Floor Statements

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

Let me begin again by thanking Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks for their continued leadership on this bill and this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday, Representative Baca and I offered an amendment that directs $10 million from the Defense-Wide Operations and Management account and moves it to the Strategic Environmental Research Program and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program.

These funds would provide the Research and Development Programs additional resources for competitive grants that allow our communities to provide clean water. It is critical that Congress support DOD efforts to develop innovative solutions that use the best technology available to us for problems like the perchlorate contamination that areas in my district in California deal with.

Perchlorate is a chemical used to produce explosives that, when found in groundwater, can be harmful to women, children, and the elderly. In fact, one-quarter of Inland Empire aquifers, including basins from surrounding counties, contains high concentrations of perchlorate.

Just this week, the U.S. Geological Survey released findings from a statewide assessment of groundwater quality that high levels of perchlorate were discovered in 11 percent of wells and moderate concentrations in 53 percent of wells. That is statewide, Mr. Chairman.

Groundwater contamination and other contamination from former defense sites are becoming increasingly problematic throughout the Nation. Based on those facts, I would like to yield to the chairman for the purpose of entering into a colloquy, with hopes that we can work on this issue in the future.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I thank the chairman for agreeing and committing to work with me on this issue. I'd like to thank Representative Baca for his leadership in support of this issue, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko

Mr. Speaker, rise to pay tribute to Southern California Regional Rail Authority Chief Executive Officer John Fenton, who is retiring this year.

John Fenton led efforts to enhance safety and instilled safety culture at Southern California Regional Rail Authority, commonly referred to as Metrolink. He hosted a summit on safety to facilitate the implementation of safety culture nationwide, was joined by over 60 members of the California Legislature to bring awareness to safety culture statewide, pioneered a curriculum for railroad safety with the University of Southern California's Viterbi School of Engineering and deployed the safest passenger rail cars available known as the Guardian Fleet across the Metrolink System.

John Fenton's leadership and commitment to Positive Train Control implementation in advance of the federal mandate were unwavering and he became a nationwide spokesperson on its significance to rail safety in the country for passenger and freight rail providers.

John Fenton brought a level of integrity, passion and tremendous enthusiasm to the position and was respected by railroad stakeholders such as the NTSB, rail unions and federal and state regulatory agencies.

John Fenton's dedication and perseverance led Metrolink to increase its ridership, thereby reducing traffic congestion and air emissions and providing Southern California commuters with a safe, reliable, efficient and cost-effective means to travel.

In the two years that John Fenton has led Metrolink, he has ushered in a new era of service that has included a 14 percent service expansion, the introduction of express trains, bike cars, quiet cars, service to sporting events throughout the region, and increased coordination with other regional transit providers including airports.

John Fenton's private sector railroad experience helped him introduce business oriented best practices that led to efficiencies in the agency that elevated Metrolink's performance and resulted in improved Metrolink reputation in the region to passengers, employees, stakeholders, rail industry partners and the news media.

John Fenton expanded a fuel conservation policy to save over 860,000 gallons of fuel annually, reducing costs to the agency and reducing idling, noise and air emissions from Metrolink facilities and was unwavering in his vigilant pursuit of additional operational efficiencies.

Under John Fenton's administration the agency pursued major capital projects including the Metrolink Service Expansion Program, Orange County Grade Crossing Safety Improvements, Glendale Corridor Grade Crossing Safety Improvements, Los Angeles Union Station Platform Improvements, and Perris Valley Line Expansion.

John Fenton brought his strong mid-west values from Indiana to all of his endeavors while embracing his role of ``Johnnywood'' with rock-star flair, as required by the unique Los Angeles culture.

John Fenton's departure to Florida is a loss to the Southern California region's railroading industry. He is leaving an admirable legacy as well as many friends and colleagues that will miss him.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Baca amendment and I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their work on the underlying bill.

This amendment directs the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct a study of water resources in the Rialto-Colton Basin in California.

The USGS study would look at perchlorate contamination in the area's groundwater.

Perchlorate is a rocket fuel additive that impairs thyroid function in humans--and has been found to be most harmful to women and children.

