HAMP Termination Act of 2011

I enjoyed the comments of my good friend, Mr. Baca, from San Bernardino County. I have some correspondence from San Bernardino County that might interest him.

According to the county offices, there is no one at the county that would support current NSP programs, period. The letters of support did not come from San Bernardino County, which is one of the hardest hit in the Nation. In fact, the county might have supported the current NSP, but this is before they fell victim to complete lack of direction from HUD, mixed messages from HUD, and gross misallocation of awards that were released.

As it applies to my bill, the county says, ``We believe it is a means for Congress to get its financial house in order, just like the challenges we are facing at the local level.''

Mr. Baca made a very nice written speech, but his own county that he represents does not support the program. And I was disappointed that a group called Chicanos por la Causa was mentioned. Well, let me just talk about the numbers that I have a problem with.

This NSP allocation program was meant to be a one-time program. It ended up three times. Now, the allocations applied, the problems I had when you look at a county the size of Los Angeles County, they got $26.3 million; San Bernardino County, Mr. Baca's county, got $33.2 million; Orange County got $4.3 million; and San Diego County got $5.1 million.

Now, all of these counties had to apply Davis-Bacon rules and wage standards to rehab these houses, which meant it cost 25 percent more to do it than the private sector could have done it on a competitive bidding nature.

Now, my good friend Mr. Baca mentioned one group, as if I had something against Chicanos. The problem I have is that nongovernment agencies, such as Neighborhood Lending Partners, got $50 million--$50 million; the Community Builders, Inc. got $78.6 million; Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. got $60 million; Neighborhood Lending Partners of West Florida, Incorporated got $50 million; Chicanos por la Causa got $137 million.

Understand, L.A. County got $26.3 million; San Bernardino County got $33.2 million; Orange County got $4.3 million; San Diego County got $4.5 million. The largest population base in California got less money than Chicanos por la Causa. Does that make anybody in America happy?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I reclaim my time.

If it had been Germans for Affordable Housing, I would have opposed it. If it had been Italians for Affordable Housing, I would have opposed it. Had it been Irish Germans for Affordable Housing at $137 million, I would have opposed it.

Understand, these are taxpayer dollars from people who lost their houses, people who are behind in their payments, people who are facing foreclosure, and none of this money does one thing to help you. It was not an equitable application based on who got money and how they got it. In fact, a lot of these private groups write off 17 percent off the top for overhead and costs--17 percent.

Now, we talked about banks. When we lent banks the money in TARP 1, they paid us interest. We paid money because we got our money back. Freddie and Fannie, the money we allocated to them, we are charging them 10 percent interest and they have to pay us back, and the American public is furious at that.

We just gave away $50 million to one private group, gave $78 million to another, $60 million to another, $50 million to another. And as my good friend Joe Baca says, Chicanos por la Causa, the poor group, got $137 million given to you. We are not charging you interest. We gave you the money.

Now, are we helping housing this country? No. Housing starts fell 22 percent in February, the lowest levels since 1959. It has done nothing for housing: 11.8 percent fall in single-family, 47 percent fall in multifamily. Tell me one thing this has done. It has not kept one person in their house.

Now, let's assume this is supposed to be helping poor people buy houses. You just lost your house. In Hawaii, a person making $73,825 can buy a house through these organizations. A person in California making over $68,000 can buy a house through these organizations. A group in Virginia, $74,000; New Jersey, $78,000; Massachusetts, $72,000; Utah, $75,000; Alaska, $76,000; Colorado, $73,000; New Hampshire, $79,000.

So a group, an entity, a State, a county, a city can buy a house. They have to sell it for less than they have in it, and they can sell it to people making more than the person who may have lost the house.

Now, how in the world does that do one thing for poor people? It does not do one thing for poor people.

Now let's talk about jobs. If we had invested $1 billion in the construction industry to build houses, you would have got $2.8 billion in economic activities.

If you would have invested $1 billion, you would have generated $2.8 billion in economic activities: $5.5 million in wages, $138 million in income for small businesses, $156 million in corporate profits, $1.98 billion in spending on goods and services from the above three line items. It is huge. So if we are talking about jobs, let's create jobs.

Now, they say we have had no alternative to what they did. In 2008, I endorsed a bill and introduced it called the Public-Private Partnership Community Stabilization Act. It took government dollars and invested them with private groups to do the same thing, to buy houses that were foreclosed upon and rehab them in communities. And when the houses were sold, guess what? The money would have been paid back to the Federal Government. We would have probably made a profit. We wouldn't have given a dime away. We would have made money on doing the same thing.

Now, the other side talks about abandoned houses. Not a dime of this money can be used for eminent domain, so either the house is for sale or it can't be bought. It can't be foreclosed upon by the government through eminent domain. So to say that some private group could not have bought this house and rehabbed it themselves is ludicrous, because the house has to be for sale.

Now, this group can go out and buy the house, demolish it and end up with a vacant lot. They can go out and buy a house, rehab it and sell it for a dollar, 10, any amount they want to sell it for, to anybody they want to sell it to, as long as it is less than they have in it.

I had a bill passed out of this House that Mr. Frank cosponsored--he thought it was a good bill--that allowed banks to take foreclosed properties and lease them for 5 years. If you want to get rid of foreclosed properties, allow banks to take the property, rehab it, put it on the marketplace, or lease it out for 5 years. It would have done the same thing, and perhaps banks would not have driven the marketplace down on resales because they were glutted with foreclosures.

We could have taken these houses, leased them, and in 5 years when the market turned around, they could have sold them. And guess what. They could have given a lease option to the person losing the house to stay in the house for 5 years and buy it back at the end of 5 years. It would have at least helped foreclosure projects.

I seem to have hit a nerve with my good friends on the other side of the aisle when I said Chicanos Por la Causa. It is not who it went to if it is not a government agency, if it was Germans for Affordable Housing. It is $137 million that I object to going to a group that is a non-government entity that has the money that we will not get back.

And we keep talking about letters of support. Now, if you are a city, a county, or if you are one of these nonprofit groups that received the money, you would be an absolute hypocrite to take the money and then not send a letter saying, thank you for the money. I think the money was well spent because you gave it to me to spend. Nobody would take money that they didn't want to take.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my good friend admitting that we're giving the money away, because we are. I struck a nerve for some reason when everybody keeps bringing up Chicanos Por La Causa for $137 million. The reason I think it's egregious is we gave $1.3 billion away to nongovernment entities. And this one entity got 10 percent of all the nongovernment funding that went out. Nobody has mentioned that I mentioned other groups that got $50 million, $70 million, $60 million, $50 million each. I mentioned those groups. But what did HUD say about the money? When I quizzed Mercedes Marquez of HUD, her quote was ``The money is going to homeowners and to American citizens.''

The problem I have with this, how do you feel about the people who lost the home? You've got a family, they put money into the home. The last couple of years have been tough. They couldn't repair the plumbing, they couldn't replace the appliances, they couldn't afford to replace the broken window, they couldn't paint the house because their house was in foreclosure. They lost that house. Now, we're spending $7 billion, and we have not helped one person in this country remain a homeowner.

If your house is going into foreclosure, you're going to lose it. And these dollars are going to be spent to rehab your house and sell it to somebody else.

Wake up, America.

Well, my good friend Mr. Frank knows you can go to any land title company and they'll tell you who owns the property: either the person lost it to a bank that had a loan on it or the bank owns it now; and if they didn't have a loan on it, they still own the property. And if the property's been abandoned, under rules of public safety, the city can go and demolish a property for public safety measures.

But the difference is--I'm glad that Mr. Frank said he disagrees with the Obama administration because I think they're wrong, too, but in this case I think you're wrong.

This proposal does not make any sense. We believe we're on the side of the people who are paying taxes in this country. Many are going through foreclosure. Many are out of work. We've taken your tax dollars and we've decided to give it to somebody else to buy property from the very banks that they take and say are so awful.

Now, there's been a lot of predatory loans made in this country. Lenders should not have made loans to people. They took advantage of people, no doubt. But then they foreclosed on those very people and we give private groups and government entities the ability to go buy the property from those banks, take and refurbish it, and sell it to people.

Now I will state again, in California, you can earn over $68,000 and buy one of these homes. You can earn between $73,000 and $80,000 and live in Hawaii, Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Utah, Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, and qualify to pick up a very good deal. Sometimes it might be based on who you know that has the house currently. Are you affiliated with somebody at the city at a good level or the county? Or do you know one of these people at the nongovernment agencies on the board of directors, and you say, Hey, my cousin would like to buy one of these houses. And by the way, he'd like a good deal. There is nothing in the bill that precludes that. The bill says clearly that you have to sell it for less than you paid and reinvested in it. It does not say how much less you have to sell it for or how much you sell it for.

My good friend Mr. Frank brought up a good point. He said, Well, show me where any of these egregious things and illegal things have occurred where somebody has cut somebody a deal. Well, I can't show you any because there are no requirements. You could take one of these nonprofit, nongovernment entities out here that bought a house. They have $180,000 in the house. One of the board members' cousins could buy that house for $100,000, and it does not violate the requirements within the bill because it says you have to sell that house for less than the acquisition and rehabilitation prices. It does not say how much less. It says that you must not exceed an amount.

