and Members, I would like to thank all of the Members who have come to the floor today in support of this legislation because they understand the devastation to neighborhoods all over this country.

I have listened very carefully to the arguments from the opposite side of the aisle, and none of them rise to the merit of being able to oppose this bill because they're substantive arguments.

First of all, I have heard Members on the opposite side of the aisle talk about taxes. They have talked about gasoline. They have talked about everything except what we are here to talk about: the fact that there has been a subprime meltdown in this country and many neighborhoods are devastated. We have homes that are being stripped of the copper. We have homes that have been boarded up with vandals inside those homes, oftentimes living inside those homes, with the weeds growing up in many of these properties, and the value of the homes in the neighborhood where people are attempting to maintain their homes is going down every day.

We had one Member on the opposite side of the aisle talk about how flush these cities are with money. Evidently, he has not looked at what is going on in the cities and States. Many of them are in deficit situations. They're in deficit situations because we're in this recession, this nonperforming economy under the leadership of the President of the United States where the price of food has risen, gasoline prices are up, and the subprime mess is fueling the problems of our economy. And with all of this that has taken place under this President and this administration, you would think that the Members on the opposite side of the aisle would want to come to the aid of their constituents.

We have talked about the $30 billion bailout under the Fed Chairman that was appointed by this President. And I am sure, since we did not get a call in the middle of the night to even discuss with us that the bailout was going to take place, I'm sure that the Fed Chairman called the President that appointed him. And I would give anything--I would place money on the line--to tell you that the President approved of that bailout. And so why not bail out the people who deserve to be helped? People, many of them who got into loans that were lured into these loans, lured into these mortgages by unscrupulous real estate brokers who

told them to just sign on the dotted line, by unscrupulous folks representing some of the financial institutions who said get into this ARM and when it resets, I will be there to help you refinance it, and, of course, they're not there. These people, many of them have lost these homes through no fault of their own.

But the neighborhoods are being devastated. We have information here that tells us how much crime will be fostered on the neighborhoods. As a matter of fact, what we have learned is that when there is one foreclosure, it leads to not only vandalism that affects the entire neighborhood, but it also increases the crime. This has all been documented.

I would think that the representatives who have been sent here by the people who have voted for them would want to be able to go home and say to their constituents, I understand what's going on in the neighborhoods; to say to their mayors and to say to their Governors and to say to their county commissioners, ``We are here to help.'' Yes, we are spending a lot of money on other things. As a matter of fact, many of the Members on the opposite side of the aisle, in a matter of hours, are going to vote for over $107 billion in supplemental funding to continue the war in Iraq.

Many of these Members have voted to give tax increases to the richest 1 percent in America. The least they could do is vote for the citizens and for their cities.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk that has been made in order under the rule.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

This manager's amendment is in the nature of a perfecting amendment that makes a few changes to the bill that I hope will be relatively uncontroversial.

First, as this bill has moved through the process, we have moved from a program that allocated all of the funds to States to administer to one that, as I described in my opening statement, distributes funds to States, certain metropolitan cities and large urban counties.

This amendment simply removes the State as the middle person in allocations to qualifying cities and counties which would instead receive direct allocations from HUD. This will expedite the distribution of funds which is critical in the context of economic stimulus.

Second, the amendment brings a definition of operating costs of housing purchased under the program, which is an eligible use under the grant component in line with similar uses in other HUD programs such as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. This just clarifies what is and is not an eligible expense when an entity is operating a purchase property as rental property or preparing it for resale.

Finally, to further address the concerns that this bill somehow provides a bailout to lenders, the amendment caps the purchase price of foreclosed properties at the appraised price or 110 percent of the average local single family home price, whichever is less. This guards against property owners gaming the system to obtain inflated prices under the program.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I was hopeful that the ranking member of the subcommittee would offer support for this amendment. I know that there are some differences that she has and others have on this bill.

However, the attempts that we have made to make sure that it is a bill that can operate efficiently, such as identifying those 100 cities, those 100 counties and those 50 cities of a certain size would be the kind of amendment that the ranking member and others would understand makes this a better bill and would formulate ways by which it could efficiently and effectively get that money into the communities that are needed.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Although I rise to claim time in opposition, I am not opposed to the amendment.

