Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 836) to rescind the unobligated funding for the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program and to terminate the program.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I hope Members will be careful walking on the floor right now, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, because I wouldn't want anyone to fall into the enormous gap that has just been created between the gentleman's comments and his voting record.

Mr. Chairman, we heard a great argument about the need to cut the budget deficit and stop spending. During the recent debate on the budget, an amendment was offered to limit entitlement spending to farmers to $250,000 per entity. The amendment said no agricultural entity, no individual, could get more than $250,000 per year. It was defeated by the Republican Party. The majority of Democrats voted for it. It will cost $1 billion over 10 years--at least.

We had the Brazilian cotton farmers, but my friends on the other side hate for me to mention that because unpleasant reality is always bothersome. You know, over a 4-year period, we're going to spend more money subsidizing American and Brazilian cotton farmers than we are on this program.

The gentleman from Alabama said yesterday that it was Obama who made him do it. Rather implausibly, he argued that he was compelled to follow this recommendation of the Obama administration to send $150 million a year to Brazilian cotton farmers for 4 years because the President told him to do it. Well, that's a very selective invocation of the President, I must say--no more persuasive than Flip Wilson having invoked the devil as having made him do it, and of course there are sometimes analogies in the way in which they refer to the President.

One hundred fifty million dollars. Now, the argument, by the way, was that we have to send $150 million to Brazilian cotton farmers. The gentleman voted for it because otherwise we would be in trouble with the World Trade Organization. But we could have saved that $150 million to the Brazilians by not sending $150 million to the American cotton farmers. By the way, that would include American cotton farmers who could get more than $250,000 a year.

So we're not debating whether or not we should reduce the deficit. It is how. Do you exempt agriculture, as many of my friends do, because they represent agricultural districts? As for conservatism and the free market, it has got no application to the growth of cotton or grain or of many of these other programs that receive so much money.

Beyond that, we have the military. Now, we're talking here about trying to stop a serious economic problem in American cities. Well, we can't afford that, but $400 million was voted to be spent on infrastructure in Afghanistan. I do not think that that $400 million will be very well spent. I understand there are some national security needs, but I think that that war has gone on too long. And the notion of sending $400 million to build up the cities in Afghanistan and to deny helping America makes no sense.

We are also being told that we can send $1.2 billion for Iraqi security forces over and above what we spend on the American military. We are sending $1.2 billion. I voted against that. Members on the other side voted for it. The whole war in Iraq has been an enormous waste, in my judgment, of American money at the cost of American lives. Brave, young Americans went to war when they were asked to by their country, but it was a mistake for them to be sent there. The war in Iraq has so dwarfed any domestic expenditures in this area that I do not understand how Members can, on the one hand, talk seriously about cutting the deficit and then have voted for more and more and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for that war in Iraq.

Now we have another point that should be made. It is true this $1 billion that we are asking for--and by the way, according to the CBO, it will cost $840 million, not 98 percent in total expenditure, but 84 percent. It's still a high number, but $140 million is still $140 million. So this will cost $840 million, according to the CBO, if it is fully run. It is going to come out of the Treasury right now, but let's be clear: The reason it will come out of the Treasury as we try to deal with this--by the way, here is what the program is:

It says to Americans who took out mortgages and became unemployed that we will help them pay their mortgages because you can't afford mortgage payments out of unemployment compensation.

That's the lavishness of this program. We're taking people who are in trouble and facing losing their homes and having more foreclosures, which have negative effects not just on the individual foreclosed, but on the neighborhood, on the city, on the whole economy. So this has a macroeconomic impact, but we are going to come to their assistance.

In the financial reform bill passed last summer, we, in the conference committee, voted to take this money from an assessment on the largest financial institutions. We voted that financial institutions with $50 billion or more in assets and hedge funds with $10 billion or more in assets would have to pay for this. And our logic was that it was the activity of these institutions that caused the crisis that led to the unemployment and led to the foreclosures. Many of them profited from it.

And we then had the TARP--and this is money that we voted in the TARP in another set of programs--and we said, you benefited from intervention. We didn't do it because we loved you. We did it because we had to save the economy from going upside down. I know Members like to rail about bailouts, but let's be very clear: every activity in the United States--known as a bailout recently--was at the initiative of the George Bush administration or Mr. Paulsen and Mr. Bernanke. And they were bipartisanly supported, and I agree that we had to do them. We had to do them because of failures in past regulatory policy.

But the fact is that in the bill we passed last summer, this money wouldn't have come from the Treasury. It wouldn't have added to the deficit. It would have been recouped from an assessment on large financial institutions. The Republican Party blocked it--not here, they didn't have the votes here, as we don't often have the votes today, but in the Senate.

So I will make this announcement: I plan to reintroduce next week the provision of the financial reform bill that would have taken the money for this program and other programs to alleviate the impact of foreclosure--the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that helps get foreclosed property back into productive use, aid to the homeowners who are unemployed--and pay for it, as we tried to do last July but Republican opposition stopped us, not from the taxpayer, but from the large institutions. And I don't mean to demonize, but I think Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo and the Bank of America and Citicorp and Morgan Stanley and the large hedge funds, I think they can pay for this. That's what we would have done. So I agree, this should not come from the taxpayer.

By the way, with regard to the bill we debated yesterday--and I regret not pointing this out, but, you know, you can only correct so much error in a limited amount of time. I talk fast, but error outpaces me when we get into these debates.

We were talking yesterday about money that was going to be spent in another program, the FHA refi. And people talked about $8 billion. Yes, $8 billion--it won't cost $8 billion--but $8 billion that was set aside, if necessary, from the TARP. And people said that TARP money was promised to go back to the taxpayers. It was, and here's how--Members may have forgotten this, having voted for it; but in the TARP legislation we added a provision that said in 2013, when the TARP is concluded, the President at that time is mandated to send to the Congress a bill that would recoup the funds that had not been returned to the Treasury from those large financial institutions. And we reiterated that in the financial reform bill over the Republicans' objections.