So my good friend is absolutely correct. I cannot show you an egregious act because there is no egregious act defined within the legislation. And that's the problem with the bill. I believe we are trying to say that the Republicans are on the side of the taxpayers. We believe that we need to do everything we can in this country to create jobs. And if we leave $7 billion in the economy based on the basic money multiplier of 10 percent, it creates $70 billion worth of economy and generation. We believe in that. We do believe in fair rules. And we believe that if a person has to watch their home go into foreclosure, and they live in California, and they watch a county, a city, or a nonprofit group buy that home, that they can sell that home to someone for $68,000 and all that person can do that lost their home is wipe the tears away.

Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition.

I'm not opposed to this amendment. This amendment only deals with stage three of a project that should have only been one phase. Now, I wish they would have talked about phase two because I wish you would study where the money went on phase two. Because in phase two alone, we give away $1.3 billion to nongovernment entities, incorporated businesses that are nonprofit.

But you have to say we did not stop a foreclosure. We just gave away in NSP2 $1.3 billion. Of that, Neighborhood Lending Partners received $50 million. They do not have to pay it back. Now, they can take that $50 million--I'm sure they're a very reputable company. I'm not accusing anybody of anything. But they can sell those houses for any amount to whomever they want as long as it's below the price they have invested in business.

Community Builders, Inc., $78.6 million; Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing, Services, Inc., $60 million; Neighborhood Lending Partners of West Florida, Inc., $50 million; Chicanos Por la Causa, Inc., $137 million.

I wish we would have taken the time to review those and say how was the money spent, but HUD did some work for us. So let's see what HUD did.

HUG and OIG audited the State of Kansas Neighborhood Stabilization Program, NSP1, and found that the State improperly obligated more than $12 million of its NSP1 funds. HUD and OIG audited the Sacramento Housing Redevelopment Agency of Sacramento, California, and found the agency did not administer its NSP funds in accordance with HUD rules and regulations. Specifically, it allowed ineligible properties to be rehabilitated; did not adequately monitor projects, which resulted in ineligible costs; permitted the developer to make unnecessary upgrades and overinflated construction budgets; did not ensure that it met the reporting requirements; and lacked management controls. I wish we would have audited this one in this amendment, too.

HUD and OIG audited the city and county of Denver, Colorado, NSP1, and found that the city improperly obligated more than $1.5 of its NSP funds by recording its funds as obligated. HUD and OIG reviewed the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and found that the city generally administered its program, however sometimes inconsistent with identifying obligations and was not always accurate on reporting to HUD. On Louisville, Kentucky, again, very similar to the previous.

Augusta, Georgia. Did not have internal controls in place to perform continuous and routine monitoring of its obligation process to ensure its obligations were processed as intended. HUD and OIG reviewed Clark County, Nevada NSP and found that Clark County needs to revise its written procedures and developer agreements to ensure that properties to be sold to eligible home buyers will be sold at a price permitted by NSP requirements, which means they probably were selling it at too much money.

So although I do support the amendment at hand, I wish it would have reviewed phase one and two.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I disagree. It's not time to amend and pretend. It's time to end.

The problem with this program is I highlighted you a few violations, but it's really hard to violate the program requirements because there are so few requirements. It says, We're going to give you money. You can buy property, you can demolish houses. You can buy property, you can rehabilitate those properties. You have vast guidelines on how you rehabilitate them. In fact, an organization is not even required to have competitive bids. I can say I need some framing done, I can lend a sole source contract. Only one person applied--that's the person I asked to apply--and I can pay them the moneys I deem appropriate.

It says you have to sell the house for less than you have in it. It doesn't say you should attempt to try to sell at fair market value, although I have given you a list previously of how much you can make, which is quite a bit of money, and buy these houses. It just says you cannot sell them for more. It does not restrict them on who you sell them to; it does not restrict on whose affiliation you have that might be buying them. In fact, it's almost impossible to have a conflict of interest because there's conflict designed within the bill.

So we can say let's amend and pretend, but let's just end.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you for yielding.

I totally support the gentleman from Virginia's amendment. This is doing the right thing. It is saying, we're going to take a billion dollars back of your money, the taxpayers, and we're going to pay off the deficit that we've created for you.

It's about time we start paying down the debt. We cannot continue to spend dollars we don't have. Forty percent of every dollar we spend today is financed through the Treasury because we don't have the money. We're spending deficit dollars and it has to stop.

But I want to return to the argument that my good friend makes. And I respect my good friend. He knows that.

Somebody owned a home sometime, someplace, somewhere. Now, the individual who owned it, because it wasn't created by a miracle. Somebody built the house, somebody sold it to somebody, the individual might have gotten a loan on it from the bank. If the individual defaulted on the loan, the bank might have taken the house back. But the Federal Government and the local agencies look at taxes. We look at income taxes. The local governments, the city, the county, looks at property taxes. Somebody, some institution, is listed on the property tax bill.

Now, at some point in time, they're going to continue to notice the owner, whoever it might be. If it's an heir, you're going to get a notice, and it's going to say you did not pay your property taxes. At some point in time, that piece of property, home, vacated, abandoned, whatever it may be, is going up for a sale for property taxes.

I reclaim the balance of my time.

If it's a public safety issue, a local government has a right to demolish property based on public safety. That assessment could be placed against the tax bill. At some point in time, the local government, if they so choose, if nobody wants to pay a dollar for that property, can buy it based on the tax basis for a dollar. The problem with that is, once the government entity buys the property, it's taken off the tax rolls.

Some of my colleagues have talked about police and fire and the benefit to them. The worst thing you can do is eliminate funding through taxation to police and fire.

I would be happy to.

I reclaim the balance of my time.

If you go to any title company, it will list who the owner of record is. Regardless, if you can find that entity or individual, it will list it. Regardless of who it is, at some point in time, it goes to a tax sale.

At that point in time, the local government or an investor can buy it at a much reduced price for just the tax lien against it, and if it's abandoned and demolished and not worth anything, the tax bill is going to be very low. So somebody can pick up a very good deal on a piece of property by waiting for a tax sale. But if they choose not to and they want to go out and just buy it as a city or a county, they can do that and get a very good deal on it. So to assume that because nobody can find an owner out there, somebody is listed, and the government has a right to foreclose based on taxes.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

If you want to talk about attractive nuisances, let's talk about next April when people have to pay their taxes. You're going to find out that government has become an incredible attractive nuisance to most people.

We're talking about middle class is shrinking, yeah, we're taxing them to death, and we're not only taxing them to death, but we're spending money on programs like this that is not an investment but is just a giveaway of tax dollars. Now we say we can't find the data to support that we bought 100,000 properties, but let's say we bought 100,000 properties. Somebody has the money, the $6 billion going on $7 billion, that we've given them. That's about 20,000 homes per State. Now you break that down to high-impact counties, compared to the millions of homes out there that are in foreclosure, these 100,000 homes have already been abandoned or foreclosed. I will say abandoned because the other side of the aisle wants to talk about abandoned homes, but they're homes that somebody does not live in anymore, and the people who lost them, yes, they lost them.

And how many jobs were created? Nobody can definitively give me a number because nobody knows for sure how much money was spent on jobs. Now, we can say we spent $6 billion, but understand clearly, we bought properties with the bulk of that money. Now, how much money did we spend after the local groups, the nonprofits took 17 percent off the top for overhead and expenses, how much did we spend for jobs? Now, if we had taken that $6 billion, going on $7 billion, and invested it in residential construction, just $1 billion, as I said, in residential construction creates $5.5 million in wages. It creates $1.98 billion in spending on goods and services as a result of the new earnings and profits that were created through that.

Now, those goods and services, those companies employ workers. The wages are paid to workers. So you can definitively come up with a number based on a $1 billion investment that we would generate in the economy. Now, we spent $6 billion, and if we were able to create what $1 billion would have created in private residential construction, we're probably lucky, but the problem with that is investing in residential construction is different than giving $6 billion away of the taxpayers' money.

Now, the people listening to this debate understand, when you write your check to the Federal Government next month, we just gave away $6 billion of it, we're going to give away another billion. Now, that infuriates me. I would assume it infuriates you. You tell me, middle class America, what this does to help you? I told you the amounts earlier of how much you can earn to buy a house or how little you might have to pay for the house, depending on whoever bought the house what they want to charge and who they want to sell it to.

So the basis I would argue here is the amendment does nothing. I oppose it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

The facts speak for themselves. When you can say $1.3 billion was given away to nongovernmental agencies--and I have listed the groups, and I have told you how many millions of your dollars were given to these groups that they get to keep--they are not coming back to us right now. These people are going to keep these moneys, and there is a wide array of things they can use them for. This was a bad investment. In fact, it was not an investment. It was a bad giveaway.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My good friend, she mentioned the Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County. They got $7.5 million for 17 houses. Orange County, overall in the whole county, got $4.3 million for the whole county. You have to say, is that a good investment? We have spent $6 billion on this program, and we're saying, let's not spend the last billion. And Congress could have rebuilt neighborhoods. There is only $1 billion left.