I think the ranking member of the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee has made a sound addition to the bill here. While, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we did not want HUD to get bogged down in processing 1,200 different plans from all the entitlement jurisdictions in the

HOME and CDBG programs, there is no question that the expertise at HUD to administer this bill's loan and rent program lies in the Community Planning and Development division of the agency. So I urge my colleagues to support Mrs. Capito's amendment to ensure that we don't create an unnecessary new bureaucracy if H.R. 5818 is passed into law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, today I want to thank, first of all, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Housing, of which I'm the ranking member, for her good hard work and dedicated service. We've had a lot of hearings and a lot of information, and I think we all want to try to achieve help for the homeowners or those who are on the edge.

But today I rise in opposition to H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008. We all recognize that we are experiencing a sharp increase in foreclosure statistics and starts. Over the past year alone, approximately 550,000 homeowners with subprime loans began the foreclosure process.

However, we shouldn't rush to act. We must guard against adopting policies which create moral hazards and unintended consequences.

Unfortunately, we believe H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008, is a bill which does both. H.R. 5818 is an unnecessary government intervention in the housing market which will bail out real estate speculators, servicers, and lenders while doing nothing to assist hardworking Americans struggling to make their mortgage payments. This bill will not keep one person in their mortgage or in their home.

The bill does this through a $15 billion authorization for grants and loans to be used to purchase already foreclosed homes from lenders, servicers, and speculators who have made bad loans or unwise investments. The Neighborhood Stablization Act will allow investors and servicers to unload their foreclosed properties to the government with the taxpayer footing the bill. Servicers and investors might even be encouraged to pursue foreclosure if this bill is enacted.

Instead of incentivizing foreclosure, Congress should be encouraging services to engage in voluntary loan work-outs and modifications. Furthermore, this bill calls on States and local governments to convert foreclosed properties into affordable rental and single-family housing. The increase in housing supply and decrease in prices creates housing affordability without government intervention.

I'm also concerned that the overly broad income targeting provisions in this bill, which will allow families making 100 percent and 140 percent of area median income respectively, to rent and purchase properties acquired with funds from this act. It is not appropriate for the government to provide housing assistance to individuals who can afford market-rate housing.

Congress should focus its efforts on keeping hardworking Americans in their homes. We should not unnecessarily intervene in the housing market in the process of adjustment after years of what has proved to be unsustainable growth. It is imperative that we recognize the primary beneficiaries of this bill will not be the thousands of Americans struggling to hold on to their home, but the lenders, servicers and speculators who bear much of the responsibility for the current housing slump.

Putting aside the issue of how massive this new program would be, the bill's ultimate beneficiaries, as I said, could be our lenders and investors and speculators; and indeed the FHA commissioner, Brian Montgomery, stated in testimony before our committee that ``this legislation may have the unintended consequences of making foreclosure a more attractive option for lenders thereby compounding the very problem of rising foreclosures that the bill purports to address.''

Madam Chairman, I oppose this bill, and I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to make a comment in reference to the chairman's comments.

I live in a small community, just barely over 50,000. And we have local government and State programs in effect right now that deal with foreclosed or blighted projects. They work together with the local nonprofits, with the local land owners and realtors, and we have problems that are moving forward.

So to say that we're not in favor of programs that would deal with foreclosure-blighted neighborhoods I think is factually incorrect.

I would like now to yield some time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a member of the Financial Services Committee, 3 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Roskam from Illinois.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam) 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield the gentleman another 2 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), who is also a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side.

I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) 1 additional minute.

Madam Chairman, could I inquire of how much time we have remaining.

Madam Chairman, I am ready to close. I have no additional speakers as well.

I think we have heard a stark difference in opinion on this bill. I would like to make a distinction, as we have heard the discussion going back and forth, and I think the good-natured way that the debate has gone forward but also the intent of this bill is unquestionably a good intent.