So the point is this: the TARP money that will be spent--if it is on the refinancing--and the TARP money that will be spent on the HAMP program will not come out of the Treasury. It will be reimbursed to the Treasury--if my colleagues on the other side go along with what we voted for--from the large financial institutions. So let's be very clear, whether we are talking about the programs in the financial reform bill or the programs in the TARP, they are a package of programs to deal with the consequences of foreclosure.

I must say, I saw a draft of my Republican colleagues' budget views, and they said--astonishingly--that spending TARP money to deal with foreclosures was inappropriate because those were unrelated to the financial crisis. Foreclosures unrelated to the financial crisis? That is an illogic that I am surprised at. Ideology drives you to certain ridiculous conclusions, but that one goes further into that than I would have thought.

So let's again be very clear. Our proposals are that the large financial institutions--assets of $50 billion or more, hedge funds of $10 billion or more, most of which would direct beneficiaries of our activity in dealing with the financial crisis that many of them helped cause--that's how we will fund these programs.

So with regard to the HAMP, with regard to the FHA refinance, no, that will not come out of the Treasury. That will be reimbursed ultimately, yes. The TARP money goes back and the law calls for that to be assessed. And so, yes, I understand my Republican colleagues, they don't want Goldman Sachs or Citicorp or any of the large financial institutions or any of the large hedge funds to have to pay the cost. But that's what the debate is, not the Treasury and the average taxpayer versus alleviation of foreclosure, the large financial institutions.

And, yes, they did succeed, temporarily, I hope, in changing that. They knocked out of our bill a requirement that the large financial institutions would help us mitigate foreclosures and help us have cities buy up property that is rotting and causing trouble; and, unfortunately, temporarily, that's not the case.

But I will file the bill next week. And given their concern for the taxpayer and the deficit, they will have a choice: do you add the cost of these programs to the deficit, because they're not going to become law, these repealers. The President is going to veto them. The Senate won't pass them even for him to do that. Are you then going to say that it will come out of the deficit, or will you join us in taking it from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and the Bank of America and those unreasonable institutions that do a lot of good work, but they can afford this $1 billion. Their bonuses alone would pay for these programs.

So let's be clear what the choice is. First of all, we have people who are prepared to send money to Brazilian cotton farmers so they can send money to American cotton farmers. They will not limit entitlements to agricultural individuals to $250,000 a year. They'll send billions to Afghanistan and Iraq that will be wasted, not for our defense, but to build up their infrastructure and their security. And then, when it does come to the relatively small amount that we will be spending on some of these programs, like $840 million here--and that's small compared to what they spend elsewhere, for instance, in their wars-- they would rather have it come out of the taxpayer. They would rather not spend it at all; but if they have a second choice, it comes out of the taxpayer and not out of the large financial institutions.

So let's frame the debate appropriately. The large financial institutions, because of inappropriate regulation and improper regulation during the Bush years--fairly, the Clinton years as well, but mostly the Bush years--provoked a financial crisis. We began to deal with it in 2008 in the last months of the Bush administration in a bipartisan way. We did it. We provided some funding in the first instance to those very financial institutions, not out of love for them, but because we thought that was needed to stabilize.

The requirement is that any money spent under the TARP will ultimately be recouped by an assessment on the large financial institutions. Apparently, the Republicans want to forget that one. They want to act as if it's the Treasury, apparently because they can't bear the thought of telling the large financial institutions, who were a large part of the cause of the financial crisis and benefited from our efforts to correct it, that they should have to pay.

And we do know that when we said this program and programs to give money to municipalities--which they very much want--to buy up property that would otherwise fester because there would be nobody to make them take care of it, that they prefer that to be paid for by the taxpayer than by the large financial institutions. We'll give them a chance to correct that mistake.

So I hope this bill is defeated. And next week we will have legislation that I hope our committee will be having hearings on and act on which will reinstate the provision that says all of the four programs we're dealing with this week and next week will be dealt with in one of two ways: it will be financed by the TARP, and that money will be recovered when the program is over by an assessment on the large financial institutions; and the smaller amounts that will go to this program, that money will also be recouped from the large financial institutions. And those institutions which received hundreds of billions--they have repaid it and it has been useful--but they were great beneficiaries of it. They caused some of the problem in general. They will be the ones that will bear the cost.

So that's the choice. We have a choice of doing nothing to alleviate the impact of foreclosures on the overall economy, on municipalities, and on families, or of doing something and recouping that money from the large financial institutions.

I hope that we will, in the end, decide that we were right to say that the large financial institutions can appropriately be asked to bear part of that burden.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield myself 15 seconds to note that I am not surprised at that, because there are people on the other side who think it's unfair to pay the unemployed anything, like unemployment compensation. So, no, I don't think it's unfair to say to people who are unemployed in this economy that they will get some economic help. And that's what this is about.

I yield 3\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Will the gentleman yield?

There were two ways we could have dealt with it, yes. The gentleman and the Obama administration on one side. I disagree with the President. We could have avoided that by reducing American cotton subsidies to the same amount as we did with Brazil. So we could have either saved 300 million or not.

How much time remains, Madam Chair?

May I inquire, do we have general leave?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, the last statement is, of course, totally contradictory from the gentleman from Texas. But when you just want to bash things, you will say anything.

You cannot simultaneously say this program is too generous because of its forgiveness and is a predatory loan. The fact is it has very generous forgiveness provisions, which is why it is scored at 84 percent, not 98 percent. So that argument the gentleman just made is, of course, entirely self-contradictory because it can't be both.

