FHA Refinance Program Termination Act

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, for people trying to follow this, the gentleman from Alabama has confused several programs in this conversation, most of which aren't up today. We are dealing with one at a time. He talked about money that went to Los Angeles and went to a group instead of the county. That has zero to do with today's program. Zero. And in fact, it doesn't have to do with individual homeowners. It's a program that gives aid to municipalities, which we will be debating later, probably next week, which gives aid to municipalities to deal with property that they have been stuck with. So it has nothing to do with today.

But the gentleman does make a good point about the deficit. Unfortunately, he does not put his votes where his rhetoric is. The CBO says that this program is going to cost not $8 billion, but if it's fully operational over a 2-year period, which is its life span, will cost $175 million.

Now, that's money. But do you know what it is? It's much less--and the gentleman from Alabama voted during that same period to send money to the cotton farmers of Brazil. We do have a debate about the deficit here, but it's not about whether to reduce it. It's how.

The gentleman from Alabama, along with the majority of Republicans voting, defeated an amendment--with some Democrats, although the majority of us voted for the amendment--to stop sending American tax dollars to subsidize the cotton farmers of Brazil. In the 2-year period during which we will be dealing with this program: Brazilian cotton farmers--$300 million. Americans facing foreclosure--$175 million. The gentleman from Alabama has a very odd way of saving money on the deficit.

Then he says we have winners and losers. Well, among the big winners under the Republican budget and with the majority of their votes are the farmers who receive more than $250,000 per year in subsidy. Whatever happened to free enterprise? Whatever happened to standing on your own? An amendment was offered to limit to a measly $250,000 the subsidy any one entity could get. The gentleman from Alabama voted ``no.'' That was too harsh. The gentleman from Alabama is for unlimited amounts of subsidy to go to a handful of farmers--but no--we can't spare much less than that over the time period because, in the time period of this bill, that would have cost $200 million, or $100 million a year.

Then the gentleman quoted the Secretary of Defense, that we should pay more attention to the Secretary of Defense because he, along with many Republicans, voted to force money on the Secretary of Defense that he didn't want. He voted to fund the programs the Secretary of Defense didn't want. He's trying to get some reprogramming now, but the Republican Appropriations Committee won't allow it. By the way, I don't agree with the Secretary of Defense fully on this either.

I disagree with the gentleman from Alabama and the Secretary of Defense because they don't want to spend $175 million in 2 years trying to deal with foreclosures in American cities. Instead, they want to send more than twice that amount to Afghanistan for its infrastructure. You talk about inefficiency. Does anyone think that President Karzai and his administration are going to spend the $400 million my friend from Alabama has voted to send toward Afghan infrastructure projects better than we would spend it here?

How about $1.2 billion for the Iraqi security forces at a time when American municipalities are having to lay off police officers and firefighters and other essential employees? The gentleman from Alabama voted to send $1.2 billion to the Iraqi security forces. Does anyone here have a great deal of confidence in how efficiently they'll spend it?

Now let me address a couple of mistakes the gentleman made specifically about this program:

The $50 million is not being spent on 40 people; $50 million hasn't, in fact, been spent at all. Not a penny has been spent. The $50 million was reserved out of TARP money to cover losses if they were to occur. The CBO does say, yes, if this program is fully funded and if it gets the participation they expect, the total amount of losses will be $175 million, not $8 billion. The $8 billion was a resurrection on the TARP for technical reasons. The CBO says, full scale, this will cost $175 million--again, less than the gentleman of Alabama wants to send during that period to Brazilian cotton farmers.

Now, as to the people who vote consistently, as some do, to cut money for Afghan infrastructure or for Iraqi security forces or for Brazilian cotton farmers or for American cotton farmers or for other recipients of subsidy who then are opposed to this program, I honor their integrity. I disagree with them in some ways, but I honor it. Yet I cannot accept the lecture on fiscal responsibility from someone who votes to lavish money in wasteful ways on Afghan cities but begrudges it in American cities; who would send it for Iraqi police officers but not for American police officers; who would send it to cotton farmers and to other farmers in America but not to struggling homeowners.

This program has started slowly. By the way, there's a great contradiction between saying it has only helped 40 people and that it's going to cost $8 billion. If the pay starts to increase, it won't cost the full $175 million, but here's what we hope:

There are negotiations going on now to allow people the benefit of a refinancing. The gentleman says it's not going to take care of everybody. Of course not. There is not one program that is fit for everybody. There are a series of programs for people in different circumstances, and this is one for people who could benefit from a lower interest rate and a refinancing but who are under water and can't do it. It induces the financial institutions to do it. It's voluntary. If financial institutions find this is unreasonable, they won't do it.

There is an effort going on now to achieve a negotiated settlement involving the services of financial institutions, many of which are quite culpable and have misbehaved in this process, so these are not innocent victims being shaken down. The Attorneys General of every State, Republican and Democrat, and the regulators are trying to come up with a solution.

This is the other point that gets lost in the rhetoric when the gentleman who was so eager to send money to Brazilian cotton farmers begrudges a small amount going to Americans facing foreclosure, which is that the foreclosure crisis is not just a crisis of individual families. It's a national economic problem. It's a macroeconomic

problem. To the extent that we do not do something to retard the rate of foreclosure, then we make it harder to get out of the economic bind in which we have found ourselves, which, as the gentleman correctly said, started from the meltdown of 2008, and we have been getting out of that at too slow a pace. Dealing with foreclosures is a part of it.

This program has not yet become fully operational--and it may never be--but it is here to be used as a tool, especially if we are ever to get the agreement among the Attorneys General from both parties, the regulators and the financial institutions. It is a responsible way to deal with this. It will cost less than many of the unnecessary agricultural subsidy programs.

I've got to say, Mr. Chairman, that I've got to go reread. Maybe I missed a footnote. I know there are these great free market economic texts by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek and others. They talk about free enterprise, about keeping the government out of business, and about letting the free market work. Apparently, there is a footnote that says, oh, except agriculture. Overwhelmingly, my Republican colleagues preach this to working people, to people in urban areas and to people in other jobs, but it doesn't apply to cotton farmers or to wheat farmers or to corn farmers or to grain farmers. Billions of dollars go to them.

As a matter of fact, as the gentleman from Alabama said with his vote: How dare you limit some farmer to a mere $250,000 in entitlement subsidies? Because agriculture is an entitlement, but they don't talk about that. They want to talk about Social Security for the elderly, but they don't want to talk about entitlements for agriculture.

I do believe we need to cut the deficit. I think we can cut back substantially in what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can cut back substantially in agriculture. We can put limits elsewhere, which I would like to do. I would throw in that I did not think it was a good idea to reduce the estate tax that the heirs of William Gates and Warren Buffett are going to have to pay. Although, to the credit of Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett, they didn't think so either. They weren't for substantially reducing the estate tax on people who were going to be inheriting--not earning--tens of hundreds of millions of dollars.

