Designating March 2, 2009, as "Read Across America Day".

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 205 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady, my friend from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 205 provides for further consideration of H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. As I've previously stated, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act takes a crucial step toward reviving our housing market, stemming the tide of home foreclosures, and putting our Nation's economy back on track.

This bill provides for a safe harbor from liability to mortgage servicers who engage in loan modifications to remove any impediments that may prevent them from partaking in voluntary modifications. It also makes much-needed changes to the HOPE for Homeowners Program in order to encourage more lenders to participate and ensure that the program meets its intended objective.

The bill further makes permanent the temporary increase in deposit insurance coverage for both the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund and the National Credit Union Administration Share Insurance Fund, in order to both enhance the liquidity and stability of our banking institutions, and help restore confidence in our financial system.

The underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker, also makes several long overdue changes to our bankruptcy code. Now, some have understandably questioned these provisions which would allow bankruptcy judges the ability to modify loans on a homeowner's principal residence if the homeowner meets specified stringent criteria. It has been argued that allowing judicial modifications will lead to a sudden slew of bankruptcy filings, will cause massive losses to financial institutions, and will increase the cost of borrowing for other homeowners. However, this will simply not be the case.

Bankruptcy will remain, as it always has been, a last resort. And modifications will be at the individual discretion of a bankruptcy judge who will determine if a borrower has acted responsibly and if a claim has any merit.

Most importantly, allowing judicial modifications will maximize, not lessen, the value of troubled mortgages for lenders, and will avoid the continuous decline in property values in neighborhoods with foreclosed properties.

Additionally, this rule provides for a revised manager's amendment that will make the bankruptcy provision and this legislation even more effective and efficient. The revised manager's amendment will allow a court to consider lowering the interest rate to reduce a homeowner's mortgage payments in lieu of reducing the mortgage principal.

It also gives mortgage holders a greater proportion of a home's appreciation should the home be sold during the bankruptcy plan, and it makes changes to the good faith requirement, further ensuring that judicial modifications are only used when borrowers have exhausted all other options.

The bankruptcy provisions in this legislation with the changes proposed in the revised manager's amendment will help thousands of American families stay in their homes. We must remember that bankruptcy is no walk in the park. It is a strict, demanding, and intrusive process in which every aspect of one's financial life is scrutinized and controlled, and that says nothing of the negative stigma and of the long-lasting effects of filing for bankruptcy.

In addition, to be eligible for such loan modifications, families must show

that they will be able to repay their debts and that they have tried to obtain a loan modification outside of bankruptcy, but let's not kid ourselves. Under current law, similar loan modifications are available for every other type of secured loan except for loans securing primary residences.

If a millionaire or a billionaire can modify a loan on a private jet and if a housing speculator can modify loans on countless failed investment properties, why can't we allow struggling families to modify their mortgages so that they're not put out on the streets?

It's easy to stand up here and claim that this bill is simply a bailout for reckless homeowners; but as our Nation creeps deeper into this financial crisis, it is painfully clear that our housing market is having a rippling effect on the economy. Families who have acted responsibly and who have paid every single payment on time are finding themselves, in one way or another, swept up by the foreclosure crisis, oftentimes through no fault of their own.

As foreclosures rise, surrounding home prices fall, funding for vital public services goes down, financial institutions are saddled with losses, access to credit shrinks, and our economy grinds to a halt. This legislation will put a stop to this deadly spiral. It will rebuild this economy from the bottom up, for our Nation simply cannot recover if we here in Congress turn our backs on the millions of Americans struggling to care for their families and to stay in their homes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill may not help every family. It will, however, help responsible individuals stay in their homes, and it will mitigate the destructive impact of this housing crisis by clearing legal impediments to loan modifications, by improving the HOPE for Homeowners Program, by ensuring confidence in our banking system, and by finally making commonsense reforms to our bankruptcy laws.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, Ms. Zoe Lofgren.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Chair and the gentlelady from North Carolina that I may have an additional speaker, but he or she has not arrived yet, and toward that end, I would reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to Ms. Lofgren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend when he asked the question, why would anybody offer money for people if they knew that a bankruptcy judge was going to modify it--but what about those private jets? They tend to loan money for them. And I know a whole lot of rich people that went into bankruptcy for the express purpose of avoiding paying bills. So I don't buy into that argument. We're about trying to help people here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished lady from Texas.