Now I don't see that the U.S. neighborhoods have been rebuilt for $6 billion. I see $6 billion that has been given away of taxpayers' moneys. And Orange County itself, which is a huge area, irrespective of the few examples that were given by my good friend, only got $4.3 million. That's not equitable.

San Bernardino County, one of the hardest hit counties in this country, got a mere $33.2 million. One of the hardest hit. That's the county. That had to go to all these cities that did not receive any distribution in NSP1 or NSP2, nothing. And they're having to take--and in Orange County, with $4.3 million--take that and distribute it to all these cities that did not receive a dime. That's not fair.

And to say that we spent $6 billion--and all the counties and cities haven't been rehabilitated, it's obvious--and to say we're going to spend $1 billion more, and that's going to solve the problem? No, it's not. It's just going to take it and put us another $1 billion in debt that our children and our grandchildren are going to have to pay for.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The problem I have with the program--I have just mentioned San Bernardino County; and according to the county, there is no one at the county level that would support the current NSP program. And they state very specifically the county might have supported the concept of NSP, but this is before they fell victim to a complete lack of direction from HUD, mixed messages from HUD, and gross misallocations of the awards that were released. And the county, in support of my bill, said, We believe it is a means for Congress to get its financial house in order, just like the challenges we are facing at the local government level.

And not only is government facing challenges, the American people are facing challenges. They're working hard. They're trying to support their families. They're trying to make their house payments. Nothing in this last billion dollars will stop one foreclosure from occurring.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that the gentleman has just explained why this is bad for the cities.

Every organization representing cities and counties and local governments and local economic development agencies disagree with him. They have written to us and asked us to support this program because he is simply wrong about the tax implications.

Will the gentleman yield?

Does the gentleman not want to mention that Chicanos por la Causa----

I yield myself the 30 seconds the gentleman wouldn't allow me to mention--Chicanos Por la Causa, which he keeps invoking, in what I must say is an inflammatory way, yes, it has $137 million in eight States. It is a consortium of several groups. Comparing it to one county is quite misleading. It is $137 million to an organization that has eight States in which it works and which has produced affordable housing units. And as to his argument that it is not for the poor people, almost all of the groups in this country that advocate for housing for low-income groups have sent us a letter urging that this go forward, Habitat for Humanity and others. I take them as more credible on this than my friend.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).

I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman from California says he is not singling out Chicanos Por la Causa, that there are other private organizations, but he never mentions them. And he says, well, they are not a government entity. That is right. We don't think it all has to go through the government. We think places like Habitat for Humanity and others have a role to play.

I yield 3 minutes to the former mayor of the city of Somerville, Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

I yield myself 2 minutes to say I am struck by the incongruity of Members who have voted for the war in Iraq, a trillion-dollar huge mistake, ongoing, who vote to continue what seems to me a futile effort now in Afghanistan.

The gentleman from Alabama, and we've talked about this before, he said that because the Obama administration told him he had to, he voted to send $150 million a year last year, next year, for the next 2 years to the cotton farmers of Brazil. The gentleman opposed a $250,000 limit on subsidies to any individual farmer. In the budget, the gentleman voted, as did most on his side, to send $1.2 billion to beef up Iraqi security forces. What about American security forces? What about giving some money to the cities so when they have to deal with abandoned property, they don't have to take that out of the hides of their police departments and fire departments?

Yes, we should reduce the deficit. But to be for the enormous waste in the Pentagon--and, by the way, Members cite Mike Mullen. I wish, in addition to citing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they would make a simple commitment not to vote for the Pentagon money he doesn't want. Because Members on that side cite his warning about the defense budget, about the deficit, and then force money on him that he thinks is useless.

So let's talk about the disparity between people who vote enormous amounts of money; $400 million goes to Afghan infrastructure, we're told. Well, let's have it be done efficiently. I cannot think that in any program in America we are going to be spending the money less efficiently than the $400 million my friends over there have voted to send to Afghanistan.

So let's look at this in a reasonable way. And we also believe that this billion dollars, in fact, helps our cities. And there's one fundamental error they make: the assumption is that for every piece of property--by the way, it is not simply foreclosed property; it is abandoned property--for every piece of property that's out there, there is a responsible financial institution whom you can sue and get the money from. That simply isn't true.

I yield myself 30 more seconds.

For many of these pieces of property, the cities are left with no recourse. There is no one to do it. One of the Members said the other day in committee, Well, they can send out their bulldozer. Yeah, they can pull a firefighter off and hire a bulldozer operator.

The fact is that it is not simply for foreclosed property. It's for foreclosed and abandoned property, and the notion that there are no buildings out there in the cities where there is no responsible financial entity is nonsense. And so what we're telling the cities is, It's tough. You've had these foreclosure problems. You've had this abandonment problem. You could sell it to the private sector, and the private sector will buy some, but they won't buy it all.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

No, I don't think any private entity would--I'm sorry. May I answer the question?

That's why we want to give money to the cities so they can tear it down, because otherwise they'll be stuck with it. I don't think any private investor would put money in that. There's no other way to deal with it, and the way to deal with it is to give them the money so they can tear it down.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

First of all, the gentleman says why are you talking about other programs, why don't you just talk about this program, but he talks about hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit, and this is a billion dollar program. So he hardly, Mr. Chairman, follows his own rules. He talks about hundreds of billions of dollars about a billion dollar program. I am joining him in saying, yes, we have a large deficit, of which this program is an infinitesimal part.

Secondly, I am puzzled that my Republican friends, who generally tell us that the President is not very good at his job, hide behind him when it's politically convenient. Yes, this is an Obama deal. The President was wrong. And unlike the gentleman from Alabama, if I think the President has made a foolish decision, I'm going to vote against it, not to send the money to Brazil. It wasn't the President who told you to vote not to limit the subsidies to $250,000 per person.

And as to bringing people home from Afghanistan, we will have a chance tomorrow to bring people home from Afghanistan. I will vote for that. Sending $400 million for corrupt infrastructure expenditures isn't bringing anybody home. So let's bring them home. The gentleman will have a chance to do that tomorrow.

But then I want to go back to his thing about do you want to invest? No. He just ignored the facts. This is not just about foreclosed properties. It's about abandoned properties. He says do I want to invest? He said do I want to buy it? Does he know who owns that? Could he give me the address? And what the gentleman said, he said of course you can find out who owns it; it's not hard.

We believe that there are properties where you can't find the owner. Now, the gentleman got the picture. He must know about the property.

Would you give us the address and the name of the responsible owner so we can tell the city not to use public money?

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

No. I will yield for the purpose of asking the gentleman a question.

He said it's possible to find the address and the owner. I am asking him to live up to what he said. Can he tell us who the owner is? He's got the picture of the property. He says, no, you don't have to spend public money to tear it down. Go after the responsible owner.

I ask the gentleman, can he tell us who is the responsible owner?

I yield to the gentleman.

The gentleman is wrong.

I reclaim my time.

Please instruct the gentleman as to the rules. He is blatantly wrong. It is not simply purchasing property. This gives the city money, and maybe that's why they are so wrong on this. They don't understand the program. It includes giving the city money to go in----

I yield myself another minute, because these people take a lot of work to get them to explain it.

The fact is that it isn't simply to buy it from a responsible owner. It includes money, as we have tried to explain to them, to demolish property. In fact, in the cities of Detroit and Cleveland, they specifically asked us--the gentlewoman from Los Angeles amended it--you can use city money to demolish property when there is no owner. So, no, there is no--you don't write a check to someone who has abandoned the property.

I yield to the gentleman.

I reclaim my time to point out the evasion.

I yield myself another 30 seconds.

The gentleman made a big point of saying, buy the property from this person. He doesn't know who owns the property. No one knows who owns the property because no one owns the property. They walked away from it.

And what we're saying is part of this is not to pay off the bank. And I will say, last point, and as you know, the taxpayers shouldn't do it. In the bill that passed the conference committee which authorized this billion dollars, we said that the money should come not from the taxpayers but from large financial institutions that have more than $50 billion in assets and hedge funds with more than $10 billion. Republican opposition killed it. I'm going to refile that bill today.

So I invite my Republican colleagues to join me and we will sponsor this bill, and it's in the committee that the gentleman chairs. Let's pass a bill that says the money that will go to cities to knock down property where they can't find the owner will get it from the large banks and from the large hedge funds. And if the gentleman will agree with that, then this whole argument about the deficit will disappear.