But I would like to clarify to those who are listening that this bill is separate and apart from that person who can't sleep at night, that family who stays up at night trying to figure out how to meet the high cost of gas, how to meet the higher cost of food, and how to make their mortgage payment. We've been working with FHA to get people to refinance and to redo their loans so they can stay in their house, and I don't want there to be confusion concerning this bill and the next bill that we are going to be considering shortly after this.

This bill, separate and apart, is not going to help that family who can't figure out in the middle of the night how they are going to stay in their home, how they are going to pay their mortgage. These properties that we're also discussing are already foreclosed-upon properties. They're owned by investors, speculators, and financial institutions. And that's our objection. I don't believe we are in a position, and I don't think any of the speakers on our side believe we're in a position for a costly bailout for the lenders, servicers, and real estate speculators who have made risky bets on the housing market and who are now going to off-load their properties into a government program. I think that penalizes every single taxpayer, and it really penalizes that person at night who can't figure out how they're going to get up and pay their mortgage the next day, and that's the person we desperately need and we want to help and it's proper that we should help.

So I believe that H.R. 5818 is overly broad. It's a new government program that is going to end up creating a moral hazard, and it's going to end up benefiting not individuals, not people who are having trouble making their mortgage payments, not people who find themselves upside down in their house. It's going to end up benefiting, at the cost of the taxpayers, and I repeat again, lenders, servicers, and real estate speculators.

And with that, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5818.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would like to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you.

While I appreciate the chairwoman's amendment, and I do believe that it does go in a direction that is much better for the bill, I still have, as I have voiced in the earlier debate, serious concerns about the bill in terms of the cost and in terms of taxpayers' dollars bailing out investors and lenders. This does not go to individual homeowners. It does not help somebody in foreclosure, an individual family in foreclosure.

And so with that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, my amendment is really quite simple. As we have heard myself talking and Members on my side of the aisle talking about the difficulties that we have with the bill, I realize that the odds are with it that it may pass out of this House. With that in mind, I would like to offer this amendment to what I think makes the bill better.

My amendment would very simply direct the funds to be administered through the Office of Community Planning and Development of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This office already oversees the HOME and CDBG programs which we are very familiar with.

One of the concerns that we had with the bill was creating a whole new bureaucracy within HUD to administer this program if it were to go forward. And that is problematic any time you are creating a new bureaucracy, particularly when you are replicating some of the delivery systems that already exist within HUD. Those delivery systems exist in the Office of Community Planning and Development.

So with that, I would like to say that rather than the current language which just merely directs the Secretary to implement the program, I would prefer, and my amendment offers to direct those funds to be administered by the existing Office of Community Planning and Development within HUD which deals, as I said, with the CDBG program which we are all very familiar with working in a lot of our communities.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1174 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings from Washington. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1174.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1174 provides for consideration of H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule makes in order seven amendments listed in the Rules Committee report, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008 and this rule. This New Direction Congress, led by Democrats, understands the impact of this unfortunate Bush economy on neighborhoods throughout America. In order for our country to recover from this economic downturn, it is critical that we stabilize housing for our neighbors and rebuild communities with more affordable housing.

In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged Congress to take

action earlier this week. He stated in part, summarized in this news report, ``The reasons behind surging late payments and foreclosures can vary, and that needs to be taken into account when developing solutions. For instance, in parts of New England, States in the Great Lakes, including Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin, show increased mortgage delinquencies and notable increases in unemployment rates. California, Florida, and parts of Colorado, on the other hand, saw delinquencies rise during a period when unemployment generally decreased but the value of homes declined.''

He said, ``A widespread decline in home prices, by contrast, is a relatively novel phenomenon, and lenders and servicers will have to develop new and flexible strategies to deal with this issue. Rising foreclosures add to the glut of unsold homes, and that put more downward pressure on prices, aggravating the housing slump. More rapid declines in house prices could have an adverse impact on the broader economy.''

See, this affects us all, and it affects the stability of the financial system overall. So it is vitally important that we bring this package today, this first bill, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act and more to come because of the record number of foreclosures facing our neighbors back home.