At this time, I will not.

I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Missouri, a member of the Financial Services Committee, Representative Cleaver.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairperson of the Committee on the Judiciary, my good friend, Mr. Conyers.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentlelady from North Carolina if she has any remaining speakers?

Then I would reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of our time.

This is a good rule, Mr. Speaker, that not only addresses our current housing crisis but it also more precisely targets relief to those who need it most.

In January of this year alone, in St. Lucie County that I am privileged to serve, there was 1,372 home foreclosures, according to RealtyTrac. This was the second highest foreclosure rate in my State of Florida, up 44 percent from the previous year.

This legislation is not a giveaway, it is not welfare, it is a collective bill that will help those who have played by the rules. We must lay the foundation in this country to help us get out of this crisis, and we must make every effort to rebuild this country. We can't turn a blind eye to the nearly 6 million households in America that are possibly facing foreclosure.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this rule that will put this great Nation back on track and will give millions of Americans the opportunity to continue living in their homes.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague, and I wish that just his saying something would make it so.

Unfortunately, my distinguished colleague who has a distinguished service not only in Congress but also as a judge, you simply cannot say something and make it so. This is not going to stop the problem that we have in the housing market. This is actually going to make it worse. Let me make a couple of comments about why that is the case.

We have talked over and over about the fact that this is going to drive up the cost of loans in the future and about why it's going to hurt people who have played by the rules.

You know, House Republicans support responsible homeowners who live within their means, who make honest representations on their loan applications, who pay their debts, and who work hard to achieve the American dream. But that's not what this bill does. What this bill does is it rewards bad behavior. It extends the welfare program in this country, and it's going to make home mortgages in the future much, much more expensive.

Why is that the case?

As my colleague has said, in the past, home mortgages have been left out of the bankruptcy law because they then become higher in risk. That has held down interest rates. By putting these home mortgages into the bankruptcy law, it is going to make the interest rates higher in the future. Even Justice Stevens said that taking the principal home out of the bankruptcy law was to encourage the flow of capital into the home lending market, but now we're going to increase the risk to lenders, and this is going to drive up the cost of interest rates.

As for the comments about millionaires and billionaires, that's a straw dog, just a straw dog, and we don't need to be putting those things out.

This rule and the underlying bill are opposed by both the Heritage Foundation and the New York Times. That doesn't happen very often, Mr. Speaker. It very rarely happens that those two entities oppose something, but they do.

I want to say something about the fact that we were here a week ago today to deal with this rule, and we thought we were going to be voting on the underlying bill, so it was pulled off because it was going to be made better, but you know, this is just the bait-and-switch game. I want to say to my colleagues that this underlying bill was not made better. This rule was not made better as a result of this week that has passed by. In fact, it may have been made worse.

I challenge my colleagues who have hesitation about this bill and whether to vote for it to read the bill, to read the rule. See if you think that this has actually made it better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, my distinguished colleague, Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. We do have several speakers, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to recognize my colleague, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Chris Lee, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle put the microphones close to their mouths because there are times we can't understand the words over here because the volume is not coming through.

I would like to say that I understand my colleague is very concerned about the issue of fairness, but I think that we need to think about those people who played by the rules and not those who tried to go around the rules. We're not being fair to those people.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman if he would yield for a question.

Mr. Speaker, I now am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith from Texas.

If I could engage in a very short colloquy with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

I do thank you again for including my suggestions in the bill. As I said last week on the floor, and as I have indicated to you personally, I thank you very much. I wish we could have made the bill even better, but thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have several remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues who have come today to speak on this rule. They have been extremely eloquent in explaining why we are opposed to this rule and the underlying bill.