My colleagues over there, and some here, have supported all of that, and then have said we cannot put a program out there that will help Americans facing foreclosure--and not simply to help them but to help the cities and to help the whole economy. There is a great consensus among economists that dealing responsibly with foreclosures is the way to deal with this.

So, no, please don't believe in $8 billion. It's not that. The CBO says it's $175 million. And $175 million is considerable, but I will repeat that it's less than my friends want to send to Brazil. It's less than they want to send to build infrastructure in Kabul and Kandahar. It's less than they want to spend to police Fallujah. You know, if I thought that latter set of funds were going to be well used, I might feel better about it, but we know how corrupt it is.

There is a double standard, let me say finally. Expenditures within the United States are held to a very, very strict accountability, but as to expenditures in Iraq and in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world, we know how much more wastefully and corruptly spent they are, and that doesn't seem to bother other people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Two points: First, you have just heard a fantasy that $50 million has been spent for 42 loans. That is not even remotely close to being true. Fifty million has been set aside in a reserve for defaults if and when they come. Not a penny of it has been given to anybody. It is simply sitting in that account, in case, and the 42 loans have nothing to do with that.

Yes, the gentleman from Alabama said I didn't talk about it. I did talk about it. I corrected the misuse of the 50 million from last week. He didn't misuse it today. And I mentioned that it started slow and it may not get beyond where it is now. I mentioned that it is in reserve to use it more. So, yes, we have only got 42. I talked about that.

The 8 billion is a fantasy. The CBO says at it's best, this is going to cost $175 million. The 8 billion is a purely bookkeeping account.

But I want to get back to the fascinating explanation by the gentleman from Alabama as to why he and the majority of Republicans voted to send $150 million per year last year, this year, and for the next couple of years to Brazil: Obama made him do it. Listen carefully. The explanation for this expenditure to go to Brazil, that the poor gentleman from Alabama voted for, is Barack Obama made him do it.

The President is a very convenient place for them to hide. In fact, if he is asking me if I am critical of the President in that, yes, I am critical of the President many times. I agree with him overall. But I did not agree with him that we should send 1.2 billion for Iraq security forces. The gentleman from Alabama did. I didn't agree we should send $400 million for Afghan infrastructure.

The gentleman seems to think it's some major debating point because the President takes the position that I disagree? Perhaps his view is you always agree with the President of your party. It's not mine. It's not a responsible way to legislate.

Secondly, there was an alternative to sending $150 million to Brazil. We could have sent $150 million less to Americans. The finding was that we were putting Brazilian cotton farmers at a $150 million disadvantage per year because of the subsidy we gave to Americans. We could have come in with legislation that would have reduced the Americans'.

So, in fact, I underestimated the waste of money that the gentleman from Alabama is indulging because Barack Obama made him do it and he was powerless to resist, apparently, because it's $300 million a year.

We had two options: We could keep the level of subsidy for American cotton farmers and match that to the Brazilians, or we could reduce it by $150 million in America and reduce it to Brazil over a 4-year period when this will be in effect. That's over a billion dollars, a considerable amount of money.

So, yes, it is true, the President sometimes makes unwise recommendations, in my judgment. But the argument for the gentleman from Alabama that he is to be absolved from responsibility for his vote, and the majority of Republicans--the majority of us on our

side repudiated the President's position in this case. But the gentleman from Alabama has claimed, Don't blame me; Obama made me do it is no more credible than his invocation of some fantasy figures.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

I yield myself 30 seconds simply to say the gentleman has simply repeated an absolute fantasy. This is not a $50 million expenditure for 40 loans. The $50 million has not been given to anybody, not

a penny of it. It has been put in a reserve account. Fifty million has been set aside in a reserve account. It was disbursed from the TARP to a reserve account. The CBO, as I've submitted if this goes forward, it will be about $12,000 per loan.

Last week, the gentleman from Illinois was claiming that if you participate in this program, you would have a tax liability. He learned that that was totally wrong. He is perpetuating error.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney)

I yield myself 15 seconds to further elucidate matters to the gentleman from Illinois. It has been disbursed in a letter of credit, none of which has been drawn down. It sits there as a reserve in case of losses.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), one of the leading House experts on this matter.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

How much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. Chairman?

I have only one remaining speaker. I will defer until the gentleman has his last speaker.

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

A week ago when we debated this in committee, the author of the bill, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold), was telling people that if they joined this program they would have a tax liability. He was wrong. It wasn't his fault. He was told that that was the case. He dutifully read what he was told. You haven't heard that again because he found out that was wrong.

He was also told that it was going to be $50 million disbursed. They don't seem to be clear on what that means. No, $50 million has not been spent on any individual. Fifty million has been set aside in a letter of credit if necessary in the future to pay for defaults. So this million dollars per loan is, of course, a fantasy.

Now, it is true, the program has not yet had a major impact. And if it does not prove itself out, it never will. It cannot be both wildly expensive and nonexistent. It is there. If we get an agreement involving all the attorneys general of both parties, involving the regulators and the financial institutions, this will be one of the tools that will accommodate people. CBO does think there could be a loss. Their prediction is, their best guess--and they're the best objective element we have--you could get an amount of $12,000 or so per loan lost here. Not a million dollars; 12,000. It is part of a panoply of projects to try and reduce foreclosures and help the economy deal with this crisis.

And for people who, and I repeat it--they don't like it--they'll send money to Brazil, they'll send money to Afghan cities, they'll send money to Iraqi security, they'll subsidize farmers at more than $250,000 a year, but $12,000 per homeowner at most is too much for them. And it isn't just for the homeowners; it is a necessary part of getting out of our economic crisis.

So I hope that this is defeated. I appreciated what the gentleman from Nevada said. Yes, it can be improved. The fact that only 44 people have been involved so far means they are proceeding, appropriately, cautiously. This is a program with great promise. It may not turn out, but if a promise doesn't turn out, then it doesn't cost anything. And if it does turn out to be a workable part of an overall solution, it will be money much better spent than many of the billions my colleagues on the other side are prepared to subsidize some of their favored sacred cows as opposed to doing something that will help the whole economy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

First, I would repeat that I am glad to hear the support for Admiral Mullen--earlier we heard of Secretary Gates--in their warning about the deficit. I just wish that all of those who were accepting their warning on the deficit would refrain from forcing money on them that they don't want. We have people citing the military leadership and then voting for weapons systems, swelling an already swollen military budget, that they don't want.

As to this amendment, I am tempted to come to the defense of the drafters of the bill, because if you read the bill, the bill purports to do what the amendment purports to do. Apparently the author of the amendment didn't think the bill did a good enough job, or somebody thought the author of the amendment, being a nice fellow, ought to get in on the credit. So this is an amendment that is either editorial refinement or political redundancy. In either case, it does not have much effect; so I urge the Members to adopt it.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I regret the fact that my colleague from Massachusetts, who is a good lawyer and a careful student of what we do, has drafted a very specific amendment aimed at a particular point. He has been answered with a lot of general rhetoric, and I don't think his point was understood. The gentlewoman simply repeated general rhetoric about the bill.