This contamination is the direct result of the area having been acquired by the United States Army in 1942 to develop an inspection, consolidation, and storage facility for weapons bound for the Port of Los Angeles.

Having lived near Rialto for decades, I am very aware of the perchlorate problem we have in our drinking water.

Currently the EPA is undertaking a $25 million dollar effort to clean up the perchlorate contamination.

In order for cleanup efforts to be successful, we must first know the full scope of the problem.

We can only gain this crucial information by conducting an extensive study.

The contamination at the Rialto site was measured at more than 1,000 times the drinking-water standard for perchlorate, according to the

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2072) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Today we are considering H.R. 2072, the Securing American Jobs Through Exports Act, a bill which will reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. This legislation is the product of bipartisan discussions surrounding a common theme: maintaining and creating jobs in the United States.

The key to our economic recovery is jobs, without a doubt. In order to expand and hire new workers, American companies must have the ability to compete in a global economy. To create jobs, American companies need to be competitive with foreign companies

that have access to credit in their countries.

While the U.S. is a leading voice in the effort to eliminate market- distorting export subsidies, the Ex-Im Bank has helped to ensure that there's a level playing field for American companies when they compete with foreign competitors who are basically supported by aggressive credit agencies.

Ex-Im responds to market distortion by leveling the playing field. Ex-Im loans and guarantees are often countervailing measures to compete against other foreign credit agencies.

Some Members have concerns about this program. This bill directs the Treasury Department to initiate and pursue negotiations with other countries to substantially reduce their subsidized export financing programs and other forms of export subsidies.

The problem we face is the option of allowing China to dominate the export market. This bill ensures that U.S. companies, large and small, can compete and win against foreign competitors like China and, as a result, create U.S. jobs without putting U.S. taxpayers at risk.

During the reauthorization process, we have made taxpayer protection our top priority. This bill includes strong language to ensure that surpluses that the Ex-Im Bank returns to the Treasury are continued today and in the future. We want the bank to be a continually self- financing entity.

The bill increases accountability and risk management requirements for the bank, as well as provides for an audit of bank transactions to monitor the effectiveness and adequacy of the bank's due diligence practice and lending policies.

The bill ensures that the bank stays true to its purpose as a lender of last resort and does not compete against private sector commercial banks.

The bill includes language to make sure default rates stay low. Ex-Im loans and loan guarantees present very low risks because they are backed by collateral of the real goods for which a buyer has already been found and prices have been agreed upon.

The current default rate at the bank is less than 2 percent, much lower than commercial banks. Even with the bank's track record of extremely low defaults, the bill includes language to ensure that default rates stay below 2 percent, and includes corrective action requirements if the rate ever goes above that level. The bank does not put taxpayers at risk now. Our goal in this bill is to ensure that the bank does not put taxpayers at risk in the future either.

The bill also includes a new transparency provision for large transactions and gives the public the opportunity to comment on such transactions. The provision seeks to ensure the bank has information it needs to confirm it is not supporting transactions used to support products that could be used to compete with American companies.

This provision was crafted in a way that does not impact U.S. companies' ability to sell their products and services to global customers. Proprietary information, confidential information, and trade secrets are absolutely protected in this provision.

In addition, while many of the large projects supported by the bank are known to the market, I want to emphasize that the bank, at its sole discretion, has the authority to determine the information disclosed to ensure that the competitiveness of American companies is not compromised by information provided by the Federal Register notice.

The legislation also provides information included in the technology improvements, a review of the bank's domestic content policy, and improvements to the access of textile industries to bank operations. This is absolutely necessary in this country. These provisions will ensure that our American companies can utilize bank products to compete globally.

This is not a subsidy and is no cost to the taxpayers. That needs to be emphasized. The way Ex-Im Bank allows U.S. companies to compete globally is an example of how our government can facilitate job growth without contributing to the national debt.

Far from being a handout to corporations, Ex-Im Bank is self- financing, it turns a profit for the American taxpayer, and it helps create jobs here at home.