But I will predict, Mr. Chairman, that they will find that that's not so persuasive, and they will put up with the deficit when it means saving money for the large banks.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

First of all, this program has been going on for some time. If there were any of the horror stories to match those hypotheticals, we would have

heard from them. But I will say this to the gentleman from California. He admits under public safety, the city might have to go in and tear it down with no recompense. Here is my proposal, and I invite my Republican colleagues again to do this. Come back with us to when we had a bill that said, This program will be paid for not by the taxpayers but by an assessment on financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets and hedge funds with more than $10 billion in assets. I will introduce this bill tomorrow. They can give us a hearing on it, mark it up, and it won't cost the taxpayers a cent. And it will save the cities money.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

How much time remains on both sides, Mr. Chairman?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman's acknowledgement. With all of their efforts, they are out finding pictures of abandoned houses, they couldn't find one example of where that abuse took place. In fact, there are a set of rules and restrictions that HUD has that I will submit under general leave. But again, let's review some of their errors. The fundamental error is the argument that this is a program which buys money from banks that have foreclosed and own the property. In fact, it is foreclosed and abandoned property. There are also entities that foreclose that weren't banks, that are not in existence anymore. Yes, it does not deal with all the properties. Where there is a responsible bank that you can go after, the cities go after them. But the suggestion that in Detroit, in Cleveland, in Boston, in Chicago, in all of our cities and in our rural areas there are no abandoned properties that lack someone you can sue is unreality. This is a triumph of ideological reflex over empirical observation. What this says to cities is, where you cannot find a responsible owner to go after, and the property is festering, if it's too far gone, you can tear it down. If it's not too far gone, you can take it and resell it for an affordable unit. Yes, it's got to be a limited income situation.

So that just disputes the whole notion that there's always somebody else you can get. But I still believe it's true that we shouldn't let this come from the taxpayer.

But I want to reiterate, and I'll make this offer. In the conference committee on Financial Reform, when this bill was passed--that's true also, by the way, of the emergency homeowners' relief--we said, let's not have it come from the taxpayer. Let's have it come from financial institutions with $50 billion or more in assets, except for hedge funds, where it's $10 billion or more in assets.

If that had passed, it would have cost the taxpayers, the general revenue nothing. It would not have added to the deficit. And to the extent that some financial institutions were benefiting,

they would have had to contribute. In fact, it would have had the larger financial institutions help the smaller financial institutions.

The Republicans killed that before, but I believe in repentance, Mr. Chairman. I believe in second chances for miscreants. I'm going to give, Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues a second chance. So for all their rhetoric about the deficit, here's the response. Here are the choices:

You can tell Detroit and Cleveland and other cities, you tear down that property when there's nobody else to go to and you pay for it and lay off some teachers and cops and firefighters, or you leave the property up there to fester. Or you do it our way. You join in assessing the large financial institutions. And I don't mean to demonize Citicorp or Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Blackstone. These are decent people. They are trying to make a profit. I don't always agree with them. Why don't we let them pay the billion dollars?

So if there is a genuine concern about the deficit--I'm skeptical when people want to send the money to Afghanistan and Iraq and to Brazilian cotton farmers. Obama made them do that. Whenever they have a tough political decision, Mr. Chairman, Obama did it. Why can't they solve the problems of Fannie and Freddie? Well, Obama won't tell them how to do it. So they always hide behind the President when it's convenient.

But here's the deal. It is undeniable. Let's go back to the gentleman from Alabama. He found a building that was so decrepit he had a picture, and he said to us, You can go to the owner of that building and get the money. Well, he could find the building to take a picture, but he couldn't find the owner. Because I asked him, If that's the case, if we can go to the owner, tell me who the owner is and let's try and go after him. And he left the floor because he doesn't know who the owner is because in some cases nobody knows who the owner is because the property has been abandoned or it was foreclosed upon by an entity that's no longer in existence.

So join with us, make the large financial institutions and the hedge funds pay for this, and save the cities money that they do not have.

March 3, 2011.

Oppose Bills That Shut Out Homeowners and Abandon Communities

House Financial Services Committee, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: The following civil rights and

consumer organizations are writing to urge you to vote

AGAINST the four bills coming before the House Financial

Services Committee tomorrow that would eliminate the primary

foreclosure prevention lifelines available to homeowners and

communities struggling to make it out of our economic

recession. For the reasons stated below, now is precisely the

wrong time to end these programs.

It is in the nation's interest to prevent foreclosures.

Everyone benefits when we can help families stay in their

homes. Preventable foreclosures cripple the overall economy

by adding vacant houses to the already flooded housing

market, further depressing housing prices and adding harmful

uncertainty to this critical market sector. An estimated

11.57 million borrowers--1 in 5--are currently in danger of

losing their homes. And unemployment and foreclosure now go

hand-in-hand. Despite the average length of unemployment now

at eight months, so many families who have lost their jobs or

seen a drop in income as a result of the recession are now

also losing their homes. We need to do more, not less, to

help these families and stabilize the economy.

It is in the nation's interest to bring communities back.

When families fail, communities fail. Families who have

suffered foreclosure will feel the impact of foreclosure for

years to come. Among many destabilizing consequences, they

must confront their lives' disruption, the loss of their

credit standing, and the higher cost and limited availability

of future credit. But the impact of the foreclosure crisis is

being felt far beyond the immediate home and neighborhood.

This crisis has devastated entire communities, which suffer

from a loss of community members, the disruption of community

institutions, a decline in property values, and an increase

in vacant and abandoned properties. Virtually every community

across the country is feeling the fallout in the form of

falling tax revenues and growing budget crises. Now is not

the time to cut the programs created to prevent the

foreclosures that fuel these broader problems.

Foreclosures continue to proceed at record levels, with

disproportionately heavy impacts on communities and families

of color, who are facing foreclosure at twice the rate of

other families because of discrimination. Foreclosure

prevention is a civil rights issue, and communities of color

are suffering a disproportionate loss of wealth. Several

studies have documented pervasive racial discrimination in

the distribution of subprime loans. One such study found that

borrowers of color are more than 30 percent more likely to

receive a higher-rate loan than white borrowers even after

accounting for differences in creditworthiness.\1\ Another

study found that high-income African Americans in

predominantly Black neighborhoods were three times more

likely to receive a subprime purchase loan than low-income

white borrowers.\2\ An analysis of loan, credit, and census

data has shown that even after controlling for percent

minority, low credit scores, poverty, and median home value,

``racial segregation is clearly linked with the proportion of

subprime loans originated at the metropolitan level.'' \3\

This research supports the conclusion that racial segregation

is itself an important determinant of subprime lending. The

resulting flood of high cost loans in communities of color

has artificially elevated the costs of homeownership for

residents of those neighborhoods.\4\

Homeowners need more help, not less, and the mortgage and

servicing industry has proven to be particularly ill-equipped

in providing it. A massive body of recent evidence exists

which shows pervasive lender foreclosure processing problems

and problems with mortgage transfers and assignments within

the securitization process. These shortcomings show a deep

disregard for legal requirements among lenders and servicers,

and also demonstrate that they are badly understaffed,

perform poorly, and lack accountability. Problems uncovered

in the foreclosure process mirror the problems that

homeowners seeking loan modifications have experienced:

borrowers frequently report an inability to reach bank staff,

loss of paperwork that they have sent in, and little

oversight or enforcement.

We cannot leave the important job of foreclosure mitigation

solely to an industry that has repeatedly refused to do the

job correctly. Just two days ago, HSBC suspended all

foreclosures after an investigation by federal regulators

uncovered ``problems in the company's processing,

preparation, and signing off of affidavits and other

documents supporting foreclosures, and in HSBC's management

of third-party law firms retained to carry out

foreclosures.'' \5\ Rather than eliminating the only

lifelines that help people from losing their homes, we should

be increasing that help. It is irresponsible to eliminate

these programs at a time when our nation needs them most.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's anybody exactly in opposition to the amendment because it doesn't do anything, but there is some opposition to the rhetoric; so I will claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's speech.

In the first place, there is a consistent misunderstanding on the Republican side manifested by their talking about this as a program that there was foreclosed property. That, of course, allows them conveniently to pretend that, for every piece of property that a city is stuck with, there is an entity that stood behind it that foreclosed and can be sued. But that's not true.

This is not only about foreclosed property. It is about foreclosed and abandoned property, and there is property that has been abandoned. It has been abandoned by the owner who's walked away. It has been abandoned by some financial institutions that did not have the substance of banks. There is demonstrably property in the cities which cannot be traced.

The chairman of the committee displayed a picture before of a beat-up piece of property and said, Look at this piece of property. It's so far gone, who would want to buy it?

We said, No one would. It should be demolished. Tell us who owns it.

He said, You can always find out who owns it--except for that piece of property.

So it's not just about foreclosed property. Somebody has to demolish property where there is no owner. Somebody has to demolish property where there is no responsible party standing behind it. I just left the Chamber to meet with three firefighters from the city of Fall River in my district. They were appalled at the notion that they would be left in the city of Fall River to deal with abandoned property, which is a set of fire traps, and not have any help. So for that reason, I believe that we ought to be clear that this is not about only foreclosed property. And some property, by the way, has been foreclosed upon by entities that are bankrupt, by entities that have no funds.