Under President Bush's economic policies, the number of families entering into foreclosure has increased from over 700,000 to 1.5 million last year, but today, we're going to bring new hope to our communities through revitalized neighborhoods and targeted affordable housing to families that need it most.

The Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008 provides our local communities with the tools they need to purchase and rehabilitate vacant and foreclosed homes. Now we all know a vacant, deteriorated, foreclosed home in our neighborhood has a devastating impact. We've all seen them. We've driven by them. They're overgrown. They are not paying the taxes like everyone else in the neighborhood is paying. They're causing a drain on services and local governments.

Our initiatives today will help these nonprofit agencies and our local governments purchase those properties, turn them around, rehabilitate them and make them available to families that need them most, and in order to see that families with the greatest needs receive housing first, these new loans and affordable homes will be targeted especially to middle class families and those hardworking families back in our communities.

I know this will help families in my home State of Florida which has been among the Nation's hardest hit States, particularly in my community in the Tampa Bay area. In fact, it was not long ago that one of my neighbors called to tell me that he recently lost his home to foreclosure, and he was dealing with the repercussions from that loss, trying to find another affordable place to live for him and his family.

He was pleased to know, however, that this Congress had already acted on a mortgage forgiveness debt relief act signed into law last year, and because of that act, he will not suffer a double whammy and get hit with an unaffordable tax bill to accompany the loss of his home.

This legislation will help families from my community and communities across this Nation to rebuild and create more affordable housing. I am proud that this Congress has been so proactive and taken so many steps to combat the housing crisis. Millions of Americans will be helped because of the proactive leadership of Chairman Barney Frank on the Financial Services Committee and Chairwoman Maxine Waters.

I am pleased to witness firsthand that this new Democratic Congress has made the lives of folks in my neighborhood and my community a whole lot better. Today, we will continue to move forward by passing the Neighborhood Stabilization Act and follow on that with the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act. These efforts reflect the continued work of this New Direction Congress and offer the most comprehensive response yet to the American mortgage crisis. We are providing much-needed help to hardworking families in this unfortunate Bush economy.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I object. I do not yield for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to do everything we can in our power to help American families across this Nation that, yes, are facing foreclosure. In this package we bring today we will help the folks who are facing those adjustable rates and keep them out of foreclosure. But I don't think we should turn a blind eye to the significant increase in foreclosures, the rate of foreclosures that has happened since 2003 under the Bush Administration. In 2003, 734,000 foreclosures; 2004, 835,000 foreclosures. More in 2005 and 2006. 2007, a record-breaking 1.5 million foreclosed homes in America. This Neighborhood Stabilization Act will address those vacant foreclosed homes in our neighborhoods.

I am going to call upon my colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui from California, to further address the

issue. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to an outspoken advocate for the hardworking families of Ohio and all Americans, Ms. Kaptur of Ohio.

We have a list of additional speakers, so at this time I cannot yield additional time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition. I am not in opposition, but I plan to speak in the allotted 5 minutes.

Madam Chairman, throughout this debate, the Bear

Stearns matter has been invoked by Members of the majority who have called forth the bailout of the Bear Stearns counterparties, not of Bear Stearns but of the counterparties, as a reason to bail out lenders in this case. And basically, what they said time and time again, my colleagues, many of them my friends in the majority, they have said, You Republicans had no problem when the Federal Reserve bailed out Bear Stearns. Now, although you had no problem with that $30 billion, you've got a big problem with the $15 billion under the gentlewoman, the chairman of the subcommittee from California. You have got a big problem with this $15 billion. In fact, that's not the case. I would like to clarify what I think is a misconception.

Immediately following the Bear Stearns, whether you call it a bailout or intervention, it was a $30 billion potential loss to the American taxpayers, I agree with the gentlelady from California. One of our Members, and I think it shows the importance that one Member can make a difference, and that Member was Representative Scott Garrett from New Jersey. Representative Garrett immediately penned a letter to Chairman Frank, and I commend Chairman Frank; he gave a very prompt response to that letter. But in that letter, Scott Garrett raised some questions.