Since 2005, the bank has forwarded more than $3.4 billion in profits to the Treasury above all costs and loss reserves, including $400 million in 2011 alone. The legislation before us today ensures that Ex- Im Bank will continue to turn a profit for American taxpayers.

Some will say that Ex-Im only benefits large corporations. However, small businesses account for 87 percent of Ex-Im's transactions. These small business transactions do not include the tens of thousands of small- and medium-sized businesses that supply goods to these large corporations.

Dave Ickert, vice president of Air Tractor of Olney, Texas, a small business engaged in the manufacturing and sale of agriculture and firefighting planes, said at one point in our hearing:

Ex-Im has contributed to the growth of Air Tractor and

helped both create and maintain jobs in Olney, Texas. Ex-Im's

support has allowed us to sell aircraft to customers who

without that support would not have purchased our product.

This is a direct contribution to our growth.

Air Tractor has 270 employees in a town that has a population of 3,000. Over 10 percent of the population who are adults work for this company in this town. It's the largest employer in Olney. Since 1994, when they did the first Ex-Im transaction, their export sales have increased from 10 percent of what they produced to 56 percent. With 56 percent export sales in 2010, there are over 100 employees at Air Tractor in Olney, Texas, that owe their jobs and have their jobs due to use of Ex-Im bank.

Mr. Ickert said:

As I have described it before, Olney is three red lights

and a Dairy Queen; and the significance of this is that if we

can create jobs on Main Street Olney through small business

exporting, it can be done in small businesses from California

to New York. If we can do it in Olney, Texas, we can do it

all over this country.

Once again, I would like to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for coming together to put American jobs before politics. Together, we have crafted a strong bill to ensure the bank is able to continue to support U.S. companies as they compete globally and, as a result, create American jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), a staunch advocate for textile exports in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her inquiry.

The bill requires that the Federal Register notice include the identities of the obligor, principal supplier, and guarantor. In addition, the notice is to include a description of the item being financed. However, that description must be constructed in a way as to not disclose proprietary or confidential information or information that would violate or otherwise requires disclosure of a trade secret as defined by the Trade Secrets Act, or information that would jeopardize jobs in the U.S. by supplying information which competitors could use to compete with companies in the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her inquiry.

The bill requires that the public be given not less than 25 days for the submission of comments prior to the board's consideration of the proposed transaction. Upon the conclusion of those 25 days, the bank should expeditiously prepare materials submitted in public comments for consideration by the board. Transactions in excess of $100 million are currently subject to review by the Congress for 25 days a session, which can be longer than 25 calendar days, as our intent is that the board proceed with consideration of a pending application as soon as legally and practically possible.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, my friend, Mr. Luetkemeyer.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Dold.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Campbell).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished majority leader.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend, a forceful conservative voice in Congress, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

We have the right to close, I believe. I would be happy to reserve so the gentlelady could close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

There are a lot of people on our staffs that have done a great job. You've mentioned Lesli McCollum Gooch. She's been the senior policy director of the subcommittee. She's done a great job. Also, Randy Ross and Aaron Ranck. On the majority side here, Susan Blavin, Alex Teel, and Neil Bradley have all worked very, very hard. On

the minority side, I would like to just thank Georgette Sierra. She's been incredible in this whole process, working with our side. Also, Daniel McGlinchey, Kirk Schwarzbach, Kelly Larkin, John Hughes, and legislative counsel, Jim Grossman.

There's been a lot said about this bill here. Let me make it very clear: Ex-Im Bank's default rate is less than 1.5 percent. There's no lender out there that has that stellar of a record. We've put additional funds in here for green technology because Ex-Im underwrites all their own loans. That's why they're performing so well. So we've created additional funds for them so they can increase their underwriting ability to make sure they're making good, safe loans.

Ex-Im Bank makes money for the taxpayers. And they've done a great job. We have an opportunity in this country to create jobs. We can yield those jobs to China, we can yield those jobs to Germany, to France, to other countries who want to take jobs from this country, or we can make sure that American companies, large and small, have an opportunity to compete. When they compete, they create jobs. And, guess what? They make money for the taxpayers because they give it back to the Treasury. That's a win-win for everybody.