We are in a terrible situation in this country in terms of our economic situation. And what this bill is going to do is it's going to have the effect of making the current situation even worse, and let me explain a little bit why that is the case.

This bill is going to require that banks have increased capital reserves, which is going to mean we are going to have decreased lending of all types. Every day I hear from people across the country, particularly developers, who say they cannot get loans, there is no capital out there, and it is hurting our economy. Some of us wonder if our colleagues understand this and understand that the effect of this bill is to make the economy worse and wonder if that is an intention for this bill.

I think that we have to say that we had hoped that the bill that was pulled last week was going to come back as a better bill, and yet it has not. It's made this underlying bill either worse or it's simply window dressing.

The new rule that has come in is basically not doing anything to help our situation and it's not helping the underlying bill. There was a promise that this was going to be better. We knew there were moderates on the other side who were having problems voting for this rule and voting for this bill. They have now, I think, been fooled into thinking that this is a better bill. It is not.

As my colleagues have so eloquently said, there is a reward for irresponsibility and punishment for responsibility. We have heard the President say over and over and over, we need a new era of responsibility and accountability. This does just the opposite. This rule and this bill deserve the emperor's new clothes award because it doesn't do anything that they pretend it is going to do.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the bill when it comes up.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, our country has fallen into a serious economic recession, a recession that is worsened by the foreclosure crisis.

Until we address the rising number of foreclosures, it will be difficult for the economy to recover. Some of what is in this bill we consider today will be helpful, such as providing loan officers a safe harbor from the threat of litigation if they offer borrowers meaningful loan modifications. But the bill also includes many counterproductive components, especially the bankruptcy provision. This bankruptcy provision not only will fail to solve the foreclosure crisis, but also will make the crisis deeper, longer and wider. Allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages will increase the overall cost of loaning. Lenders and investors will hesitate to put up capital in the future if they fear that judges will rewrite the terms of their mortgage contracts. Less available capital and increased risk means that borrowers will pay higher interest rates in the future.

Allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages will also encourage borrowers who owe more money on their mortgage than their house is worth to file for bankruptcy. Under this bill, a borrower will be able to reduce, for example, a $300,000 mortgage to $200,000. When housing prices rise in the future, that borrower has no obligation to pay back the $100,000, which of course amounts to a windfall.

Experts predict that this will provide an incentive for borrowers to file for bankruptcy so that they can avoid repaying the entire amount they owe. Also, if bankruptcy filings increase as a result of this legislation--which is virtually predicted by everyone--it is unlikely that the country's only 368 bankruptcy judges could handle perhaps millions of cases. This will prolong the crisis as borrowers wait years for their bankruptcy plan to be court approved.

In fact, even Senator Durbin, the primary sponsor of this legislation in the Senate, stated that he is ``willing to restrict'' this legislation to subprime mortgages in an effort to make this proposal ``reasonable.''

Because it has been suggested that Senator Durbin did not make these comments, I would like to submit the transcript of Senator Durbin's remarks to be made part of the Record.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are considering today in the Housing Affordability and Stability Plan really amounts to another entitlement program, a program that comes at the expense of the 92 percent of homeowners who are making their payments on time. And it is a program that benefits lenders who wrote irresponsible loans and borrowers who borrowed more than they could afford. In other words, this legislation will punish the successful, tax the responsible, and hold no one accountable.

If we pass this legislation, what message does it send to responsible borrowers who are making their payments on time? How can we ask them to foot the bill for their neighbors' mortgages? What do homeowners think as they pay back the full amount of principal they owe while others receive a government-granted reduction in principal?

Mr. Speaker, we need to do everything we can to help solve the foreclosure crisis, but we need to do so in a manner that doesn't bankrupt the taxpayers or our financial system and that is fair to all. Unfortunately, this bill does not do that.

[From American Banker, Feb. 27, 2009]

Transcript of Remarks by Sen. Durbin

The following is a transcript of remarks between Sen.

Richard Durbin and an American Banker reporter, Tuesday

evening after President Obama's speech to Congress.

AB Reporter: ``Sen. Durbin, do you have a moment today on

bankruptcy reform?''