The other point I would make, though, is this. I do agree with my colleagues that we should do something about the deficit. Now, I wish that they listened to that when we subsidized agriculture or when we sent money to Afghanistan and Iraq for their social purposes. But I have an alternative. I will repeat again, and they'll ignore it all day, I know. In the bill that originally authorized this billion dollars, we required that it be funded not by the general revenues but by a special assessment on financial institutions that have $50 billion or more in assets and hedge funds at $10 billion.

Now let's be clear, Mr. Chairman. Members on the other side know this bill is unlikely to become law. Indeed, some have even said they understand the money will be spent before it can move. So the billion dollars is almost certainly going to be spent. My colleagues now have a choice. They can allow it to be spent by the taxpayers, or they can reconsider their opposition to our proposal of last summer and assess this on the large financial institutions and hedge funds. By the way, some of it, it is true, was caused by banks and some of it will go to banks.

But here's the answer. Instead of complaining that some of this will go to banks, join us and have it all come from banks and from hedge funds. But please, Mr. Chairman, let's not perpetuate the myth that, for every piece of property with which our poorer cities and rural areas are burdened, there is somebody they can go and sue and get it down. In fact, the gentleman from California himself has said, well, they can get a bulldozer and tear it down. Those bulldozers cost money. The people driving the bulldozers cost money.

So we believe that the approach should be to take money from the large financial institutions and from the hedge funds and take the billion dollars from them and provide it to municipalities and groups like Habitat for Humanity and others who will use it either to tear down the property, in some cases, or rehabilitate the property and make it affordable housing.

That, Mr. Chairman, is the choice between us. Again, I want to stress, this notion that it is only foreclosed property is a misstatement with a purpose, because it means that you ignore the fact that much of the property existing in the cities is abandoned and will only be dealt with by the city spending its own money or, by our preferred mode, having the large financial institutions and the hedge funds join us.

So I hope at some point today, one member of the majority will tell us whether or not they agree, Mr. Chairman, that if this program survives, we should get it not from the taxpayer and not from the property taxpayers of our cities or rural areas but from the large financial institutions. That's what I hope will happen.

What if it is abandoned and it is of not much value and has to be torn down, so people buy it and tear it down?

We were told, for instance, by Detroit and Cleveland, they have abandoned property. There is no owner they can find. Who's going to pay to knock it down?

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the voice vote by which amendment No. 1 was rejected be vacated to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 170 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 170 provides for a structured rule designed and designated by the Rules Committee for consideration of H.R. 861 and H.R. 839. This rule allows the amendments submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order as long as they were not subject to a point of order and were germane to the underlying text of H.R. 861 and H.R. 839.

This rule provides for debate and amendment opportunities for members of the minority and the majority to change the legislative text of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the two underlying bills. The first piece of legislation, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act, was introduced by my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller) on March 1, 2011, and went through committee

markup in the Financial Services Committee last week on March 9. The second bill, H.R. 839, the Home Affordable Modification Program Termination Act, was introduced by my dear friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) on February 28 and marked up last week as well.

Both of these bills went through regular order, which allowed Members from both sides of the aisle the opportunity to offer amendments in the Financial Services Committee and in the Rules Committee yesterday.

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

Mr. Speaker, last fall, Republicans pledged to the American people that we would stop the wasteful spending and put Americans back to work. These two bills that we're discussing today continue to roll back the abuse of taxpayer funds, the diminishment of jobs, and the creation of a proper government responsibility with any balance in the housing sector.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, we also said that we would make sure that we went through regular order and would allow Members time to read the bills. That is what Republicans bring forth to the floor today as we debate these two important aspects that have gone through regular order through the Financial Services Committee.

H.R. 861, the NSP Termination Act, terminates the Neighborhood Stability Program and rescinds $1 billion in unobligated funds that was authorized in the Dodd-Frank bill last year.

Congress has appropriated approximately $7 billion in three rounds of funding for this program. Eligible users for the funds include emergency assistance to State and local governments to acquire, develop, redevelop, or demolish foreclosed homes. So this doesn't stop or assist folks in getting through foreclosures. It gives money to lenders to fix up the houses to sell, while returning not one cent of the $7 billion back to the American taxpayer.

The NSP has done little to resolve the root causes of the increase in foreclosures. In fact, the NSP continues to extend and further exacerbate the current housing downturn. This program represents a costly bailout for lenders, servicers, and real estate speculators who made risky bets on the housing market, all at the expense of the American taxpayer and our debt.

While putting billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, we should understand that this is a program, two programs that must be halted. There should be an appropriate accountability and reporting, and this program lacks both. This is just another two examples, following up what we did last week with two other examples, of the Democrats' solution of throwing money at a problem rather than something that would work and be cost effective.

Taxpayers from all over this Nation are struggling with their mortgage payments, keeping their jobs, and providing for their families. Allowing for a stable economy, a future, and reining in government spending by eliminating wasteful government spending will provide for more transparency and government accountability across economic markets. That is why we are eliminating these two programs today on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Let's be honest about this. Republicans are here to try and save jobs that are on the chopping block from what wasteful government spending has done for us the last 4 years of Democrat control. Today, Republicans are on the floor to stop wasteful Washington government spending, which says directly to the taxpayers we don't want 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend to be put on a credit card, a future debt that our children and our future will be put at risk by mortgaging our future. Republicans are not going to allow that. That is why we're on the floor of the House of Representatives. That is why we will encourage every Member of this body, Republican or Democrat, to make tough decisions today about not just today, but about our future.

The second bill under this rule today, H.R. 839, rescinds the Home Affordable Modification Program known as HAMP. This is another unnecessarily and poorly managed housing program that wastes tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars. Terminating this program would prevent the use of $29 billion of TARP funds, $29 billion of TARP funds we do not think should be spent.

HAMP was established in February of 2009 with the goal of assisting with loan modifications for up to 4 million homeowners. Over the life of this program, only 521,306 loans have been permanently modified, and the redefault rate for these loans is very high.

So what we started with is trying to help 4 million people. Thus far, we have only helped 521,000, but it comes at a high cost to the taxpayer. Only $840 million of the $29 billion earmarked for this purpose has been used--only $800 million of the $29 billion.

We need the money back, Mr. Speaker. We need the money back because this is another case in which the program actually made matters worse for many of the homeowners who were seeking to participate. The government is pushing a program which harms these homeowners. It creates a perverse incentive for borrowers to deliberately and willfully stop making their mortgage payments in the hopes that they can get government loans to reduce their payments.

This program that the government has actually encourages people to quit making payments, which still add up, including the interest on what they owe. It harms their credit ratings and adds, what I think, is a further unfair circumstance in which the government is pushing ``we're here to help you'' when, in fact, it doesn't know the rules of the game or whether a homeowner will even be able to qualify, making the homeowner wait months to then find out, ``Whoops. Sorry. You didn't qualify. Now you need to continue what you're doing.''

A false hope, Mr. Speaker.

The Washington Times, which is a great newspaper here in Washington, published an article on this program on March 1 of this year. It stated that in, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of cases, homeowners are far worse off after HAMP than they were before being talked into and getting involved with the program. Borrowers are typically not told all the potential consequences of falling behind on their mortgages. They're simply told that there's a government plan out there to help you when, in fact, they do fall behind on their mortgages.

Services have repeatedly lost documentation and have provided false information to home borrowers who were in need of assistance and good discussion about how to pay their bills--instead, trying to talk them into participating in a government program and, in some instances, even pushing individuals into default, individuals who could have continued making their payments.

In a report from the Inspector General of TARP to Secretary of the Treasury Geithner on March 25, 2010--that is 1 year ago--he notes: ``Several aspects of the HAMP design make it particularly vulnerable to redefaults.''

It is time to pull the plug. That is why Republicans are on the floor today to say straight up: We need to look at what is not working. We need to look at the $29 billion that has been spent on this program, and we need to be honest with ourselves, as has been noted in newspapers across the country, as to what the Democrats have done. What this administration and this House have done has been adversarial in helping people who needed assistance. Today, we can save the taxpayers $28 billion that has not been spent on this program.

Continued government intervention and the questionable use of taxpayer dollars only prolong our current economic crisis and ensure that the housing market will simply continue to struggle. The market needs to find its own footing free of government intervention and manipulation by this government so that we can get on with a full recovery. The deficit is expected to reach a record under President Obama: using his numbers, $1.65 trillion this year while our national debt is well over $14 trillion. The U.S. and its citizens cannot afford to spend billions of taxpayer dollars that will not be repaid, and it ends up, in many instances,

harming the people it was intended to help.

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. Eliminating these programs will not only save taxpayer dollars; it will encourage more responsible government spending by the Federal Government.

So, Mr. Speaker, as no surprise to you, 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, I appreciate the gentleman's comments about our being here today on the floor in a bipartisan way with a bill that went through regular order with an opportunity for any Member that would choose that has any ideas that are germane to the issue and that fall within the rules to be included. And you are going to see where there are a bunch of amendments today.