He is not trying by the back door to reestablish this program. He has talked to thoughtful people, and is worried about an overreach. I think the only thing we're seeing now is pride of authorship by whoever drafted this bill for them. The gentlewoman from Illinois is, as I said, using a lot of general rhetoric, which is totally unresponsive to the very specific point my friend from Massachusetts made.

With that, in the hope that if he says it again he might get them to pay attention to the specifics, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 151 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman, my friend from New York (Ms.

Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 151 provides for a modified open rule that allows any Member to offer an amendment to the underlying bill as long as it is preprinted in the Congressional Record and complies with House rules. This rule continues to build on the commitment of the Republican majority to consider legislation in a more open, honest, and thoughtful way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. This legislation was introduced by my dear friend, the gentleman, the chairman of the Republican Conference, Jeb Hensarling, on February 28, 2011, and marked up in the Financial Services Committee last week on March 3.

This legislation went through regular order, which included committee hearings prior to a markup and making the text of the legislation publicly available for Members and the public to review prior to consideration in the committee and on the House floor.

The chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, David Dreier, has once again provided Members of this body a transparent and accountable structure under the rule we are debating and discussing today, allowing Members of both sides of this aisle and of this body to offer amendments and to join in the debate of the underlying legislation.

H.R. 836 repeals the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program and rescinds and permanently cancels all unobligated funds. It directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to conduct a study to determine the extent of usage of the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program by covered homeowners, which includes members of the armed services, veterans, and Gold Star recipients.

Lastly, it requires the Secretary to submit the report to Congress, including the results of that study and identifying any best practices that could be applied to the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program for ``covered homeowners.''

The Dodd-Frank Act established a $1 billion Housing and Urban Development Emergency Homeowner Loan Program, which provides loans or credit advances to unemployed borrowers who cannot pay their mortgages to make mortgage payments for a period of 12 months, with a possible extension.

These loans increase the amount of the homeowner's indebtedness, or the borrower's indebtedness, so that a borrower who is unable to pay back either the original amount of principal or the additional loans made under the program would quite probably be worse off in the long run. These borrowers derive no benefit from the program and the government will suffer the losses from their eventual defaults. That's the way the program was set up by the Democrat majority.

Continued government intervention and questionable use of taxpayer dollars only prolongs our current economic crisis and ensures that the housing market will continue to struggle. The market needs to find its own footing free of government intervention and manipulation so that we can get on with a full recovery.

The deficit is expected to reach a record $1.65 trillion this year, while our national debt is well over $14 trillion and growing rapidly. As a matter of fact, growing so rapidly that last month a $230-plus billion as a deficit for 1 month, the largest in the history of this Nation, was recorded. Yet what do we hear out of the White House? Spend, spend, spend, including against this bill that they have offered to veto because it would save some money. The U.S. simply cannot afford to loan billions of taxpayers' dollars that will not be repaid.

The Obama administration in its FY 2012 budget proposal estimates that this program will have an almost 98 percent subsidy rate. That means for every dollar spent, the government is expected up-front to lose 98 cents. On every dollar of this program, the government right up-front is expected to lose 98 cents.

Mr. Speaker, no wonder Republicans are trying to go back and look at the programs, the massive spending programs, not only by President Obama and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi but also the committee chairmen and those who brought these measures to the floor that have had a stunning impact on the economy of this country.

Also, HUD regulations set up a process where the bridge loan can be forgiven over a 5-year period. This is irresponsible. It is irresponsible not only now; it was irresponsible at the time it was passed by this House, passed by the Senate, and signed by the President. This is not a loan program, but another government welfare program.

Job creation is the most effective foreclosure prevention tool. Job losses--rather than unsustainable mortgage terms--are now the driving force behind foreclosures and mortgage defaults. The government does not need to be adding additional debt obligations onto borrowers who are already struggling with their current commitments, particularly when doing so adds to the debt burden of every single American, including those who took out these loans who have to suffer through the process as they are seeing their use of a government program that provides not only more debt for the country but tremendous strain on themselves.

Government was not there to help. They were there to indebt the American people. Congress should focus on job creation, not welfare and giveaway programs. This is the best way to prevent more foreclosures and to get our economy back on track.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting H.R. 836 would decrease Federal budget deficits by $840 million over the 2011- 2021 period. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand the current dire emergency that we are facing with the state of the U.S. economy and that American families are struggling. Why should the government go and make matters worse? It is our job as Members of Congress and as legislators to ensure that the policy which is passed by this House has integrity and can be backed up by the full measure of a free enterprise system instead of a government backstop. It is that government backstop that Republicans objected to then and object to now.

We need to make sure that our greatest days lie in our future, not the government handing out checks because the government didn't mind the blank check that it originally satisfied itself for in this legislation. We should be creating opportunities. We should not be holding back Americans from earning not only the opportunity for potential in their future but also for making their life better. Eliminating this program will save taxpayer dollars and encourage more responsible government spending by the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, this was an unwise program, and today Republicans are on the floor of the House of Representatives to say we can do the right thing today. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by the way, we are working with all the Members of Congress. And that's why we went through regular order, which was a new process for this House from the last 4 years. We also came to the Rules Committee and allowed an open process. And any Member that chose to have an amendment to be offered today simply had to go and tell us ahead of time that they would like a preprinting notice and they could get that done. That is working together with every single Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as she may consume to the chairwoman of the Housing Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, you know, I'm shocked at our friend after friend on the Democratic side who say ``no jobs bill,'' ``no jobs bill.'' But my friends also recognize what the American public does, that we voted, literally the first vote in this House, to overturn what is known as ObamaCare, the massive government takeover of health care in this country that would result in a loss of 800,000 jobs. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority does have a jobs bill, and that is to go and rescind what the Democrats have outrageously done and that is to put this country in a diminished position not only with us being competitive overseas but also for us diminishing American jobs.

No, we're not going to go and do a, quote, jobs bill to add jobs. We're trying to simply go back and save the jobs that are being lost today and would be lost by wasteful government spending, huge government bureaucracies, and so my friends on the other side simply want to come and attack us. Well, the Republicans have it, and so do the American people. We are going to stop the outrageous spending. We are going to attack the rules and regulations which are killing not only business but losing jobs all across this country. We, as Republicans, are going to stand up and say $4 gasoline is outrageous, Mr. President; work on the things from your administration that you are doing that ruin jobs, that make sure we have higher gas prices at the pump, and do those things that would help the American people.

The Republican House majority is one-half of one-third of the body, and we are one-third of government. We are trying to do the things that the American people sent us here for. We are all about trying to reduce wasteful government spending. We are going to take on the laws that have been passed by this President and the former two sessions of Congress that were outrageous spending, tax increases, an assault on employers, making it more difficult for the American people to have freedom and diminishing our future.

So every time one of our Democrat friends goes and says there's no jobs bill by the Republicans, the American people will get it. The Republicans first have to save the jobs that are at risk today; 800,000 net free enterprise system jobs that--if we do not overturn ObamaCare that was passed by this body on March 22, a year ago, we're going to lose even more jobs.