One of the questions was, Should we use taxpayers' money or expose taxpayers to laws to intervene in these situations. He wrote a very carefully crafted letter. He said, I have serious concerns about this, serious concerns about the taxpayer standing behind a $29 billion guarantee. I think these are extraordinary actions that we're taking, and we ought to have a full investigation.

Now, that letter was signed by 17 Members of this body. Now, who were those Members? Were they the Democratic Members who are expressing concerns tonight? Let's see.

There was Scott Garrett; there was Spencer Bachus, yours truly; there was Don Manzullo from Illinois, I believe he is a Republican; Walter Jones from North Carolina. I congratulate Walter on his fine victory last night. Michele Bachmann, she is a Minnesota Republican; Ginny Brown-Waite, she's from Florida, she's a Republican; Randy Neugebauer, vice chairman of our side, or vice ranking member; Tom Feeney, last time I checked he was a Republican unless he switched parties. Tom Price. Is there any debate among any of us that he's a very conservative Republican? Ron Paul. Now there's a debate. There's a debate. He may not be a Republican; he may be a Libertarian; certainly not a Democrat. Mr. Putnam, member of the Republican leadership. Thad McCotter. He signed his name. We had to do some investigation. He really used his chicken scratch here, but we've identified him as Thad McCotter after some investigation. Mr. Hensarling. Boy, that's a conservative Republican. Mr. Pearce from New Mexico; Jeff Davis, Kentucky; Judy Biggert, esteemed subcommittee ranking member, and Dean Heller.

Seventeen Members, all Republicans, who express real concerns. And I do want to congratulate the chairman of the full committee, because he almost responded yes, we need to look into this; we need to have hearings. He did say, I don't think it's necessary to do it at this time. I think we can postpone it because we need to talk about something that's quite different, and that's the foreclosure prices.

But tonight on this floor, the Democrats have linked the two as bailouts.

Let me tell you what the chairman said. The chairman of the full committee, and I agree with him, I think he's absolutely right. He said we should check into this matter because when you use taxpayer money to guarantee something, here is what he said, ``It sets a precedent that could lead to future instances of companies . . . expecting the same assistance.'' A precedent that could lead to future instances of companies expecting the same assistance. And we shouldn't obligate the taxpayers to make those sort of expenditures because people will begin to think that they will be bailed out.

Absolutely what we face tonight. Madam Chairman, Members of this body, we are creating an expectation tonight on this floor by bailing out irresponsible speculators and lenders.

I thank the Chairman.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, April 7, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Frank: We are writing to respectfully request

you hold a hearing of the full Financial Services Committee

regarding the recent collapse of the investment bank Bear

Stearns and the subsequent actions taken by the Federal

Reserve to facilitate Bear Stearns' sale to J.P. Morgan

Chase. These steps have had an immediate impact on the

financial markets and are also expected to have a long-term

effect on our financial regulatory structure.

For the first time since the Great Depression, the Fed

voted to open its discount window to primary dealers. While

this authority has been available to the Fed since 1932, the

decision to use it at this time has raised questions about

whether and when the Fed should intervene to help a

particular industry or firm in the name of market stability.

With the Fed approving the financing arrangements of the

sale of Bear Stearns to J.P. Morgan Chase as well as

guaranteeing $29 billion in securities currently held by Bear

Stearns, the Fed has possibly exposed the American taxpayers

to unknown amounts of financial loss and established a

precedent that could lead to future instances of companies in

similar financial trouble expecting the same assistance.

These extraordinary actions have raised a number of complex

and multifaceted questions. As members of the committee of

jurisdiction over our nations' financial markets and the

regulatory bodies that oversee them, we feel it is imperative

to have a full and public vetting of this unique situation.

Therefore, we strongly urge you to convene a hearing on this

subject of the Financial Services Committee on the soonest

possible date.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Scott Garrett, Spencer Bachus, Donald Manzullo, Walter B.

Jones, Michele Bachmann, Ginny Brown-Waite, Randy

Neugebauer, Tom Feeney, Thomas Price, Ron Paul, Adam H.