Secondly, as to agriculture, I did vote for an amendment that would change it, but the gentleman, the spectacle of my Republican colleagues hiding behind Obama is bizarre. You could have done what we have offered, which was to cut the $150 million from going to Brazil and then cut it out of America. But it's not the only item I mentioned.

I mentioned the $1.2 billion the gentleman wanted to send to Iraqi security forces, the 400 million to build infrastructure in Kandahar and Kabul, the $250,000 limit the Republicans rejected on individual entities. So, no, there are billions in agriculture and the military. I didn't just mention one item.

The gentlemen do understand that they are vulnerable, so they blame Obama. They and Obama are both wrong about sending money to Brazil. But the most important point is this, and I hope in his final time the gentleman from Alabama will address it.

In the first place, on two of these programs--the HAMP Program, which we will deal with next week on the floor, and the FHA refi--the money doesn't come from the Treasury. They keep saying it, but they are wrong, and ignoring a fact doesn't make it go away. Those are funds that come from TARP.

In the financial reform bill, we reinforced an earlier provision. It says, the FDIC ``is authorized to conduct risk-based assessments on financial companies'' to pay for this, the money that's left in the TARP. We have a mandate to the FDIC so that when the TARP is finished, large financial companies will have to pay this, not the Treasury.

So I know that troubles people on the other side. They are solicitous of these large financial companies. But when they talk about it adding to the deficit, they are wrong. It is statutorily required that this will come, over their objection, from the large financial institutions.

As to the other two programs, including the one today, we had similar language in our bill to do that. It was rejected by the Republicans because we needed to get 60 votes in the Senate. So, yes, for now, that 840 million will come out of the taxpayer. If we had our way and the Republicans had not been successful in frustrating us, it would have also come from Goldman Sachs and from Morgan Stanley and the other large institutions, and I will give them another chance.

So the fact is that the bulk of this money does not come from the Treasury. It is mandated that it will be repaid back to the TARP, and I hope the gentleman from Alabama will address that in his final remarks.

Is he for repealing that? Does he believe we should not as we have said we would twice legislatively, including on one bill he voted for, assess the large financial institutions and hedge funds? Does he want to take it off? But of course if he doesn't, it doesn't come from the Treasury. It doesn't add to the deficit. It may reduce the bonuses at some of the large financial firms, it may reduce the dividends at some of the large financial firms, but that's not adding to the deficit in a way that we care about.

And as to the other money, the money for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program and for this program, if they will come back with us and join, that also will come from the large financial institutions.

So let's drop the phony arguments about the deficit. If you want to protect the large financial institutions, be honest about saying so.

Would the gentleman tell us from what party the Governors of Pennsylvania have come during this period?

I move to strike the last word.

First, let me address the wholly contradictory argument of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

We have heard on the other side, through the eagerness to just say negative things, two entirely contradictory things: one, that this is too lavish a subsidy to the homeowner and, two, that it will further indebt the homeowner.

Members do understand that they cannot possibly both be true. In fact, there is a significant element of subsidy here, and those who take this money and who pay off their mortgages will get a subsidy so they will not be further in debt.

The argument just made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) is wholly without basis. The argument that it is a more generous subsidy is a more accurate one. By the way, even if they were to pay it back, avoiding late fees and interest helps them out.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, no, that's not what the gentleman is saying. The gentleman is completely contradicting himself.

He says it's a grant program. First, he was contradicting the other gentleman from Texas. Now he's contradicting himself. He said it's a grant program. Well, if it's a grant program, why did the gentleman say it was getting people further in debt?

The gentleman has been caught in a totally contradictory argument. He did not say it was a grant program. He said it was getting people further in debt.

I'm sorry, I reclaim my time. I will yield if you want to clarify what you said. You had your 5 minutes. I'm not going to yield for general philosophy. I'm sorry, but it's my time. I was yielding if the gentleman thought I was misinterpreting him. For him to simply repeat what he already said takes time that I don't want to give him.

He did contradict himself completely. First, it was a program that was going to put people further in debt. Now it's a grant program. He can decide which it is.

I now want to go back and make my central point, which is that the only reason this has any impact on the taxpayer is that the Republicans insisted on protecting the large institutions. The gentleman from Alabama said all this money is going to the large institutions. Well, that's not true, because it does go to pay off loans to keep people from being foreclosed. Some will go to smaller institutions. Some will go to credit unions. Some will go to community banks.

But here is the point: under our proposal, which the Republicans temporarily blocked--and I hope they'll repent--all of the funding would have come from the large institutions, but the Members don't want to address that. Under our proposal in the bill that passed--and we had to amend it, and we're going to try and come back and change it again-- every single penny that will be expended here will come from institutions of more than $50 billion in assets and hedge funds of more than $10 billion in assets.

So, if you do it our way, not a penny will come from the taxpayer. It will come from the large financial institutions. And, yes, it will be a help to these individuals. Some of them will pay some of it back, but they won't have late fees. And, yes, the gentleman was correct when he said the second time around that it could become a grant program.

I will now yield to the gentleman from Texas if he can explain to me how it can both be a grant program and something that gets people further in debt.

I understand it's going to be primarily-- --

I'm sorry. It's my time. You asked me a question. I'm going to answer it. I will note you don't want to answer the question.

I am being consistent. Yes, I think it will work out for most people as primarily a grant program, 84 percent. I am pointing out that the gentleman is trying to cover his own embarrassment because he made the argument without any basis that it was going to put people further in debt. He then acknowledges that it's a grant program. People do not become further indebted when they receive grants.