Mr. Speaker, the conversation that the gentleman and I were having should further extend, and that is the common sense that is related to why we are on the floor today, the discussion about whether we should make it better or simply repeal it. And I would quote from the IG of the TARP fund in his report to Secretary Geithner:

``Although in the final analysis it is up to the policymakers in the administration and the Congress to determine whether it is worth spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on a program that is assumed at its outset to fail ultimately for 40 percent of the participants, several aspects of HAMP's design make it particularly vulnerable to redefaults.''

I think the IG has said it best. When any objective person looked at what the Democrat Congress passed, they would have to question whether it was worth spending tens of billions of dollars on a program at the outset we should have known would fail for 40 percent of the participants. I think that is good reason to say, common sense should say, let's stop the plan, not continue it.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

I would like to yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the author of one of the pieces of underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was just reminded by the gentleman, Mr. Mica, the favorite son of Florida, who's the chairman of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) had referred that we've done nothing about jobs. But the gentleman, Mr. Mica, as chairman of the committee reminded me that this House passed just 2 weeks ago a transportation bill that had been lagging, waiting since 2009, that will add a substantial number of jobs. And that was a good jobs bill.

So I wouldn't expect to get credit for anything, necessarily, on the floor, but at least we need to be honest about this. The Republicans did pass a bill that was adding jobs as opposed to this massive undertaking that we are trying to save jobs that are at risk as a result of the outlandish spending and wasteful government spending taking place here.

Secondly, the gentleman said, Why are Republicans now trying to get rid of this? Why didn't we do something to fix the program? But I would remind the American people that this is a report that went to the Secretary of the Treasury over a year ago. And I would ask the question: Why did the Democrats, why did this administration continue a failed program? Why did they continue it? That's because they were happy with it. In fact, as we've already read, a 40 percent failure rate and thousands of more people harmed. That's why Republicans are trying to fix this--because we have tried to work.

Today, we're going to pass this on the floor. It's a great bill. And we're going to ask every single person to be able to vote for this opportunity.

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

As soon as it's on the floor, I'll consider that.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, my friends and colleagues are talking about a no jobs bill, nothing about jobs. But at least there's a purist on the floor and, that is, there was one Democrat in the House who voted against the Republican jobs bill, transportation bill. That was the gentleman, Mr. Polis. So I would think that he would have great standing on saying we've never had a bill that added jobs, but everybody else I would have to question that because they voted for the bill, because, in fact, it's a good jobs bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if it worked that way, we'd be for it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will assure the gentleman I will be in Aurora, Colorado, and I'll be pleased to be there this year and probably next year, also.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman's asking. I have no further requests for time, and I appreciate the collegiality the gentleman has extended me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for not only engaging in a spirited debate here on floor but also for his collegiality in that endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation is being overrun still by too high a taxation, borrowing, and spending, and just last month, we hit a record deficit, $223 billion in 1 month. That is simply unacceptable. With the debt looming at over $14 trillion and unemployment hovering still around 9 percent, Americans want solutions, not handouts. And that is why we are here on the floor today, to protect the taxpayer and the integrity, I think, of the government, rather than creating more problems, at least trying to alleviate some of those and give the taxpayer back some money. The American people asked Congress to rein in spending and for efficiency, and that is what Republicans are here to do today.

We did this in an open process where every single Member of this body had a chance through regular order to prepare themselves and to come to the floor today. Since Republicans have gained the majority in January we have cut $1.2 trillion worth of spending, first of all, by repealing ObamaCare; secondly, by cutting $61 billion in H.R. 1, $8 billion last week in additional unnecessary government housing programs, and another $30 billion with this rule today. We're getting our job done.

By gaining control of government spending and eliminating wasteful government handouts, the private sector can, again, gain confidence in our economy and the direction of the future of this country to begin investing in jobs and our economic future. After all, we finally decided last year that what we would do is extend tax cuts which will help save jobs and grow our economy.

I applaud my colleagues for introducing the bills we are discussing here today. In just a few minutes, you will see the chairman of the Financial Services Committee or his designee lead that discussion through lots of amendments, lots of ideas by Members.

I want to thank the young chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, David Dreier, for providing us such a great, open, and transparent process. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and perhaps, more importantly, on the resolution before us today.

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

The previous question was ordered.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Here we are again. At a time when Americans are calling for more jobs to improve the economy, my Republican colleagues want to pass legislation that won't create a single job and that will hurt the middle class by further destabilizing our housing markets.

Mr. Speaker, this week, we take up two more bills to continue weakening our housing markets and abandoning families who are working hard, struggling to stay in their homes, both of which show that my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to put partisan politics ahead of creating jobs and growing the economy.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, when we had several Members there from both sides who were testifying, the question was asked: Are we in a housing crisis? Everybody there agreed--and I think most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on my side of the aisle agreed as well--that we are in a housing crisis. So the answer is: What is and what should be the response?

Now, this response is what we have.

My colleague from Dallas said that the current program, HAMP, lacks accountability. Well, it seems like the logical answer to that would be to create accountability for the program, not to eliminate the program. We are talking about repeal without replace. We are talking about ending rather than mending. If there is truly a housing crisis, as I believe Members across both sides of the aisle agree there is, it calls for a public policy response. Rather than talking about what we shouldn't do, I think it would be more constructive to talk about what we should do.

We are leaving nothing in the wake if this proposed repeal moves forward. At a time when our economy is finally beginning to show signs of strong, sustained growth, we need to do everything we can to put people back to work and create jobs. Instead, here we have legislation after legislation that will increase burdens on already struggling middle class families. Rather than improving and building upon or even replacing programs that keep families in their homes, the Republicans have chosen to eliminate these four programs that keep families in their homes, and they have no plan to strengthen the housing market or to help the families who will, quite literally, be left on the street as a result.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 839 will eliminate one of the last lifelines available to many homeowners. According to Treasury Secretary Geithner, ending the HAMP program would cause a huge amount of damage to a very fragile housing market and would leave hundreds and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans, without the chance to take advantage of mortgage modifications that would allow them to stay in homes that they can afford.

Now, we could go into how we got into this mess in the first place, and we all know, Mr. Speaker, that there is plenty of blame to go around. Yes, people who got in over their heads with mortgages they couldn't afford deserve some of the blame. So do the brokers who shouldn't have sold them on those mortgages. So do the banks that underwrote those mortgages. So does Wall Street for packaging those mortgages and creating derivative products--and yes, so does the government for being asleep at the regulatory switch. There is plenty of blame to go around.

When the bankers needed help, they came to the government, and the government helped them. When the regulators needed help, they came to the government, and we passed financial regulatory reform last year. Well, the people who are most affected, the people who literally risk being tossed out on the street, rely on these programs to help them. How in good conscience can this Congress even consider bailing out Wall Street and bankers and not help mainstream America stay in their homes?

Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around. Believe me, many of these people facing this situation, who are barely able to make their mortgages, are not being rewarded for their bad decisions. They would much rather spend half as much on homes and not be under water, suffering as they are today. Yet the least we can do as a country to help them is to acknowledge that, yes, personal responsibility and blame don't just fall on their shoulders.

My Republican colleagues will argue that this is a failed government program and that this program hasn't helped the 3 million to 4 million homeowners it was originally projected to help. What they fail to mention is that HAMP, A, has helped to stabilize the housing market and that, B, it has helped over half a million families. Yes, that's not the 3 million or 4 million, and yes, our side of the aisle would be very open to suggestions about improving this program, whether it's the accountability of this program, the scale of this program, how it's delivered, or whether it's replacing it with another program to help those who are barely able to make their mortgage payments.

But what we are talking about today is to eliminate the tool that has kept one-half million American families in their homes, Mr. Speaker.

There is no doubt that many folks on the other side of the aisle are also calling this program a waste of taxpayer money. According to the CBO, the average cost per assisted homeowner in HAMP is $13,000. Now, that is a small price and actually a sound investment. It is far smaller than the $60,000 that it has been estimated to cost Freddie, Fannie, and large banks to foreclose on a home. So $13,000 to prevent the banks from foreclosing on a home, keeping that family in a home, allowing them to go to work and make their payments and pay back what is due; or, $60,000 to foreclose on that home and leave that family on the streets. The money for this program is well spent.

If an individual shows they can't stay current on their programs, they are removed from HAMP at no cost to taxpayers. In fact, of the homeowners that have had their trial modifications cancelled through the end of 2010, only 5.1 percent have been foreclosed on, and only 14.9 percent are at all in the foreclosure process.

Mr. Speaker, the program keeps families in their homes. Mortgages that have been modified under HAMP have a sustainability rate of 85 percent. Yes, we can do better. Yes, we would love to bring this program or others to keep 3 million to 4 million families in their home and stabilize housing prices. But what the bill before us does is repeal one of the only tools we have to help keep American families in their homes.