Putnam, T. McCotter, Jeb Hensarling, Steven Pearce,

Geoff Davis, Judy Biggert, Dean Heller.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this is an oppressive rule, written to restrict debate in the House and to strip away rights from the minority.

This rule makes in order four Democrat amendments and only three Republican amendments. This means that 80 percent of requested Democrat amendments were made in order, but just 33 percent, or one-third, of Republican amendments filed with the Rules Committee were made in order. Mr. Speaker, this isn't balanced. It's restrictive and not in the tradition of having an open debate on important issues.

Last night at the Rules Committee, Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank said that he supported allowing debate on an amendment relating to illegal immigration and legitimate concerns of ensuring that persons illegally present in this country do not benefit from the new Federal program created by this bill.

Rules Committee Democrats responded by making in order the least substantive, most meaningless and unenforceable immigration amendment possible. A Republican amendment by Representative Ginny Brown-Waite. of Florida had very clearly and explicitly made certain that anyone illegally present in this country cannot rent or buy a house from this new government program. That amendment was not made in order. Every Democrat on the Rules Committee voted to deny the House voting on this meaningful amendment.

Mr. Speaker, when Democrat leaders aren't totally shutting down debate, they are giving the House window dressing instead of substance on important issues. Not content with blocking two-thirds of Republican amendments and restricting the opportunity of every Member of this institution to come to the House floor and offer amendments to improve, fix or alter this bill, House Democrat leaders went even further to shut down the minority, squelch dissent and take away their parliamentary rights.

Section 2 of this rule takes away the right of any Member of this House to make a motion that the House rise out of the Committee of the Whole and places it solely in the hands of the Democrat majority leader or the Democrat chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the new majority promised to run the most open, honest House in history. Instead of keeping their promises to the American people, Democrat leaders are acting with impunity as they shed any semblance of openness, fairness or regular order.

I don't believe many of the freshmen Democrat Members who were elected in the last election came to Congress to block debate and prohibit Members from offering amendments on the House floor. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they have joined lock-step with Speaker Pelosi in stooping to a level of oppressive partisanship that far exceeds the sins of any previous Congresses. It's a shameful record that shatters the promise Democrat leaders made to the American people to run an open, honest House.

Mr. Speaker, all this is being done to pass a bill that would create a brand new, Big Government, $15 billion Federal program to buy, remodel, resell or rent thousands and thousands of houses across the country. Who will profit from this new $15 billion government program are the lenders who made the bad loans and then foreclosed on families who didn't make their mortgage payments. It's a bailout for home lenders that knowingly took risks.

It's terribly unwise and wasteful of taxpayer dollars to create a new government program that invites other lenders to take gambles on home loans because the American taxpayer will come along and wipe away their bad decisions. Mr. Speaker, why should American taxpayers be footing the bill for calculated mistakes made by others? Why should American taxpayers,

who are making their mortgage payments each month or who are paying rent, have to come along and fund billions of dollars to give away grants and zero interest loans for those who speculated, gambled and lost? Mr. Speaker, taxpayers should not take this hit.

Now I recognize that this bill is titled the Neighborhood Stabilization Act and that its stated intent is to help rehabilitate neighborhoods in metropolitan cities and urban communities that have multiple foreclosed homes sitting vacant and empty. But, Mr. Speaker, why should rural and middle America be forced to have their tax dollars used to bail out lenders in big cities and urban areas? I believe, Mr. Speaker, we should work to find incentives for people to purchase these homes and improve these neighborhoods.

But we should oppose a new $15 billion spending program so the Federal Government can be involved in flipping houses or renting out homes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this oppressive rule and the bad underlying bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that each side get an additional 2 minutes so I can engage the gentleman and so he can have the time to yield to me.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman 1 minute of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

If the gentleman will yield, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can address another issue of tremendous import in this country that has hit every family, and that's the high prices of gasoline. So I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can address issues, allow Members on the floor to be able to debate the issue of lower gas prices.

It would give us the opportunity to do that because there are some ideas here. The gentleman is correct.

If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct.

If the gentleman will yield, I think every Member should allow every Member the opportunity to address these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?