So the most immediate thing we're doing is trying to reduce wasteful government spending, to try and do away with and attack rules and regulations that will kill the jobs that we have, and to make sure that we're telling the American people that this spending spree that we're on causes a massive deficit, a hemorrhaging by this government, including last month $230 billion we overspent. Then we're doing our job. If we are doing those things, we're trying to save the jobs that we've got.

Mr. Speaker, that is what the Republican majority is about. We're not going to let the Democrats get us off our game. We understand what they want. They want to talk about, well, we can look at doing back to some of the spending, but when it comes down to it, they can't pick anything they really will support. Everything is a sacred cow. Everything that we do is a problem if you go and touch it.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party, the Republican majority, led by Speaker Boehner and our majority leader Eric Cantor, is all about trying to get back to an America where we have a balance, to where we don't lose more jobs, where we don't add more debt, and we stand up for the American people. That's why we're the new majority party.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

You asked if somebody who knew the answer would stand up. I don't know the answer, but what I will tell you is that we will have the taxation start, and yet, the plan kicks in 2014. So massive taxation will start, and then we will find out what happens.

Mr. Speaker, I stood up and openly said I have no clue how many jobs have been added. But the million-job figure that the gentleman quotes is not a net figure. It's not a net figure. We have lost many, many, many times what we have gained. And the net figure means that when you add in what has been added versus what was lost, this country is in trouble. And I think the American people understand this. They understood it last November. They understand it now.

People are scared. They're scared about their future. They're scared about their job. They're scared about how much gasoline is going to go up. They're scared about whether the EPA is going to come put some more rules and regulations on them. They're scared about what will happen in the long run with their job and health care. They see the diminishment of freedom.

They see where we are in trouble not only in our own homes; we are in trouble with our country. They see that we ran a $230 billion deficit last month alone. They see where this administration is incapable of looking at facts and factors and making a realistic choice about, now that we understand what's happening, what are we going to do when we're in trouble.

The Republican Party is here, and we are not going to be knocked off our game. We're going to go and try and save as many jobs as we can from the onerous rules and regulation, the excessive taxation, and perhaps worst of all, the inattention to try and create a better circumstance for this country.

So that's what we're going to do. We're going to go after and we're going to repeal this ObamaCare. We're going to stay after the rules and regulations, and we're going to make sure that the middle class of this country has a chance to save the job that they have rather than diminishing it.

You have seen, Mr. Speaker, all across this country the States who are in the most trouble have top-to-bottom Democratic-controlled legislatures as well as Democrat Governors. Those States are unwilling to make tough choices. They're unwilling to do the things which would say ``no'' to constituencies who are special interests. Today, the Republicans are on the floor of the House of Representatives, and we're saying not only ``no'' to special interests, but what we're trying to say is that we need to use common sense and balance.

And I recognized 14 years ago when I came up here that common sense is not common in Washington. But today, part of that common sense takes place with, we're going to read the bills before we vote on them; we're going to go through regular order; we're going to relook at the things which have been passed which diminish jobs and which harm our economy. And those are the things which are on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of our Republican majority. I'm proud of our Speaker, who's from the great State of Ohio, who understands himself, personally, because of the State where he is from, that the State of Ohio is in need of leadership, real leadership, in Washington, DC, just as the rest of the country. And so the Republican Party stands on the floor of the House today. We are about jobs. We're about reducing wasteful Washington spending, and we're going to stand for common sense.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inform the gentlewoman from New York that I have no further requests for time.

Mr. Speaker, the facts of this case state very clearly that this Nation is being overrun; it is being overrun by too much taxing, too much borrowing, too much spending. Just last month, we hit a record deficit, $223 billion. This is unacceptable. The status quo of where we are moving is not acceptable. With the debt looming at $14 trillion and unemployment hovering across the country at 9 percent, and much higher in many areas of the country, including congressional districts that are hurting even more, and I understand this because those who first lose their jobs many times are disabled people and I understand disabled people and their plight that they have also and it is sad, and it hurts us as Members of Congress and it hurts the American people. The American people asked Congress to rein in the spending and do something about jobs, and that is what we are doing. We are not making excuses; we are getting the job accomplished.

Eliminating this program will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. By gaining control of government spending and eliminating wasteful Washington government spending and handouts, the private sector can gain some confidence in the economy and start investing in jobs and a brighter economic future.

I applaud my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), for bringing this legislation, and to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the young chairman, David Dreier, favorite son from California, San Dimas, California. David comes here and so ably runs our Rules Committee for us. We thank them for providing an open and transparent process.

I encourage a ``yes'' vote 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. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, just this week the American people received some very sobering news. The budget deficit for the month of February alone is $223 billion. That is $8 billion every day. That is money that we are having to borrow from countries around the world.

It wasn't long ago that our budget deficit for the entire year was only $220 billion. But thanks to a Washington spending binge that has occurred over the last 4 years, now our monthly budget deficit is larger than our annual deficit used to be. In fact, February's budget deficit was the largest monthly budget deficit in the history of the United States. Larger in real dollars than when we were fighting for our existence during World War II. Higher than the Civil War. And that has happened even though government receipts posted an increase this February from last February.

Our national debt in the last 4 years has doubled. Now think of that. In the first 220 years of our existence, we incurred a national debt which, in the last 4 years, we've doubled. And by the end of this administration, unless we take action today--action the American people asked us to take last November--we will have tripled the deficit.

In 7 years or a little less than 7 years, we will have tripled our deficit.

That's why we're here on the floor today, because the American people have sent us a message. They said, ``Don't spend us into a financial oblivion. We have to balance our own budgets at home. We expect the same from those that we send to Washington to represent us.''

The bill that we're debating today is an example of two things: too many government programs--spending programs--and too many ineffective government programs. It is a poster child for both.

It's also an example of a broken promise. In 2008, during our financial meltdown, which has led to a recession and record unemployment, we promised the American people that those steps that were taken, that that money that was loaned, would be paid back to the national Treasury.

I am happy to say that today most of the money that was lent to what some have called a Wall Street bailout, what the American people certainly call a bailout, it has been paid back with interest, but it's not found its way into the national Treasury. It's not been paid back despite promises to the American people on this very floor of this House a little less than 3 years ago.

Instead, that money has been diverted into all sorts--and that's the TARP bailout money--it's been used for other social programs, just what many warned on the floor of this House would happen. It's turned into a slush fund. And one of the programs that it has funded is a well- intentioned program in which $8 billion, that's 8,000 million dollars, has been designated for the FHA Refinance Program. Now, the FHA program today, the reserves are low. And that's a program that is not in the greatest of shape. It's like most government programs. Eight billion dollars for a program to allow homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages to get a reduction in their mortgage.

Now, not all can take advantage of this program. There are what the American people have come to know as winners and losers. With all government programs, it seems that some benefit, but 99 percent of Americans don't benefit. And that's what's happened here. The administration said we'll literally have hundreds of thousands of people that will line up for this program. But because lenders and borrowers are getting together and working out, or some homeowners are deciding that they can't afford their mortgage and they're selling their houses, 42 American families have been assisted by this program.