I understand the program hasn't reached the initial projections that the Obama administration put forward. But there is no question, talking to some of the families that this program has benefited, that it does work for them. With our help, the Treasury can continue to take steps to improve the effectiveness of this program and increase compliance from banks and borrowers.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 861 would rightly be titled the ``Illegal Trade Commercial Real Estate Act.'' The majority seeks to undermine the efforts of our Nation's mayors, city councils, and real estate developers and ensure that areas which have suffered due to economic downturn remain safely in control of those who do damage to communities. This is a critical program to help reform our communities.

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which I remind my colleagues was established and signed into law by President Bush, was designed to turn a crisis into an opportunity. In 2008, almost $4 billion was appropriated and helped 307 State and local agencies acquire, rehabilitate, and sell abandoned and foreclosed properties, exactly what is most needed now not only to revitalize our blighted areas but to help prevent the housing crisis and commercial real estate crisis from getting

worse. I remind my colleagues that every dime of this program that is not spent by the sunset of this program will already, under statute, be returned to the Treasury.

By creating a mechanism for communities to acquire, rehabilitate, and sell back to the private market abandoned and blighted properties, we give local governments a very powerful tool for economic growth and fighting crime and keeping our communities safe.

In the midst of our ongoing liquidity crisis, where many developers are having a tough time finding financing for many of their prime projects, it is a matter of public safety and critical economic importance that we continue this vehicle by which blighted properties are returned to being productive economic engines, particularly in our Nation's most troubled neighborhoods.

I also want to point out that this program isn't limited to commercial property. In my district in Adams County, Colorado, which like other areas of the country was devastated by the wave of foreclosures, we have used this program to revitalize residential neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program allows local governments to build communities with home rehabilitation, down payment and closing cost assistance for low- and middle-income families. By using these Federal dollars to leverage local efforts, many struggling families have been able to find and keep a home, and a modest Federal investment has been magnified severalfold by private investment, city investment, and county investment.

Mr. Speaker, I think most people in this country agree, yes, there is a housing crisis and, yes, there is plenty of blame to go around and, yes, we need a public policy response. These programs aren't perfect. We hope to work in a bipartisan way with our colleagues across the aisle on improving these programs, coming up with new market-oriented programs to help end the crisis in real estate. But the answer is not to simply repeal one of the only instruments that we have to keep families in their homes with only the vaguest of assurances that someday, somehow Congress might think up a better plan.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would point out that the one bill that the gentleman from Texas has pointed to as a jobs bill is one bill that contained many, many earmarks from previous sessions. Also included is continuing funding for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. So if this is the best jobs bill that a Republican Congress can bring forward, I think the American people deserve better.

It is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

With regard to the jobs bill, I acknowledge that that was the bill that my colleague from Texas cited as the one jobs bill the Republicans have brought before us. This was a bill that had dozens and dozens of earmarks, which is why, in standing with President Obama, I opposed that bill, including an indefensible earmark on which we proposed an amendment on the floor, which was voted down, I might add, without a single Republican vote, to eliminate funding for what I thought there was broad consensus we should eliminate funding for; namely, a $300 million bridge in Alaska. There was a $70 million bridge to an island with 50 people, and an additional project that is another bridge.

This is an example of earmarks at their worst, of pork barrel politics at their worst. I'm beginning to think if the Republicans do come up with a job bill, we need to ask at what price jobs? Is it going to be so filled up with Republican pork that we have to either take it or leave it? That's a choice the American people don't want to face.

Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit that we can improve HAMP. We can improve the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. There's no doubt about that. I would advance that we should be doing exactly that. My colleague from Michigan (Mr. Clarke) had some excellent ideas about improving these programs. I am a cosponsor of a bill to provide for a capital gains tax exemption for investment in community banks to help them shore up their balance sheets. Why not look at, for instance, allowing investment properties to have the same mortgage deductibility as primary residences? There's a number of great ideas that I'm sure Members on both sides of the aisle could discuss and agree upon to address our housing crisis. But what the answer isn't is to repeal one of the only tools we have and to replace it with silence.

It is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman to respond.

It is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado who serves on the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Perlmutter.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some items on the schedule for the gentleman from Dallas during his visit to Colorado as well.

I'm the last speaker for my side, and I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any further requests for time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you a few stories from constituents in my district that the HAMP program has helped. My office has helped a number of constituents with this program, and I'm not alone in doing that.

Last year, I had a local artist who ran her own small business contact my office asking for help with her mortgage. Her income had declined significantly and unexpectedly due to the tough economy. She tried to find a second job but it wasn't enough. With the help of a HAMP loan modification, she's still in her home today.

We also helped a truckdriver who had become ill and needed dialysis. Although he still receives Social Security, he couldn't afford his mortgage payments without his old salary. He had nowhere else to turn, but with the HAMP modification, he was able to lower his interest rate by 2 percent and convert his loan from an adjustable rate to a 30-year fixed and stay in his home.

Mr. Speaker, the stories don't end there. HAMP has proven that it can save families on the brink of foreclosure and keep them there for the long haul. It's not the ideal program. It hasn't reached the 3 million families that were initially projected, but you ask any of those 500,000 families that HAMP has helped keep in their home and they will agree that this program works for them.

Mr. Speaker, we should be focusing on jobs. Last month, I'm proud to say, our economy added over 150,000 private sector jobs, and instead of working to increase that number, we've been passing legislation that threatens to reverse the progress that has been made by creating additional uncertainty within the real estate sector and leaving more families at risk of losing their homes.

Republicans promised to promote job creation and economic growth with their new majority. Instead of delivering on these promises, they've already used their majority to raise taxes on middle class Americans, to attack the middle class, and promote their own social agenda. This is not the change that the American people asked for.

It is time to get our fiscal house in order. I'd like to make it clear that this is not the way to solve our budget problems, by repealing a program that helps keep middle class families in their home. Mr. Speaker, the best way to get our deficit under control is through creating jobs, not through cutting the safety net of hardworking Americans and preventing our cities and counties from revitalizing their blighted neighborhoods.

Most distressing, however, is that through these bills the promise of job creation is broken yet again. I ask my colleagues to join me and vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation so we can keep our promise to help all of our communities rebuild and succeed, and work in a bipartisan fashion to get the very best ideas on the table about what our proper public policy response should be with regard to the housing crisis and the jobs crisis that this Nation faces.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for that information.

He mentioned the CR, the continuing resolution, the continuing authorization to operate government, which I understand will be for a 3-week period.

Can the gentleman tell us what will be in that continuing resolution at this point in time?

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Now, it's my understanding we are not scheduled, according to his announcement, to meet next Friday.

Is that accurate?

And I take it the gentleman is reasonably certain, obviously we don't know what the other body will do, but in light of the fact that that CR will be offered next Tuesday, the gentleman's presumption is that, in fact, we will be out sometime on Thursday.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman and I have had this discussion, and I think we both agree that continuing to fund government on either a 2-week or 3-week cycle is not what we ought to be doing. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, a number of economists have indicated that if, in fact, we

proceed to funding levels that reflect H.R. 1, which is my assumption of what will happen according to what the gentleman has told me and, I think, said publicly, the funding levels that are included in H.R. 1 on a week-to-week basis, which leads me to believe that if we are having a 3-week extension will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 billion in additional reductions.

Would that be accurate?

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would observe to him that with respect to H.R. 1, numerous economists have indicated, including Mark Zandi, who was, of course, one of the principal advisers to John McCain when he ran for President, Chairman Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs, Moody's, and others, that the just rejected H.R. 1, if adopted, would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, in one analyst's point of view, over 800,000 jobs.

In fact, of course, three Republicans voted against H.R. 1 in the Senate, and one of those who voted for H.R. 1 in the Senate said this, Mr. Speaker: Let me be clear that I strongly oppose some of the proposed cuts in the House-passed bill--that was H.R. 1--particularly the drastic cuts that would disproportionately affect low-income families and seniors. Making such deep and immediate cuts to critical low-income heating assistance, weatherization, and Head Start programs in the middle of the fiscal year would cause serious problems for those who rely on these programs. That was Senator Collins, a Republican from Maine, when the bill was on the floor.

So let me ask the gentleman, do we have a plan to proceed so that we can, A, retreat from the uncertainty that we keep creating by these 2 weeks? I know that he and I agreed that this is not the way to proceed, but does the gentleman have a plan, A, to move forward so that we can fund government through September 30, complete funding for this fiscal year, and turn our attention and focus on what I know the gentleman knows the Appropriations Committee is now focusing on, the fiscal year 2012 appropriations and spending plan.

Does the gentleman have in mind when we might get to a plan to fund the balance of government, not on 2- or 3-week cycles but between now and September 30?

I thank the gentleman for his response, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I understand the gentleman's issue with respect to the President. Both the gentleman and I understand and agree that the Constitution, in article I, gives to the House of Representatives of the United States and the Senate the responsibility to raise and spend moneys, so that this is a primary responsibility of the legislative department of government, which he and I have the privilege of serving in. While I understand that the gentleman is accurate, both alternatives were defeated in the United States Senate.

The President put an offer on the table in his 2011 budget. We then, in December, froze spending at 2010 levels, which was $41 billion less than the President's offer which he put on the table.