The oversight we placed in this bill--and I want to thank Majority Leader Eric Cantor for working with me on this--when it came out of subcommittee and an addendum added to that have created a very, very safe institution.

With that, I ask for an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What's interesting about the debate is, if the Senate bill is good, you're going to appoint conferees, argue for the Senate side--you don't have to introduce a bill here in the House--and expect us to accept it when we haven't read it, we haven't debated it. It came to the floor without any discussion on our side. So when we go to conference, if you like the Senate provisions, if you

like a 2-year bill when we're going to fight for a 5-year bill, you're welcome to ask for that.

But there are some things in the Senate bill that really bother me. You had the Senate side say and guarantee there were no earmarks in this bill. Well, if you look at what Senator Reid has done, in the 2005 SAFETEA LU, the House put out a $45 million request for a project that was considered a legal earmark at that point in time. What Mr. Reid has done is he has reappropriated that project to a $45 million project near the Las Vegas airport.

Now, it's nice that the Senate wants to make promises, but actions speak a lot louder than words. And when the actions of the bill state clearly that $45 million of House money authorized in 2005 is being transferred to a project in Las Vegas in a bill--and it's 2012-- something inappropriate about that promise seems to occur.

I really appreciate the chairman putting language in our original bill on environmental streamlining. I think he did a great job on this. But when I wrote the bill, the language was very clear on what we were trying to do.

In 2005, authored language in TEA LU said if a State has an environmental process that meets or exceeds Federal environmental law, they don't have to go through a duplicative process, and it allowed five States the opportunity to participate in that. But one State took advantage of that: the State of California. To this date, it's saving 17 months on process time--just application--and it's saving 30 months on delivery time.

What we tried to do in the House bill was the same thing. We're saying: Allow environmental reciprocity. But we want to go beyond that. We want to say not only should States be allowed to do that, but allow local municipalities and counties to do the same thing. They can save 17 months on process, 30 months on delivery. Today, time equals dollars. Plus, if you can create the projects today, we're going to move the economy forward in a positive direction and create some jobs.

But there's other things we need to do.

Receiving grants: Current law says that if a State or municipality applies for a Federal grant, they can't start the project until the grant money is received by the municipality or the agency. What we've done is say that once you have been approved for the grant, if you want to start the project, now start the project and you can reimburse yourself when the grant funds come in. You might save 12 months alone waiting for a grant to come in from the Federal Government; whereby, you can start today using local agency funds or State funds and get your money back when this money comes in from the grant project.

We need to establish some certainty on when you can start a project. The problem we have is, when applications are made to the Federal Government for a process for approval, it goes through an uncertain time process where they can delay and delay and delay. We've said, thanks to the chairman, that there's a date certain. Now the Federal Government has to respond by a date and has to approve it by a date.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think Chairman Mica did a great job putting the language into the bill, because it says you have to know when you can do something based on the Federal process and it sets a deadline for the Federal bureaucrats to get their job done.

Now, it seems like local governments and State governments are rapidly wanting to do things and the Federal Government drags its heels, requiring them to delay until they get final approval. We're saying, no, let's set a date for the Federal bureaucracy to approve a project--and I know you agree with this issue on your side--to let the construction projects go forward and make sure bureaucrats do their job. I approve what Chairman Mica is willing to do and wants to do here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Santa Margarita Catholic High School Eagles on their 2011 CIF State Bowl Division and 2011 CIF PAC-5 Division Championships. Their 42-37 victory on December 16, 2011, is an achievement that will be remembered forever.

Winning a state championship is a remarkable achievement. This championship is a legacy that both Santa Margarita High School and each 2010-2011 Eagle player will always cherish. The Eagles and Coach Harry Welch, along with assistant coaches John Carpenter, Sean Coen, Dave Frazeur, Paul Gomes, Joe Griffith, Wyatt Hart, Rob Hendricks, Mike Johnson, Jay Noonan, Kevin Orton, Brian Pearsall, Adrian Peters, Marty Spalding, Mike Walcott, Butch Ward and Monterio Witherspoon, know that success comes with teamwork and perseverance. The coaches rely upon team managers for expert assistance. Managers Haley Davin, Lauren Haydon, Rachel Imburgia and Sydney Martin were instrumental in the victory.