Now, this is a program that authorizes $8 billion. And $50 million has actually been set aside and disbursed. In fact, the budget that the President has submitted has a $50 million subtraction there for a program that's helped 42 families; $50 million, 42 families. But think about this. How many families are underwater? How many American families have a home where they owe more than the home is worth? Twelve million, somewhere above 11 million--let's say 12 million.

That means that even if this program could have helped 100,000 that it would help 1 out of every 120 American families. One out of 120. And yes, some government employee sitting behind a desk would say you are eligible, you can apply, you win. At the most, all the programs we're going to consider this week and next week, which if we act, will save the American taxpayers billions and billions and billions of dollars, all of them will benefit only an estimated 500,000 families.

As the Inspector General has said, about 50 to 60 percent of those families, even if it goes to families--as we found out yesterday in a hearing, a lot of it is going to nonprofit groups. In Los Angeles alone, more went to a nonprofit group than went to the county government. But we are only helping 1 out of 22 families. What about those other 21 families? They're making their mortgage payment, and they're not asking the government for help.

It seems that we're in a country where the majority of Americans aren't underwater; about one-fourth are. But out of all those, we're starting programs to help in this case 42 families, in another case 200,000 families. And we're asking every American family, and we're asking their government, to start programs when we don't have enough money to finance the programs we have.

But more than that, I put a photograph up. And this is the bottom line on this program. Fifty million dollars has been put into a fund, and $8 billion has been authorized for this program. And it's money we don't have. And it's

money we won't pay back. It's those children in that photograph. It's our constituents' children and grandchildren that will have to pay that back.

Our national debt is $12 trillion--$14 trillion. You memorize a number, and in a few months it's irrelevant. It's no longer the real number. Robert Gates on January 6, in outlining the Pentagon's budget, said, ``This country's dire fiscal situation and the threat it poses to American influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the U.S. Government gets its finances in order.'' Well, who will get it in order? It has to be the President and this Congress. That's his quote January 6.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff say that our national debt is a national security problem. But the message just doesn't seem to get to this floor, because today people will come to this floor and say, oh, if we get rid of this program everybody that can't pay their mortgage needs to call their Congressman and say you need to pay my mortgage, or there needs to be a government program to pay my mortgage. Well, let's not kid ourselves. Those children, that's who we are obligating. Last year we could stand on the floor and say that they each come into this world owing $35,000. Today it's $45,000.

Today we're going to have to make some hard choices for them, for our children and our grandchildren. And oh, yeah, these programs do some good. Although for most homeowners who can't pay their mortgages and they're given a reduction, it doesn't work. The default rate in most of these programs is over 50 percent. One of the programs we will consider tomorrow, out of every dollar of taxpayer money lent, 98 percent is never repaid. Never repaid. How can a country continue to function like that? What kind of future do these children have?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, if I were Ranking Member Frank, I would do exactly what he's doing. I wouldn't talk about the fact that there are only 42 people who have been served by this program. I wouldn't talk about the fact that only $50 million has been set aside. I wouldn't talk about the $8 billion that has been authorized. I wouldn't talk about the fact that the American people were told this money would be repaid into the National Treasury. No. I would talk about the cotton subsidy, the deal with Brazil. That deal sounds pretty bad. It really does. The ranking member agrees.

He kept talking about this the last month, about don't shut down this ineffective program to help balance the budget because some of us voted for the cotton deal with Brazil. Well, in fact, the majority of this Congress, the overwhelming majority did.

But, let's talk about that deal. Who made that deal? Did the gentleman from Alabama make that deal? Did the gentleman from Texas that's going to speak on our side, did he make the deal? Did the gentleman from Nevada make that deal? Did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold) make that deal? No. The Obama administration made that deal.

The U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. Kirk, made that deal in an agreement with the Brazilian Government, not your Republican colleagues. Here's what he told us. He said that $60 billion worth of trade depended on our ability to export into Brazil without the tariffs they were going to impose on us. That's 420,000 U.S. jobs that were threatened, and he told us that if we didn't do that, they would impose billion $820 worth of countertariffs on such products as pharmaceuticals, autos, electronics, textiles, wheat, fruit, nuts, cotton, medical equipment. So he made a deal with them to make them certain payments, to compensate for that.

Now, I don't know if he misrepresented. I don't think that President Obama and his administration and his U.S. Trade Representative would have misrepresented this. But if that was a bad deal, then the ranking member ought to go over there and to complain to the President, whom he defends, because both of them, apparently, want to spend money at every turn and every chance they get.

U.S., Brazil Agree on Framework Regarding WTO Cotton Dispute

Washington, D.C.--Today Brazil's Ministers reached a

decision in support of a Framework regarding the Cotton

dispute, which would avert the imposition of countermeasures

of more than $800 million this year. This includes more than

$560 million in countermeasures against U.S. exports which

were scheduled to go into effect on Monday, June 21, 2010, as

well as possible countermeasures on intellectual property

rights that could have taken effect later. We are pleased

with this decision, and look forward to signing the Framework

soon.

The findings in the Cotton dispute concern U.S. cotton

support under the marketing loan and countercyclical payment

programs, and the GSM-102 Export Credit Guarantee Program. In

line with these findings, the Framework has two major

elements.

First, it would provide, as a basis for a discussion toward

reaching a mutually agreed solution to the dispute, a limit

on trade-distorting cotton subsidies. Second, the Framework

would provide benchmarks for changes to certain elements of

the current GSM-102 program. In the Framework, the United

States and Brazil would agree to meet quarterly to discuss

the successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill as it relates

to trade-distorting cotton subsidies and the operation of

GSM-102. The Framework would not serve as a permanent

solution to the Cotton dispute. However, it would provide

specific interim steps and a process for continued

discussions on the programs at issue with a view to reaching

a solution to the dispute.

``I am pleased that we have been able to negotiate a

Framework regarding the WTO Cotton dispute that would avoid

the imposition of countermeasures against U.S. trade,

including goods and intellectual property,'' said Ambassador

Kirk. ``While respecting the role of the United States

Congress in developing the next Farm Bill, this Framework

would now allow us to continue to work toward a final

resolution of the Cotton dispute. I believe this Framework

will go a long way in alleviating the uncertainty in our

business communities and enhance the ability of the United

States and Brazil to build upon our dynamic trading

relationship.''

``This framework agreement provides a way forward as we

work with Congress toward a new farm bill in 2012,'' said

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. ``Although it is not a

permanent solution, I am pleased that it allows us to

maintain our programs while considering adjustments and

avoiding the immediate imposition of countermeasures against

U.S. exports as a result of the WTO cotton decision.''

May I inquire of the Chair how much time each side has remaining?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, Members of this body, what are we talking about when we're talking about cutting government spending? We're talking about these children.

These children cannot afford a future where its Federal Government spends $8 billion more every day than it takes in.