So, yes, it will work out for people who are responsible, to a great extent, as a grant program. That's why the CBO says 84 percent will be spent. That 84 percent in our bill, as we did it, would come from the large financial institutions. I don't want it to come from the taxpayers. While temporarily it now does, we will be offering a bill--I hope the committee of which the gentleman is an active member will give us consideration--so we can amend the law under which this program is authorized so that every penny, whether it's loans or grants or some combination--it will be primarily grants--will

come from the large financial institutions and not a penny from the taxpayer.

It will work out as a grant.

Again, I am struck by the gentleman from Texas. He is the one who said it was an excessive loan program and a grant program. He has made two entirely inconsistent statements in a very short period of time. Even for a politician, that's a record for self-contradiction.

The point is that it is both a grant and a loan. It will be primarily a grant.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman from Texas who consecutively denounced this program for putting people in debt and for being a giveaway grant asked me whether it was designated as a loan or a grant. The answer is neither. The program is called the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program, meaning it leaves open what kind it would be. So that's the answer to his question, and that's why some of us were less confused than others of us.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman gets himself further and further in the hole when trying to explain his contradictory statements.

The facts are very clear. He began by saying it was going to put them further and further in debt. That, of course, contradicted his colleagues who had said it was going to be too much of a subsidy. In fact, it does not say ``loan'' or ``grant'' in the title. It says ``emergency relief,'' and it does provide for a loan and forgiveness.

So I am sorry the gentleman got himself tongue-tied, but don't blame the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have to respond to what I just heard because it simply isn't true. The notion that the government directed people to make these loans is not true. I don't understand what directive the gentleman is referring to. I would be glad to yield to him.

What policy of the Federal Government, what law directed people to make loans of 120 percent loan-to-value?

I yield to the gentleman.

I reclaim my time.

Understand the difference, ``directed'' and ``allowed.'' Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac never originated a loan. They could not have directed anybody to do anything. They were the secondary market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could only get into action if some private entity made the loan in the first place. Beyond that, during the period when we had the increased subprime loans, which some of us were trying to ban, Fannie and Freddie were in a declining percentage.

But I will yield again to the gentleman to tell me who directed the private sector to make these loans.

I reclaim my time.

I want to say to the gentleman, we are here in the House of Representatives making policy. You have got to be precise. I would say to Members about what you say, ``directing'' and ``allowed'' are two very different things. It is one thing to allow it.

By the way, when you were talking from the perspective of the private sector, it's a very big difference. And there are many things that the government allows that I wouldn't direct. There are things it allows that I wish people wouldn't do. But the gentleman didn't say ``allowed''; he said ``directed.'' That's simply wrong. I asked because--and he didn't say this, and I acknowledge that, but there were some who tried to blame the Community Reinvestment Act.

I should note that in the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, three of the four Republican appointees, including Bill Thomas, our former colleague here, chair of the Ways and Means Committee, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the chief economic adviser to Mr. McCain, specifically repudiated the notion that the CRA had caused this. So we ought to be very clear.

I was not talking about Republicans making mistakes. I have no idea what that's

supposed to contribute to the debate. I was citing two responsible and thoughtful Republicans, the former chair of the Ways and Means Committee and Mr. McCain's chief budget adviser, plus all of the financial regulators under both Bush administrations who said CRA wasn't the problem.

Now, the gentleman didn't say that it was. Some people have said that, because CRA did have some kind of more mandatory position, but it wasn't for those subprime loans. In fact, with regard to the loans the gentleman is legitimately complaining about, it was those of us on the Democratic side who tried to ban them. Beginning in 2004, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), I joined them a little bit later, tried to outlaw those loans. And we were blocked by people who said, No, that's a mistake.

In fact, in 2007, when this House, when we became the majority, finally did make illegal many of those loans in a bill, The Wall Street Journal denounced us and said we had created a Sarbanes-Oxley restriction for housing.

So I just want to make it clear that there was no direction by any entity of the Federal Government. The gentleman appears to acknowledge that when he said, well, Fannie and Freddie allowed it. That's a long way from saying that it was directed.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

You've got to move quickly. I have only got 5 minutes here.

I am reclaiming my time. The gentleman is using it up with the papers.

Here's the deal: 1975 is when it happened in Pennsylvania, not in America, if he had been listening carefully. Secondly, in 1995 we didn't have this foreclosure crisis. Third, as to was this just a new program, in fact, this program for the 32 States where it will operate is based on the program which operated in 18 other States, so we have had experience with it.

By the way, the gentleman from Alabama's Governor praised this program in his State where it operated. The Governor of New Jersey, Mr. Christie, praised this program.

So this is a new program for these 32 States, but it is modeled on a program that has worked successfully in these other 18 States. In 1975, it was Pennsylvania, not the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Chairman, the American people woke up several days ago to the very sad reality that this Nation has just incurred its single largest monthly deficit in the history of the Nation, $226 billion, which, by a back-of-the-envelope calculation, that is roughly $2,500 for every household in just 1 month. And, Mr. Chairman, February is the shortest month of the year. This is on top of our Nation's first trillion-dollar deficit, our Nation's second trillion-dollar deficit. And now, according to the budget presented by the President of the United States, the third-largest, the largest deficit, in America's history and the third trillion-dollar-plus deficit.

Mr. Chairman, the Nation is drowning in a sea of red ink. If we want to help job creators create jobs today, we have got to start taking away the uncertainty of this huge national debt. If we want to save our children from bankruptcy tomorrow, we have to start doing something about the national debt. But everybody says essentially: well, not in my backyard. Not with my programs. Not today. Let's do it some other day. Let's kick the can down the road.