Sen. Durbin: ``Sure.''

AB Reporter: ``I know that in the House, at least regarding

this week, the lenders are still trying to make the

restrictions so that you have to exhaust all other recourses

before bankruptcy pretty tough, even today I heard about

making HUD or one of the regulators certify that you had a

modification or something that didn't work before you could

go through bankruptcy. What are your thoughts on what the

standard ought to be?''

Sen. Durbin: ``I think that it is reasonable to require the

borrower to be in communication for a reasonable time before

they file for bankruptcy. You know if a borrower will not

talk to a bank they should not be able to avail themselves

but it's really difficult to write into law a measurement of

good faith so the best you can do is give them an opportunity

to meet. Remember 99% of foreclosed homes end up owned by the

bank so it isn't as if they are going to end up coming out

ahead if the person's losing their home. They get stuck with

$50,000 in costs and a house to maintain; to protect from

vandalism, and to show and try to sell, so the banks ought to

be much more forthcoming. Every attempt we've tried, every

voluntary attempt we've tried has failed. You have to have

this bankruptcy provision as the last resort if there is a

failure to negotiate the mortgage.''

AB Reporter: ``Do you know when the Senate might be taking

this up?''

Sen. Durbin: ``After the House and we might change it of

course. There are variations we're looking at. But I'm

willing to restrict this to homeowners to eliminate

speculators; to subprime mortgages, only those currently in

existence. I want to make this a reasonable limited--

AB Reporter: ``You're willing to limit it to subprime

mortgages?''

Sen. Durbin: ``We've talked about that as a possibility.

But I am willing to negotiate. I want this to be a reasonable

approach, but we have to include it. If we don't include it

we'll be stuck in the same mess we're in today.''

AB Reporter: ``What about the time limitation as far as

when the loans were originated. I understand there are some

who

would like to see it limited to loan underwritten in the last

few years?''

Sen. Durbin: ``My version will not be prospective. So it

has to be existing loans.''

I came to the floor, Mr. Speaker, because I wanted to make sure that this was the day that the United States Congress addressed the question of responsible, hardworking Americans.

I came to the floor with my BlackBerry because there's a message about one of our renowned mortgagers, Countrywide, that is in the process of evicting one of my constituents--a hardworking, long- standing, if you will, working American trying to save their home. Long message as to what has been going on in this instance and the insensitivity of the mortgager.

So today is a day for being responsible. It is not a day for those who have, in essence, been irresponsible. It is a day to allow them, as every American has a right, their day in court with a judge with a fine-tooth comb who will review all of the documents and even including the responsibility of that particular petitioner to include all of the information on income, expenses and debts to the holder of the mortgage, with the second amendment including a particular clawback provision that increases the amount of money that the lender might get if the particular house was sold.

In addition, I am supporting this rule, but I do look forward to the conference, which I hope that I will be a participant, because, in fact, if these individuals are victims of predatory lending, which many of them have been--meaning that they would go to a servicer who would masquerade their documents and say they can get into a house--this particular action of bankruptcy should not be part of the credit score which then dumbs down the opportunity for this individual to restore themselves, get back into the economic market, be able to get credit, be able to buy things and turn this economy.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

This is a fair and reasonable bill, along with the manager's amendment that, in fact, allows this particular homeowner, the person that is in this BlackBerry that is in the midst of an eviction having purchased a house in honesty with the lights on, putting forward the documentation but yet being subjected to that well-known mortgager, Countrywide, that gave vast numbers of, if you will, mortgages in the context that might not have been the most appropriate.

Today we are allowing the courts of law, the established bankruptcy court--established statutorily and protected by the Constitution--to allow someone due process. That's all we're saying, Mr. Speaker.

And all of this about irresponsible persons offends me because there are thousands, and now millions, of families who are simply trying to say, Keep the tax base for my struggling city, allow my neighbors to not have their homes depreciated because I have had the unfortunate mistake of being misrepresented to. Some of these people are still working.