Now, the ranking member has criticized our military spending. I could have a picture of my grandchildren up, and I could have a picture of one of my little granddaughters whose dad served in the U.S. Marines. Their unit served in Afghanistan and in Iraq. So I make no apology for supporting our troops. Now if the President decides to call them home, my son would support that.

Now, Ranking Member Frank said this sits in a fund. This program that has helped 44 families whose average mortgage was $330,000--that's more than the cost of a home in my district. But here is President Obama's report to us that $50 million has been disbursed, but the alarming figure is $8.12 billion that's obligated.

The gentlelady from New York said that the banks--Citibank, Bank of America--they're all lining up to use this program. I would be too. This transfers obligations from lenders to the taxpayer. As long as these mortgages were making money, the banks profited. But all of a sudden when they're underwater and a borrower maybe can't make the payment, hey, if I was a bank, I would say, yeah, let the government, let the taxpayers reduce this mortgage. That ought to be between the bank and the homeowners.

Forty-two families? You say all these four programs we're going to debate this week and next week--which cost billions of dollars--they're going to help half a million families? There are 12 million families that are underwater.

Let's talk about something very important. If we don't get our financial house in order, I'll quote the words of Admiral Mike Mullen on August 25 before CNN, and I will close with this, ``The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.'' And that threat comes from this body and the administration. It's time to cut spending. Think about them. Think about their future.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because in my opinion it violates clause 7 of rule XVI which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it's amending.

It's not germane to the bill because it's outside the scope of the bill and fails to draw the nexus to the bill.

Mr. Chair, she lists the number of mortgages that are underwater and says that this program may help them. Obviously, there are many of those, the buyers are behind on their payments and they wouldn't qualify for help. Just the number 44 ought to tell you that when you list 12 million homeowners and then say that the termination of this program would have helped is quite a stretch. There are certain other qualifications under this legislation that are not met by simply being underwater.

I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 830. This bill is one of four separate anti-foreclosure programs aimed at helping troubled homeowners stay in their homes that the new House Republican majority is planning to end. What is very troubling is that they don't have any idea of what to put in its place. We know that we have 12 million mortgages that are underwater, that need help. They are in all of our States, but they are not coming forward with any ideas of how to help the economy or how to help the people.

Now, this particular program is just getting started. It is the FHA Short Refinance Program, and it is one of the foreclosure prevention programs that

would not only help the individual homeowners, but also help to stabilize the overall U.S. housing market, which is 25 percent of our economy. So it not only helps an individual. It helps a locality, it helps our country, it helps our economic strength.

The result of ending this program would be hundreds of thousands of additional foreclosures and steeper price declines in our housing. It is outrageous. It is shortsighted. It is mean, and it is wrong.

Now, in this program it would allow the borrowers to reduce the principal owed on their homes up to 10 percent so that their payments are lower, so that they can save money that they can't afford. And in return, the banks would get an FHA-insured loan that is subject to all of FHA's strict standards. So to get this loan, you will have to jump through hoops to be able to qualify.

And it is voluntary. Just last week, several major banks in America voluntarily walked forward to help out--Citibank, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America, to name a few. So the program is just getting started and the $50 million line of credit is like a line of credit you draw down on. Hopefully, we won't even have to tap into it. Hopefully, our economy improves and people are able to pay their mortgages.

The standards are very strict. The owners must be current on their payments. It must be their primary residence. They have to have full documentation to qualify. So it is a strict program.

I want to come back to an issue that is very important to me and, that is, this affects lives. This affects people.

In Congressman Frank's home State, there are over 222,000 residents whose mortgages are underwater that could qualify possibly if they could meet the criteria. It is part of a total package to help our economy move forward, and the opposition, the Republican majority, has no ideas of their own. It is just to come in and cut a good program that is just getting started.

They mentioned the 44 people that have been helped. They say that is not important. I would say it is very important to the 44 people who have been helped, and there could be 12 million who could be helped under this program.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment has the purpose of making very clear what we're doing today to the American people. This amendment makes clear that we are ending a program that has the potential to help hundreds of thousands of underwater borrowers.

H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act, ignores the underwater borrowers of this country and does nothing to help families save their homes.

Very simply, the bill ends a program that has the potential to help hundreds of thousands of people whose mortgages now exceed the value of their home, and also help the communities and help the overall economy.

The majority crafted a so-called ``open rule'' in such a way that it's nearly impossible to offer any substantive amendments--a number were voted down on a party line in the committee debates--in response to this reality.

In an effort to highlight the true nature of this harmful bill, my amendment identifies the numbers in each State of the hundreds of thousands of underwater borrowers across the country and makes clear that the Republican majority has no solution to the problem, nor do they have any desire to find one.

Americans must be made aware of the intention of this majority. This program allows borrowers to write down at least 10 percent to reduce the debt burden. They are all paying. They are in financial difficulty. Banks then can get an insured FHA guarantee and move forward and people can keep living in their homes and can keep participating in the economy.

Because of this vote today, if the majority wins, homeowners across the country may not have the opportunity to take advantage of the program that has just begun, and which should be made, in my opinion, available to them.

Now what this does, it goes down all of the impacts across the country. It shows that in my home State of New York there are over 129,000 mortgages underwater that would not be able to apply for this program to allow people to stay in their homes. In Chairman Bachus' State, there are over 35,000 mortgages underwater. In Florida, there are more than 2 million mortgages underwater, and they have no alternative of any way to help these people. And these numbers are from an independent company's study.

If you go to California, our largest State, over 2 million homes are underwater. Nevada, 390,000 individuals are facing the loss of their homes. In Arizona, there are over 648,000 families that are underwater. Their home is not worth what they're paying for it, what the mortgage is.

So this program is one that I think is thoughtful, one that has only $50 million as sort of a line of credit that will be pulled down if there are defaults. But the banks participating have very strict standards, as does the FHA. It has to be their primary residence. They have to provide full documentation. No more of these ``no doc'' loans. They must be current on the mortgage. They must have a job. They have to have many, many levels that they have to meet before they get the loan. But at least it's a lifeline to these 12 million families whose homes are underwater.

With declining home values, borrowers are caught in mortgages they no longer can afford because their rates have reset or because their interest-only payments have not allowed them to grow any equity in their homes. They are making their payments, but just barely. And so this one is there to help them. And it simply adds findings to the bill with the number of underwater mortgages in each State that we've secured the data for so that it becomes very clear to the American people how many homeowners in each State we are not helping if we do what the majority wants, to terminate this program.

And I might say this program is one of four that the Obama administration has put forward to help homeowners stay in their homes and to help stabilize our economy, which is still fragile and is still recovering. Housing is 25 percent of our economy, according to many economists. So the strength of housing is important to the overall health of our Nation's economic future.

So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, to make it clear by the vote on this bill how many Americans across this country will not be helped if the majority gets their passage of their bill that would terminate a program that has the potential of helping literally millions in America.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Point of Order

The amendment is germane, Mr. Chairman.

This program has the potential to help underwater mortgages across our great country, which is germane to the bill we're debating today, because the bill terminates the potential of this help. You have no findings in this bill that you're rushing to the floor.