But, Mr. Chairman, this is a Nation that is borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, much of it from the Chinese, and we are sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. This is a form of intergenerational theft. The Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland, when Republicans were in control and the deficit was a fraction, a fraction of what it is today, he termed it ``fiscal child abuse.'' The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said that when the annual deficit was $200 billion. Now the monthly deficit is $200 billion. If we want to help create jobs today, if we want to spare our children bankruptcy, we have got to quit spending money we don't have.

And so this week, Mr. Chairman, House Republicans have brought a couple of bills to the floor to do something that is rarely ever done in this institution, and that is to save American families and save small businesses money: terminate a program. You know, as we are coming off the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birthday, I am reminded, and perhaps I don't have the quote exact, but he said something along the lines of the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal program.

So the bill we have before us today is a program that was originally authorized in 1975 and was never funded in its 35-year history. Now, a billion dollars has been allocated for this program. It is not out the door. Nobody has used that money. It is in a series of so-called foreclosure mitigation programs that the administration has put forth, almost all of which have been abject failures even by their own yardstick, by their own measurement.

Number one, the best foreclosure mitigation program in America is a job. It's a paycheck. It's not a government check, it's a paycheck. Job creators are hampered by the uncertainty of the national debt. Historic levels of debt will lead to historic levels of taxation, which leads to historic levels of unemployment.

The equation could not be more true. The equation could not be more elementary.

But don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. Let's hear from some of the job creators in America. Let's hear from the CEO of Caterpillar, which employs tens of thousands of people across our Nation: Unfunded entitlement programs, coupled with the coming wave of retiring baby boomers, will push the deficit to untenable levels. It is a train wreck.

Mike Jackson, the CEO of AutoNation, with 19,000 employees: The best thing that this town could do to help the economic recovery become sustainable is to deal with the deficit.

Bernie Marcus, the former chairman and CEO of Home Depot, with over 200,000 employees in the U.S.: If we continue this kind of policy, we are dead in the water. Businesspeople, they don't know what's coming-- the debt, the budget. This debt we have is in the trillions. I'm going to have to pay for this somehow.

Mr. Chairman, these are just a few of the voices of job creators.

I am heartened to see that the unemployment rate ticked down last month. Frankly, it is attributable mostly to the fact that we now have a divided government. Job creators now know there is at least some check on the excesses of the Obama administration. It is a testament to the fact that, at the end of the last Congress, Republicans were successful in blocking, at least for 2 years, the single largest tax increase in America's history, and I don't know any American who believes that if you increase taxes on one's company that that's going to lead to a raise, to a bonus, or to employing more workers.

Finally, we have what Warren Buffett calls the regenerative nature of the free enterprise system. This is an economy that wants to recover; but since the Great Depression, we've never had a longer recession or a more tepid recovery, which is due to the policies of the President and of the previous Democratic Congresses. So, if we want to help create jobs today, we're going to have to show that we can put the Nation on a fiscally sustainable path.

Now, this is a $1 billion program where not $1 has left the door yet. I'm sitting here thinking, Mr. Chairman: If this body, after having 75, 76 some odd different government housing programs that add up to, roughly, 56 some odd billion dollars that, frankly, have grown at an exponential over the family budget--the family budget has to pay for the HUD budget--if we can't terminate, in order to save our children from bankruptcy, in order to help create jobs, one program at $1 billion where not one penny has left the door, how are we ever going to make the tough decisions that are necessary to save the country from bankruptcy?

Mr. Chairman, at some point, you've got to quit spending money you don't have. At some point, when do you ever say enough is enough? When do you say we are tired of borrowing money from the Chinese? Is it the future of our children? Is it their destiny to shine the shoes of the Chinese? Is it our children's destiny that one day they'll wait tables for the Chinese? It's not the dream I have for my 7-year-old son. It's not the dream I have for my 9-year-old daughter. It's not the American dream.

The American Dream is to leave your children with greater freedoms, greater opportunity, and a higher standard of living. That's what I believe the American Dream is.

If we can't terminate one program from which the Obama administration itself says we're going to lose 98 cents on the dollar--I didn't say it; it was the Obama administration that said it, losing 98 cents on the dollar. If we can't do this, Mr. Chairman, I have great fear and great trepidation for the future.

So I urge my colleagues to take one small, tiny baby step towards the path of fiscal sustainability. Take one measured baby step, and tell job creators in

America we are going to put the Nation's fiscal house in order. Go ahead. It's safe to invest in America again. It's safe to create jobs.

We're going to get this done. Take one tiny step today to help create those jobs and save our children from a pathway to bankruptcy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Madam Chair, again, we cannot lose sight of the fact that our Nation is drowning in a sea of red ink. It is a sea of red ink that continues to hamper job creation. Job creators today are uncertain of our future.

They know, though, they know that historic levels of debt lead to historic levels of taxation, which can only lead to historic levels of unemployment. They are looking for some signal from this body that we get it, that we get it, that we are going to stop borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, much of it from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren.

Again, when the annual deficit, the annual deficit was $200 billion and dropping, as opposed to the monthly deficit, which is now over 200 billion, but when the annual deficit was 200 billion, the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, said that was fiscal child abuse.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle are introducing the term ``mean spirited.'' I don't know. Is fiscal child abuse mean spirited? It's their term, Madam Chair. I will let them reflect upon that.

Now I hear the ranking member talk about fiscal responsibility, and he points to one item: cotton. We have heard cotton throughout this debate. But I would note that the ranking member apparently voted for the conference report on the farm bill which includes cotton subsidies that he comes to this floor to decry.

He speaks about a WTO decision, but it's the Obama administration that says that countervailing measures would have cost this country more than 800 million. I suppose we could have that debate, but I would recommend that the ranking member have the debate with the Obama administration, because that's where many of us got the information.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I would just point out to the ranking member that was not the vote before us. And if there was a chance to get out the cotton subsidies--and I must admit people on both sides of the aisle vote for them, but the opportunity was at the point of the conference report on the farm bill which the gentleman from Massachusetts voted for.