I close by saying 3,500 people are in line for a job. Today is the little person's opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your leadership on this very important question. Chairman Conyers and Chairman Frank, I would like to

also thank you for your leadership. Lastly, I would like to thank my able Legislative Director, Arthur Sidney, for his hard work on this issue.

The bill before us today is very important and will help Americans during this difficult economic time. As you know, home foreclosures are at an all-time high and they are poised to accelerate as the recession deepens. In 2006, there were 1.2 million foreclosures in the United States, representing an increase of 42 percent over the prior year. During 2007 through 2008, mortgage foreclosures were estimated to result in a whopping $400 billion worth of defaults and $100 billion in losses to investors in mortgage securities.

During this time, debtors and average homeowners found themselves in the midst of a home mortgage foreclosure crisis of unprecedented levels. Many of the mortgage foreclosures were the result of subprime lending practices.

Subprime lending did not always have a bad name; however, within the last five to seven years, unscrupulous lenders have preyed upon buyers in a predatory fashion. The amendment that I offered before the Rules Committee was intended to address this issue.Specifically, my amendment would preclude a foreclosure and bankruptcy that resulted from subprime and predatory lending from being included in the determination of a debtor's creditor score. Certainly, a debtor's declaration of foreclosure or bankruptcy has a deleterious effect on one's credit score.

This makes a bad situation, worse. If a debtor has poor credit to begin with and is forced to declare bankruptcy or is forced into foreclosure, this combination would make it almost impossible for a debtor to secure credit in the future. A lowered credit score results in a downward spiral for the debtor and ultimately leads to an economic quagmire for the debtor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 146 designating March 2, 2009, as Read Across America Day. This celebration is held each year on the birthday of author Dr. Seuss. This year, Read Across America celebrates its 10th anniversary, and is also the 50th anniversary of Dr. Seuss' most recognizable work, ``The Cat in the Hat.''

Theodor Geisel, more famously known as Dr. Seuss, is the most beloved children's book author of all time. His use of rhyme makes his books an effective tool for teaching young children the basic skills they need to be successful and develop a life-long love of reading. Celebrating Dr. Seuss and reading sends a clear message to our children that reading is both fun and important.

In 2001, Congress and President Bush highlighted the importance of reading by passing the No Child Left Behind Act. Through programs authorized under the act, the Federal Government demonstrated the importance of reading intervention in providing additional resources for reading assistance; most notable was its commitment to the Reading First Program. Once the program was implemented, the data quickly showed that Reading First works. On average, the 26 States with early baseline data on reading achievement increased the percentage of students meeting or exceeding proficiency on fluency outcome measures. Among Wisconsin first graders, reading fluency proficiency increased by nearly 28 percent for economically disadvantaged students, more than 30 percent for limited English proficient students, nearly 22 percent for students with disabilities, more than 22 percent for African American students, and nearly 23 percent for Hispanic students.

States saw this improvement and made Reading First an integral opponent of their reform efforts. Reports by the Government Accountability Office, the Inspector General and the Center on Education Policy have all found widespread support for the program among the States. In one Center on Education Policy report, 97 percent of Reading First school districts said that the program was an important or very important cause for increases in students' reading scores.

Despite these positive results, the new majority has, over the course of 2 years, decreased funding levels by $600 million in 2008 and completely eliminated funding for 2009. Individual States are beginning to voice their concern over the impact of lost Reading First funding. In fact, these cuts have led to such efforts as the Colorado State Board of Education passing a resolution expressing its support for Reading First model and its concern over the appropriations cut.

As we rightfully recognize another Read Across America Day, this Congress should begin the work of immediately restoring funding for this program that provides this Nation's most disadvantaged students the reading intervention and additional resources for reading assistance they so desperately need.

I thank my colleague from Colorado (Ms. Markey) for sponsoring this resolution. And I ask that all of my colleagues support its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I am in strong support of Resolution 146. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. It's saddening to me, though, that at this time, when we are talking about reading and the importance of reading, how an administration that is spending so freely will continue to cut funds from a program that works very well for our young people to give them the reading first opportunity that they so deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.