It is germane to talk about the hundreds of thousands of homeowners that are out there that possibly could lose their home because this program is being terminated. This is germane, in my opinion, to the underlying bill.

Yes, I do.

As a point of information, there are very strict criteria from the FHA and from the individual banks that are voluntarily participating, and one of those criteria is that you must be current on your payments. You must be current. What the gentleman said was inaccurate, that they could be behind on their payments or not making their payments. They're having difficulty making it because their home value is not equal to what the mortgage is. And so it's difficult. But they must all be current on their payments.

I move to strike the last word.

I'm distressed with this ruling because I think it is germane that people will lose their homes, that they are eliminating a program that is just starting that is thoughtful, that would give FHA financing and guarantees to help people stay in their homes, and that people in Nevada, over 390,000, could be affected by this; California, over 2 million people's homes are underwater; in Florida, over 2 million homes are underwater; Arizona, 648.

And in my own State, over 129,000 people will not have the access to this program that allows them to adjust their mortgages so that they reflect the true value of their homes, make their payments on that value so that they can move forward and be part of the community, keep these homes from becoming blight and emptied in an area.

We all have stories in our districts and across the Nation where people cannot make their mortgage payments because they have lost values in their home. They are deserting them. They are leaving them. In some States, they are literally bulldozing the homes underground because no one can afford to live in them. This is an answer to some of the challenges.

And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the cost. Well, I would say that the cost--not only to the individual homeowner, but to the overall economy--will be greater by terminating the four efforts, the four antiforeclosure efforts from the Obama administration to help with the housing crisis.

And we know that the subprime crisis was a scandal. Many people were not--got into homes they couldn't afford under misinformation.

We have helped other areas of our economy. We certainly should help the homeowners, the working Americans to help them through this economic crisis, too.

And we have to remember that although we are digging our way out of this Great Recession, the recovery has been slow. We are still in a fragile recovery. The economists testified before the Financial Services Committee that housing was 25 percent of our economy.

So, helping people stay in their homes, I would say that our overall economy has a stake in it.

Now, some people said, well, the banks will run in and do this. Banks are not going to do this unless they think that the loan is going to be paid and they're not going to be hurt with it. And the standards from FHA are very high. You have to be current. You have to have a job. You have to live in your home. You have to have a proven track record. You have to have good credit before you can be approved. So that is why only 50 million is the line of credit that will be drawn down if there are foreclosures.

Hopefully the economy improves, people keep their jobs. Hopefully the banks do a good job and do not hand out loans unless people can actually repay them. And this will be a tool to move forward not only to help people, but to help the overall economy.

Now, what I find very troubling about this is that my friends on the other side of the aisle want to terminate four antiforeclosure programs, but they have no alternative. It's sort of like their approach to jobs. They have not come forward with any program to help create jobs. They have not come forward with any program to help people stay in their homes. It's part of the ``so be it'' attitude. You're on your own. We're not going to help you.

But this is a program that helps people help themselves adjust to the reality of what their homes are actually worth. And I think that it's important that this information of how many people, the 12 million people and where they live in America, is important information that should be part of this bill.

And that's why I am now respectfully requesting unanimous consent to place into the Record the listing of where these 12 million people live so people will know these are the people we are saying ``no,'' ``so be it,'' ``we're not going to be there to help you.''

And let me tell you, my follow colleagues. I would be cautious about voting for this, because you're voting against your economy. You're voting against your State. You are voting against your own colleagues, your own residents and neighbors who may need this. We know the trouble that's in this economy. Practically every family in America has some relative who's lost a job or is unemployed. So this is some way to help with this economic recovery. It is thoughtful. It is a good program.

And I urge my colleagues to vote against the ``so be it'' bill the Republicans have before us today and to really work with, in a bipartisan way, the Obama administration to help working Americans, struggling Americans stay in their home.

It's the least that we can do as a caring Nation, absolutely the least we can do as a caring Nation. So I urge my colleagues, and I would be very cautious in your vote, because I believe your constituents are going to remember this vote if this program is terminated and their lifeline, their ability to stay in their homes, is terminated because of your vote today.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would just like to point out to Congressman Fitzpatrick from the great State of Pennsylvania that there are over 132,000 homes that are underwater now that could benefit from this program, and urge my colleagues to support the program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, to ask about the schedule for the coming week.

I thank the gentleman for that information. He mentions that we will be considering some bills under suspension, as is normal, and two bills, H.R. 836 and H.R. 830, presumably under a rule.

I ask the gentleman, will those be open rules? And before I yield to him for his response, I want to say that I want to congratulate the gentleman on

the process that we considered H.R. 1. While those of us on this side did not ultimately support H.R. 1, I know that the Speaker and the leader are both pleased with the openness and transparency of the process. There was a preprinting requirement, of course, so it wasn't a totally open rule in that sense. But does the gentleman expect there to be open rules on H.R. 836 and H.R. 830?

I thank the gentleman. Can I inquire is an open process, is that somewhat of a nuance of an open rule?

I thank the gentleman. Let me say to the gentleman in terms of a constructive discussion that we might have, and I happen to believe that the preprinting requirement is a positive requirement in that it gives notice to people. One of the things, as we know, that it requires, however, is the printing of amendments prior to the time you know the status of the bill at the time you might offer the amendment. I suggest that perhaps we have discussions about how to take into consideration the process where you preprint an amendment, prior to getting to your amendment something is changed by a previous amendment that might require a modification of your amendment in terms of an understanding on both sides that perhaps we would accommodate, either by unanimous consent or some other process, that change.

I thank the gentleman.

The current CR, as the gentleman knows, expires March 18 that we passed earlier this week, the Senate passed, the President has now signed. Can I ask the gentleman his thoughts on going forward what we might be expecting with respect to funding government from March 19 through September 30 for the balance of the fiscal year?

I thank the gentleman for his response. I might want to pursue that response just a little bit, however.

The Pledge to America, as I understand it, said that you were going to cut $100 billion; is that accurate?

And H.R. 1, as I understand it, is scored at $102 billion or thereabouts; is that accurate?

I thank the gentleman for explaining my proposition, but if I might clarify a little more, what the gentleman has said, the way you get to $100 billion is counting that $41 billion that you say is the status quo and adding $60 billion, or $61 billion to it, to get to $102 billion, or a little short of that. My point clearly is that the gentleman and his side of the aisle have clearly counted the $41 billion that he says is the status quo.

The reason he has done so is because, he said, during the course of the campaign, and others said during the course of the campaign, they were to cut $100 billion. In fact, as I recall, the Speaker and yourself and other leaders made the point during the course of your initial consideration and the offer that was initially made to your conference, that, in fact, the $41 billion was, in fact, a cut from the President's request of $41 billion.

We agree with that, but we now believe that your side is saying, oh, no, that doesn't count, notwithstanding the fact it is $41 billion less than the President requested and you counted that $41 billion less as part of the $100 billion you represented was part of the cuts that you had said you were going to make and that you, in fact, made.