But to put this again in a larger context, we on this side of the aisle fervently believe that you will not have job creation until you put the Nation on a fiscally sustainable path. We are talking about $1 billion here. If we can't do it on this program, what program can we do it on?

And I must admit, I also find it ironic how many of my friends on the other side of the aisle will come to the floor and say, You know what? There are people in this Nation trying to force loans onto people who are unemployed, people who can't afford to pay it back, people who are in debt. That's predatory lending, and now they want the government to do the same thing.

We heard throughout the debate there needs to be a consistency, a consistency of debate. So let me get this right. A payday lender is guilty of predatory lending if they loan money to somebody who is underwater, to somebody who may be struggling, but if the Federal Government does it, it's something else. It's noble. I don't see the consistency in the debate there, Madam Chair.

But again, most importantly, when does the day arrive that we quit spending money we do not have? I say today is that day.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Madam Chair, I would note that the gentlelady from California's economic program known as the stimulus has helped another 3 million of our fellow citizens lose their jobs.

Point of Order

Madam Chair, I make the point of order that the amendment violates clause 10 of rule XXI known as the cut-go rule.

I have been advised by the chair of the Committee on the Budget that the amendment would cause a net increase in mandatory spending relative to the bill in the period specified in the rule.

Accordingly, the point of order lies, and I ask for a ruling from the chair.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, we can do better than trillions of dollars of debt that is borrowed from the Chinese and the bills are sent to our children and grandchildren. When the annual deficit was $200 billion and falling, another gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished Democratic whip, said it was fiscal child abuse. Now we have a monthly deficit equaling that annual deficit.

So I listened carefully to this gentleman from Maryland. And when I go to church on Sunday, I'm going to be very glad in my heart, in my head, that I did not commit an act of fiscal child abuse on my children or anybody else's children or grandchildren. We have got to stop spending money we don't have.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Waters

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee brought to our attention something that, I believe, every veteran now knows, which is that the biggest threat to our national security is our national debt.

I am not a veteran. My brother was. He fought during the Cold War. My father was. He fought during Korea. My grandfather was. He fought during World War II. So I know veterans, Mr. Speaker, and there are no citizens in our country who are more passionate about the preservation of our national security than our veterans. There is no veteran I know of who would not put country before self. There is no veteran I know of who wants to mortgage our Nation's future to China. There is no veteran I know of who wouldn't be ashamed and embarrassed to have China foreclose on our Nation because of the national debt that has been run up by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

If we want to have a secure Nation, if we want jobs, if we want to save America from bankruptcy for our children, we've got to quit spending money we don't have. Veterans put country before self.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding this time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I certainly want to agree with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, that what the world is waiting for this Congress to do is to create jobs. We are approaching 100 days here without a single bill to do that, and we certainly look forward to that great day.

Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that this country was facing the real possibility of another Great Depression. The financial crisis of 2008 was caused by reckless decisionmaking on Wall Street that had deep and painful impacts on hardworking Americans everywhere. As a result, millions of people lost everything. They lost jobs, retirement savings, and homes. All across America, families anguished over how to avoid homelessness, how to feed their families, how to keep them intact, how to keep their lives together for just one more day.

Three years later, we are starting to see the signs of a fragile recovery. However slowly, we have started to see modest private sector job growth over the past few months. However, we are far from where we need to be, and the troubled housing market remains in complete disarray. Millions of Americans are unemployed and still struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments. Millions more are saddled with mortgages worth more than their homes.

Foreclosures swallowed up a whopping 1.2 million homes across the country in 2010, up from 900,000 in 2009. Despite the Republicans' apparent lack of concern for the ongoing foreclosure mess, many estimate that the United States will eclipse previous yearly totals and foreclose on even more Americans in 2011.

There is overwhelming evidence that everybody knows about that many of these foreclosures were faulty or downright illegal, and yet no accounting of this failure is demanded. But the people who lost their homes have lost it in major ways and have no recourse except some of these bills. These bills obviously need a lot of help. I couldn't agree more. They are not the best we could do. And yet the sad thing to me is that once these four bills are done away with, there is no replacement, and we simply leave Americans to function as best they can.

If we are a Nation that cares whether or not our neighbors are kicked out onto the street, it's clear that we can't end these programs designed to lend a helping hand without something to replace them. The Emergency Homeowners Loan Program was created to help prevent foreclosures that are the result of massive financial hardships caused by unemployment and underemployment across the Nation.

Admittedly, some foreclosure prevention efforts of the past few years have not had as much success as we hoped. And we certainly have had very little cooperation from banks. They were simply asked to help, not required to. Democrats agree that the programs need improvement and would support a process to allow for bipartisan collaboration. So it's a shame that we stand here today ready to kill this program before it even gets off the ground or has a chance to help stem the tide of foreclosure.

My colleagues on the other side are ready to end the program without offering any solution to what is clearly a continuing problem. But if we don't provide help to our constituents in need, then who? It surely won't be the big banks foreclosing on our neighbors at record numbers. Just today, the New York Times reports that the CEO of Bank of America rejected the idea of reducing home loans for Americans in need. He thinks if he has to do it for one, he'll have to do it for all.

What's fair about big banks reporting record profits by kicking homeowners out on the street? What's fair about banking executives walking away from their failed mortgage schemes without punishment while thousands live in their cars or subsist in squalor not fit for a global superpower? The audacity to call for a fair modification process after swindling millions of Americans with predatory mortgages and walking away with record profits as the house of cards collapsed is simply maddening. Yet we stand here today preparing to debate a bill that will tell the American people that we just don't care.