We have now had two additional offers put on the table. The next offer was, of course, included in H.R. 1. That passed this House but did not pass the Senate.

The Senate, however, did put an offer on the table, as the gentleman pointed out, cutting an additional $10 billion above the $41 billion, or $6 billion above the $4 billion that was included in the short-term CR which expires on March 18.

What I ask the gentleman again is, does the gentleman now propose, and will the gentleman and his side of the aisle be proposing, a counteroffer, as I said last week, or is the gentleman's position you are staying, as I seemed to hear you say, at the $100 billion figure that was included in H.R. 1, which implies that unless there is an agreement to your figure, that we will have to shut down government or agree to your figure.

I want to make sure that I understand your thoughts on that.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answer. I think I did not receive an answer in terms of whether or not the gentleman is saying it's either $100 billion or nothing, and that there will be no counteroffer to the offer that is on the table, either from the President or, more accurately at this point in time, in terms of the timing from the Senate, which got us to $51 billion in cuts, which, although the gentleman would like to say it's between zero and $60 billion, the gentleman in his Pledge to America said he was going to cut $100 billion. The reason he got to $100 billion was he counted the $41 billion cut from the President's initial offer of 2011 spending.

What has happened, since the gentleman and his party made that offer, Mr. Speaker, is that, in fact, $41 billion of that $100 billion was accepted in the CR that was passed which expired 2 weeks ago.

Since that time, we've put from the Senate's perspective an additional $10 billion on the table to get us to $51 billion. The way I calculate it, that is more than halfway from the gentleman's offer, not of $60 billion in his Pledge to America but $100 billion. And the way he got to $100 billion is the $41 billion that we already cut in the first CR, the additional $10 billion is now $51 billion. I say to the gentleman, we've come halfway, a little more than halfway. And we are now asking the gentleman, is he going to have a counteroffer for us that we can consider from our offer of $51 billion which we believe is more than halfway?

I will tell you further, Mr. Leader, that it is my staff's belief, and I could be corrected on this, that the offer that is on the table represents the single largest cut from one year to the next since I have been in the Congress of the United States, which is largely under Republican Presidents.

We obviously are prepared to agree and have agreed on very substantial restraints in spending, cutting spending, trying to get a handle on this deficit. As you know, I'm concerned about the fact that in the rule we adopted on the first day of the session that you provided for $4.7 trillion in additional tax expenditures, if you will, tax cuts, cutting of revenue, that is projected currently by CBO which will lead to $4.7 trillion of additional spending, while you have proposed a trillion dollars of cuts, leaving a net appreciation of the deficit of $3.7 trillion, increased deficit that is in fact planned for under your rule.

All I am asking for now is, do you have and will you have a counteroffer to our $51 billion offer so that we can then try to move on and reach compromise? If it is simply, no, we want $100 billion or nothing, then we'll have to make a decision, as I have told the gentleman, on our side of the aisle: What do we do at that point in time? We obviously have the majority in the Senate and we have the President of the United States, the American people have elected. And as Newt Gingrich, your former Speaker, our former Speaker, said in 1998, we have to reach agreement. And the way you reach agreement is to get offers back and forth. We think we have an offer on the table and we'd like to hear your counteroffer.

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I did not say it was the largest cut that had ever been proposed in Congress. I said it is the largest cut from one year to the other, from the previous year's spending. And it is $13.6 billion, I believe. Seventeen billion. My staffer, who's brilliant, much more brilliant than I am, reminds me that I am----

Right. Both of us do.

I want to clarify so the public understands as well when they hear us, what we're talking about cutting from is 14 percent of the budget, the discretionary, non-defense, non-security, part of the budget. So let me focus on that. And when I speak of the cut, and it is $17 billion in non-security, that from year to year, since I've been here since 1981, is the largest single cut in non-defense, non-security discretionary spending from one year to the other. Yes, it is. And that's in a very small 14 percent slice of the budget. Frankly, the discussions we have had to date ignore the other 81, 82, 83 percent of the budget. Obviously interest rates are not subject to being reduced. We need to pay our debt.

So I just want to clarify, A, that I am speaking of the discretionary part of the budget, non-defense, non-security; and, yes, from year to year it is in fact what's sitting on the table as an offer to you the largest cut we've had in non-defense, non-security discretionary spending in the last 30 years.

I thank my friend.

Let me make a point here, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the gentleman continues to take the position until we get to 100, there is no credible counteroffer. Two billion a week.

The gentleman served with a very conservative Member, also a great Member of this Congress, a guy named Joe Scarborough. Most of America knows Joe Scarborough. Let me give a quote from Joe Scarborough:

``There are elements of the GOP spending plan that cause me great concern. The belief of some on the right that America can balance the budget by cutting education, infrastructure, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and home heating assistance for the poor is tantamount to budgetary witchcraft.''

That's not a Democrat. That's Joe Scarborough, conservative Member from northern Florida, with whom I served. Now a lot of people see him on Morning Joe every day. The fact of the matter is that's what he said. Now we're looking for a counteroffer, because we don't agree with some of H.R. 1, as you well know. As a matter of fact, every conservative Democrat, every liberal Democrat and everybody in between voted ``no'' on H.R. 1, as did three of your Republicans over there and Susan Collins, who voted for it, said she didn't like the elements in it.

So what I am saying to my friend, very sincerely, is, he can preach all he wants about we need to cut spending. We agree with that. And the issue is where you cut it from. What impact does it have? Does it sustain the economy or does it deflate the economy? Does it create jobs or does it lose jobs? Does it help people who need help or does it abandon people who need help? That's the issue.

And what I am saying to my friend with all due respect is, we have made

an offer. The gentleman wants to talk about the President. Article I of the Constitution says we need to do this. This is our responsibility. The people elected us to do it. And the people elected us to reach agreement.

And how do you reach agreement? This is what I want. This is what you want. We have come up. We have moved; pretty substantially. We think it was appropriate to move. Now we are asking you, are you prepared to move from the position you have taken consistently at your figure, which a lot of your folks think has problems in its constituent parts?

I'm asking you, and I can't get an answer, and you apparently are not going to make a counteroffer as to, okay, we took 100, we passed it, couldn't pass the Senate, you offered something in return. And what I mean by ``you,'' the Senate didn't pass it. The gentleman is absolutely correct. But we Democrats have made the offer here and there of the $51 billion. The President has indicated he could sign that. He said that publicly.

Now, that's our offer sitting on the table. My suspicion is you've rejected that offer. And if you have rejected it, what is your counteroffer? That is my question.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

As I understand what the gentleman is saying, if the Senate can't get 60 votes--which, of course, we have seen the gridlock for a long period of time where the Senate can't get 60 votes--that we're not going to go anywhere from the offer that he's made to pass something that can, in fact, garner 60 votes in the Senate.

I regret that the Senate, frankly, didn't get 60 votes for our offer. And he is correct that he got a few more votes for H.R. 1 than was gotten for the Senate majority leader's counteroffer. But the fact of the matter is this is really an issue between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Senator McConnell has said, as I know the majority leader says, we'll pass what the House passes. That's what he said. Now, if that's the case, then we need to pass something that can garner 60 votes over there. We know that H.R. 1 couldn't get 60 votes. We know that Senator Reid's proposal couldn't get 60 votes.

And if we're going to move this government forward and not fund it on 2-week cycles--and Senator McCain has said that funding the Defense Department on 2-week or 3-week cycles is undermining our national security. So there is no disagreement that doing things 2 weeks at a time does not make sense. And if the gentleman's view is simply you will not make some offer that we think--and we can have a discussion about trying to come to agreement on that--that we can get 60 votes for in the Senate and we're going to fund it on 2-week cycles, I say to my friend, that's going to be damaging to the economy, create great uncertainty, and undermine our national security. And I would hope that the gentleman would see fit to determine where we can meet somewhere in the middle.

We think we've come 51 percent of the way towards your hundred. Towards your hundred. You keep talking about 60. That was not your pledge. Your pledge was 100. And the way you got to 100 was to count the 41. We've done that. We've done another 10. So we've come, we think, 51 percent of the way. You don't count it that way, and we understand that. But whatever way we come, we need to move on.

You won the majority. God bless you. I'm sorry about that, but I live with it, and there it is. You have the majority. And with the majority, you have the responsibility to see if we can move this country forward. That's what Newt Gingrich said. And you can't be the perfectionist caucus, as he referred to, of sticking just at a number that doesn't have the votes in the United States Senate.

And if we're going to be on this 2-week cycle, I will tell my friend, you may keep passing these 2 weeks at a time. None of us want to shut down government. But I will tell you that while I and my colleagues, some of my colleagues, may vote to do this one more time, for me, it's the last time. We need to have a plan to fund this government for the balance of the fiscal year to September 30. It is irresponsible for us not to have that. And just each of us sticking to our number, you sticking to your number, and just pointing fingers at one another saying ``the Senate can't get 60 votes for anything we propose'' will not serve our country or our people.

I yield back the balance of my time.