So my point is, as the gentleman has pointed out, that your $60 billion, by your side's argument of cutting $100 billion, only gets to $100 billion because you are counting the $41 billion, which we have cut. Now I say that for this reason: You made the $100 billion pledge prior to December. You made it prior to the election. Then we, in fact, cut from the figure you were using as the base, the 2011 base of the President's request, we cut $41 billion by freezing at 2010 levels.

Now, very frankly, my point to you is, as I am sure you know, that we have already come $41 billion, which means 41 percent of the way to where you wanted to get. We continue to want to discuss this matter. Hopefully we can move together and come to a compromise figure.

I know the gentleman has not served on the Appropriations Committee. He serves on the tax writing committee. But in the Appropriations Committee, we found an ability to come together and make agreement. I am hopeful that we can do the same. But I think it unfair and incorrect, frankly, not to count $41 billion because we are now starting at 2010 levels as opposed to the level that you started at and we started at, which was the President's 2011 request, and both of us have come that $41 billion, and the issue is how much further we are going to go.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I ask the gentleman, might I advise the leader on the other side of the Capitol that there is, in fact, a willingness on your side to compromise between zero and 100?

I yield to the gentleman.

If that's the status quo, then I suggest to the gentleman he is not going to get to $100 billion, which he represented and his side represents they want to get to. We will see whether or not they are prepared to do that. But I will tell my friend, if that's the position, then I think we will not be able to reach agreement because there appears to be no ability to compromise in that context.

The gentleman counted the $41 billion during the course of the campaign. The gentleman counted that $41 billion when he made a representation to his caucus as to why you were offering a $32 billion cut because, together, given the fact that it was halfway through the year, that that would, in fact, be tantamount to. But again, in each one of those instances, the gentleman counted the $41 billion. He is now saying, oh, no, that is the status quo.

Does the gentleman know of any budget that President Bush signed in '01, '02, '03, '04, '05, and '06 that maintained either the status quo or cut below the so-called status quo, when your side was in charge of both the House and the Senate and the Presidency?

I thank the gentleman.

I would simply suggest to the gentleman and hope that we can work together, as the gentleman suggests, come to resolution for the balance of the fiscal year.

The gentleman has made a number of comments in the past, with which I agree, that uncertainty undermines the economy. A quote that the gentleman said on the floor last year: Working families and businesses remain gripped by economic uncertainty, and to this day Washington has only made the problem worse. If we want to cut into the 9.8 percent unemployment, Mr. Chairman, we have to instill confidence in the economy and begin to foster an environment for job creation.

I suggest to the gentleman we will not do that until we come to an agreement. Both sides need to work toward that end. I agree with the gentleman on that. I am hopeful that the Senate will, in fact, make a suggestion in the near term; I mean, hopefully, in hours and a few days rather than weeks.

The 18th will be on us, as you know, very soon. If we don't reach an agreement by next Thursday, in my opinion, we will not be able to get the paperwork done to get a bill ready to pass by Friday the 18th, 2 weeks from tomorrow.

I think that will be unfortunate and will lead to uncertainty and disruption, both in the public sector and in the private sector.

Let me ask you one more question on the issue of compromises. Assuming the Senate makes an offer and assuming it passes an offer or reaches an agreement, when it comes back, will there be any hearings on the proposed cuts and the ramifications of those cuts?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that answer.

The reason I ask that question, however, I don't know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to read a column in The New York Times by David Brooks, a relatively conservative columnist in The New York Times, as the gentleman knows, in which he wrote a column called, ``The New Normal,'' and in paragraph 4 in which he stated, ``In Washington, the Republicans who designed the cuts''--which are included in H.R. 1-- ``for this fiscal year seemed to have done no serious policy evaluation.''

He goes on about four paragraphs later to say, referring to his austerity principle--there are three austerity principles that he propounds. He said, ``Never cut without an evaluation process.''

I think that we need cuts. I've said that. The gentleman said that. We are proceeding. In fact, we have done some of those and we have agreement on some of those, as the gentleman knows. But there were no hearings. That's why Mr. Brooks says that they seem to have done no serious policy evaluation of those cuts. That's why I asked that question. But I understand the gentleman's answer.

I will bring this to a close. We have some concerns by the fact that a number of economists, a large number of economists, have expressed concern about the economic ramifications of some of the cuts and the magnitude of the cuts that are included.

As you know, Ben Bernanke indicated that this spending plan could cost a couple of hundred thousand jobs, a number he called ``not trivial.'' And according to Goldman Sachs, we might adversely affect GDP by 1.5 to 2 percentage points in the second and third quarters compared with current law or as the gentleman refers to, the status quo.

I ask the gentleman: Is that of concern to you or do you believe that those evaluations are incorrect?

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

And certainly, I agree with him that we need to deal with the deficit. As the gentleman knows, I've been pretty vocal about that and indicated that we need to look at the whole spectrum of spending. Focusing on 14 percent of the budget will not get us there. I think the gentleman probably agrees with that proposition. I know the chairman of the Budget Committee agrees with that proposition. I may not agree with the chairman of the Budget Committee on how he wants to get there, but I think we do agree that we have to look at all of the spending that we do, and that bringing down the deficit is of critical consequence.

Let me say to the gentleman, however, when he speaks about jobs, as he knows, we lost 3.8 million jobs in 2008, the last year of the Bush administration. The last year of the Obama administration, the last 12 months, we have gained 1.1 million private sector jobs. So when the gentleman says that the Recovery Act did not have the effect that the administration hoped for, he is correct. We went up above the 8 percent unemployment. But the gentleman, I'm sure, knows that during the last 12 months we have gained jobs on an average of 569,000 over the last 5 months, so half a million jobs.

Is that enough? It's not. Frankly, we are going to have to be at 300,000 or 400,000 per month to overcome the number of jobs that were lost prior to or during the recession which started, of course, in 2007.

So I want to agree with the gentleman and hope that we can work together on looking at the entire challenge that confronts us in bringing this deficit down. But I tell my friend to continually focus, as the gentleman has been doing in this colloquy and in other colloquies, on simply the discretionary spending, non-defense and non- security spending, while we certainly need to cut fraud, waste, and abuse, cut duplication and make government simpler and more accessible and more cost effective for the American people, we also need to be, as you said, honest with the American people that if you cut out every penny of the portion of the budget at which you are looking, we will not solve the deficit problem.

So I say to my friend, I will look forward to working with him. Our side looks forward to working with him and his side. I have had discussions--I see Mr. Dreier on the floor. We need to work together on this issue because the gentleman is correct; it is a critical area.

Unless the gentleman wants more time, I will yield back.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Just in concluding on that, the administration did, of course, appoint a commission, Mr. Bowles and Senator Simpson, which did, in fact, look at the spectrum of spending and made some very substantive recommendations. The administration has commended those recommendations to us for consideration.

But the administration also said that we need to make sure that we invest in growing our economy if we expect to bring the deficit down, investing in the education of our children, investing in our infrastructure, investing in innovation and invention. I agree with the administration on that. I think we need to be very careful that we pay attention to both the investments and to the reduction of the deficits.