With so many homeowners still facing foreclosure, we should be focused on ways to improve programs designed to keep people in their homes. Many of these families are facing insurmountable odds on their own, but with just a little help they may be able to make it through this tough time. But instead of reforming the program, today we are eliminating it.

I would like to talk a little about the process. Today's rule is called a modified open rule, but this is not an open process. For starters, if the debate on the bill inspires an amendment, a Member cannot offer it because it would not have been printed in time. Secondly, if the bill is changed by an amendment, Members will not have the ability to respond to the changes. This limits the give-and-take of ideas that is the hallmark of dynamic and rigorous debate. But the biggest problem with this process is that Members who want to reform the program rather than completely get rid of it must find a germane offset, which is nearly impossible because the bill completely eliminates the program. In other words, any amendment to save any part of it would have to be offset by new money.

We agree that reform is needed. Members have ideas for reform, alternatives to simply eliminating the existing program. Unfortunately, under this process, these alternatives cannot be offered.

I urge my colleagues on the other side to work with us to improve these foreclosure programs, stem the foreclosure tide, and strengthen our middle class. This bill does not do that.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) to respond.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I would like to yield myself 1 minute, if I may, simply to say that one of the things that we're hearing today is that these bills are unneeded.

Let me just quote a little bit from the Dallas Morning News: home prices down 3.6 percent in December, 40 percent of home sales in north Texas are foreclosed and short-sale homes. A Dallas housing analyst said, ``There's no doubt the foreclosures continue to have an impact on the market,'' and they're going to receive 135 million assistance unless all these bills die.

I will insert the full text of the Dallas Morning News into the Record. I obviously mention Dallas because that is the district of my colleague, and I wanted to point out that there's pain at home.

[From the Dallas Morning News, Feb. 22, 2011]

Dallas-Area Home Prices Sag Again

(By Steve Brown)

Dallas-area home prices show no sign of a rebound in the

latest measure. And economists worry that further declines

are ahead.

Prices in the area were down 3.6 percent in Standard &

Poor's/Case-Shiller Home Price Index released Tuesday.

The December report was the sixth consecutive year-over-

year Dallas decline in the closely watched monthly survey.

Nationwide home prices were 2.4 percent lower than a year

earlier, according to Case-Shiller.

Only two of the 20 cities that Case-Shiller tracks had

increases from previous-year levels.

``Despite improvements in the overall economy, housing

continues to drift lower and weaker,'' Standard & Poor's

David Blitzer said in the report.

Dallas' decline in December was a bit improved from the 4.2

percent annual price drop that the area saw in November.

Home prices in the area remain about 9 percent below where

they were at the peak of the market in 2007.

So far, that's the smallest such drop among all the U.S.

markets that the Case-Shiller index tracks.

Nationwide prices have slid about 30 percent since

residential values began falling in summer 2006.

Dallas prices at the end of 2010 were about 5 percent lower

than they were in June, when the local housing market

appeared to have turned the corner.

Since then, sales have plunged and the number of

foreclosures coming onto the market has grown--both creating

downward pressure on prices.

``There's no doubt the foreclosures continue to have an

impact on the market,'' said David Brown, who heads the

Dallas office of housing analyst Metrostudy Inc. ``We are

[also] continuing to see the effect of the slowdown in sales

after the tax credit expired.

Positive, but . . .

``I think the reports will start to turn more positive in

the second half of the year,'' Brown said.

In the meantime, economic growth in the area and expected

gains in home sales later in 2011 will reduce the unsold

inventory, he said.

But there are also worries that thousands of public-sector

layoffs will add to the housing sector's woes. ``Most of the

people who work in the public sector are homeowners,'' said

Dr. James Gaines, an economist with the Real Estate Center at

Texas A&M University. ``It will be like another wave of

private-sector layoffs.''

Gaines said it's too early to tell how many teachers and

other state and local government workers will lose their

income because of Texas' huge budget shortfall.

But he knows the impact of these layoffs could cause

further home foreclosures and certainly reduce potential

housing purchases. ``Hopefully, the private sector will

absorb some of these folks losing their jobs,'' Gaines said.

``It depends on how severe it is.''

Case-Shiller said that at the end of 2010, the biggest home

price declines were in Detroit, down 9.1 percent from a year

earlier, and Phoenix, down 8.3 percent.

Washington, D.C., (up 4.1 percent) and San Diego (up 1.7

percent) were the only markets that Case-Shiller studied

where December prices were higher.

Dallas-area home prices began falling in July after eight

months of year-over-year gains.

Troubled properties

By recent estimates, almost 40 percent of monthly home

sales in North Texas are distressed properties--previously

foreclosed and short-sale homes. On average, these homes sell

for about 30 percent below nondistressed prices.

Case-Shiller looks at the actual value of specific single-

family homes over time. The index does not include

condominiums and townhouses. It only covers pre-owned

properties--no new construction.

Declining home prices.

Percentage change in home prices in December 2010 compared

to year earlier in each market.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Atlanta.................................................... -8.0% Boston..................................................... -0.8% Charlotte.................................................. -4.4% Chicago.................................................... -7.4% Cleveland.................................................. -4.0% Dallas..................................................... -3.6% Denver..................................................... -2.4% Detroit.................................................... -9.1% Las Vegas.................................................. -4.7% Los Angeles................................................ -0.2% Miami...................................................... -3.7% Minneapolis................................................ -5.3% New York................................................... -2.3% Phoenix.................................................... -8.3% Portland................................................... -7.8% San Diego.................................................. 1.7% San Francisco.............................................. -0.4% Seattle.................................................... -6.0% Tampa...................................................... -6.2% Washington................................................. 4.1% Composite-20 city.......................................... -2.4% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Standard & Poor's and Fiserv

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

I yield the gentleman 3 additional minutes.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

I have no further requests for time, Mr. Chair, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, at this time I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

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

The American people have sent us here to tell the truth, and the truth is that there are too many government programs that do not work and actually make things worse. These government programs are paid for by the American people.

You can say that it's not from the Treasury, or that it's from the Treasury; that it's from TARP, it's not from TARP. But the fact remains that it is from the American taxpayer. In fact, the gentleman at one time said it comes out of the Treasury. Then he said it comes from TARP. But the promise in 2008 was that it would go back to the American people. It would go back in the national Treasury. In fact, it does not. I will address where it goes, and I think the American people, when they find out where it goes under this program, they're going to be even more upset. I don't think they'll be surprised, because I think they've come to realize that there's not a lot of will in Washington to protect them, the taxpayers.

The American people already know that there are too many ineffective government programs that cost too much, and this is a poster child for those programs. If you can't cut this program, I'm not sure you can cut any. And when we find such programs, we as the representatives of the people have a duty and a responsibility to the taxpayers to end these programs. That's what we are doing this morning. We're going to end this program. That's what we're here for.

In this legislation by the gentleman from Texas, we stop a $1 billion failed spending program. Now it's a well-intentioned program. But just as the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so is the road to higher deficits and record-breaking debt, a debt that our children and our grandchildren will have to pay.

You know, when we talk about the taxpayers ultimately fund this program, when we borrow at 42 cents out of every dollar, it's our children and our grandchildren that will have to pay for these programs. We're charging something and we're telling them to pay the bill.

Today, we have an unthinkable debt of $14 trillion, a debt that imposes a birth tax on every child born in America. It's $45,000 today. Just last year it was $35,000. It's grown by $10,000. Even worse, this debt or birth tax is growing every day, because our government is spending some days $5 billion, some days $8 billion more than it takes in and adding to what our children and grandchildren will have to pay.

One question that the American people often confront is, are they better off than their parents and will their children be better off than they are, and their grandchildren? It's interesting that in survey after survey, or poll after poll, the American people say, we're better off than our parents. Our parents fought for our freedom, they preserved it in numerous wars, they saved their money, they watched their money, they worked hard, and they left us in good shape.

But when that same question is a little different question, ``Do you think your children or grandchildren will be better off?'' the American people know. They instinctively know. ``No'' is the answer, sadly. And that's because of our national debt and our deficit. In fact, both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary Robert Gates have said that it's a national security problem. Our debt threatens our very existence as a country.

This Washington spending binge is driving our country right off a cliff. We've seen the effect of overspending on our economy today. The government absorbs so much money from our citizens that it's hard to create private jobs. Each dollar out of the economy is a job that the private sector can't create.

Now actually President Reagan and President Clinton both realized this and they grew the economy. Those were the only two years with a growing economy and government spending either level or going down. That's the

only time in our country we had a surplus. They both realized that it was the private sector that would see us out of this. This growth in the Federal Government and in its spending is hampering job creation. And that's what these homeowners need. They need a job.

Let's look at this program. This is from the Obama administration. This is their budget that was just filed. Here is what the American people need to know. What does this program do? It offers a loan of up to $50,000 to pay all arrearages to homeowners on their first mortgage. Fifty thousand dollars. And then to pay up to 24 consecutive months of mortgage payments; 24 months of their mortgage payment.

Both the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Massachusetts kept talking about the large financial institutions. That's who is owed the money. In fact, we're not getting this money from the large financial institutions. Just the contrary. We're paying them, because they're the ones that hold this mortgage. So when the taxpayers write a $50,000 check under this program to pay arrearages on the mortgage, who do you think it goes to? It goes to Bank of America. It goes to Morgan Chase. It goes to Citigroup. It's shocking that the gentleman from Massachusetts would actually say that this money is coming from the very institutions that are going to receive this money. This billion dollars is not going to homeowners. It's going to these large financial institutions. He says they're the ones that ought to be paying this, not the homeowners or not the taxpayers. We always thought the homeowners were supposed to pay their mortgages. But I think we could all agree that it's not the taxpayer. It's just an astounding thing.

He says that if Flip Wilson told us to vote for something, we would. But it wasn't Flip Wilson. It was Ron Kirk. And what did he tell us? If I were Chairman Frank, I would talk about anything but this failed program. I think that's why they've talked about everything but this failed program. It was Ron Kirk that told us that our automobile sector would suffer, that our pharmaceutical sector would suffer. He said that this would cost jobs in medical equipment, electronics, textiles, wheat, fruit, nuts, cotton. He did include cotton. He said $60 billion worth of exports were at risk.

Well, do the math: 7,000 jobs for each $1 billion worth of exports, that's 420,000 jobs. So do you want to vote against something that would put 420,000 Americans out of jobs? And then they would all line up for another government program that the minority would design?

The other thing--and this is the last thing I'll say. They keep saying that the taxpayers will get paid back. Well let me introduce this. This is from the Obama administration. This is their same budget for fiscal year 2012. It estimates the losses on this program, and they have accused us of making up these figures, 97.72. That's the loss on this program, 98 cents out of every dollar. Madam Chair, it's time to end this failed program.

I thank the gentleman.

We are talking about our soldiers, our veterans. What do they do? They fight for our freedom, for our national defense. What is the greatest threat to our country now? What is the greatest threat to our national security? It is the debt. Don't take my word for it.

Admiral Mullen said just 2 months ago: The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently said on CNN: The country's dire fiscal situation and the threat it poses to American influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the United States Government faces its financial crisis.

We can start representing our soldiers and our veterans and those they defend by cutting out this worthless $1 billion program where 98 cents out of every dollar is never repaid. Let's move today. Let's defend our country. Let's start cutting our debt.