It is an honor to pay tribute to Santa Margarita High School and the entire Eagles football squad. The House of Representatives salutes each of you: Houston Agan, Matt Andersen, Reid Andrew, Ryan Andrew, Nick Begg, Tony Bone, Zach Bonte, Erik Bunte, Justin Cabrera, Josh Canty, Grant Clancy, River Cracraft, Dane Crane, Kendall Czech, Ian Dewert, Frank DiPietro, Sean Donegan, David Dotson, Chris Frost, Ryan Gardner, Sammy Gibbs, Hunter Graham, Grady Higgins, Duncan Hume, Konner Kafentzis, Patrick Kennelly, Jack Kerry, Ryan Kilander, Jonathan LaBonty, Brenden Linzmeier, Cole Luther, Michael Della Maggiore, Austin Maihen, RJ Mazolewski, Joseph McGill, John McGrory, Brady McGuire, Sean McGuire, Alec McNiff, James McQuitty, Andrew Mendonca, Cory Mendoza, Sean Modster, Connor O'Brien, Mack Pierson, Luke Poutre, Taylor Prenevost, Ben Prukop, Blaine Rieger, Drake Schwenke, Riley Sorenson, Will Sorenson, Gian Carlo Spinosi, Johnny Stanton, Luke Stinson, Alex Suchesk, Randal Swain, Kyle Sweet, Max Tuerk, Alex Ury, Ryan Wolpin and Bradley Ydens.

Congratulations again to the Santa Margarita High School Eagles.

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 yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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).

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I guess the question should be how long do we need to wait? How many more billions of dollars needs to be given away? We've already spent $6 billion. I guess we could spend more if somebody wanted to.

And when we talk about phasing out a program, it speaks to the argument that we need to spend more money on a program and continue the program. I think we've already spent too much money.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

I reclaim my time. On this issue, how long we wait is predicated on how much we are going to spend. And my colleagues on this side of the aisle believe the American people, the taxpayers have given too much of their money away, and they are saying we want it stopped, and we want you to be responsible for this money.

If this were our dollars, and we're getting in her purse and my wallet and handing the money out, that's a prerogative we have. That's not what's occurring, other than we are taxpayers too.

We've just got our hands in your pocket and your purse and spent your money on a giveaway program.

I ask for a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The other point that is significant and that needs to be dealt with here is the $6 billion that has already been given away. That money continues to recycle with those groups. It should. As to the cities, the counties, the nonprofits, when they buy a house, refurbish it and sell it and when the money comes back at whatever level, they could take that money and buy another piece of property.

Nothing in my bill does anything with the $6 billion that's out there. It just says: We're not going to give you another $1 billion. We're going to try to give that back to the taxpayers.

If we could get the $6 billion back and could find a way to do it, I believe we'd be trying to attack that vein, too, but that will not occur and cannot occur as the money has already been given away. They're going to continue to recycle it, hopefully to some benefit-- hopefully somebody will benefit from this--but it's $6 billion given away. My colleague was exactly correct in his statements. As for the $1 billion that we have not given away, we're saying it is time to stop giving away taxpayer dollars.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, the Congresswoman's amendment does nothing to help at-risk borrowers, and the notification the Congresswoman proposes would apply only to community groups, leaders and speculators currently participating in the program. It is not a serious attempt to address the underlying problem homeowners are facing today.

If we are going to have a notification requirement, it makes more sense to have the recipients of these funds to date notify taxpayers how much, in what way they have spent taxpayer dollars and what return taxpayers can expect from their investments.

Unfortunately, the answer is: none. Many have questioned HUD's ability to properly monitor the use of such extraordinary amounts of money being spent at the State level and in various ways. The Inspector General of HUD has already identified multiple misuses of NSP money at the State level. The GAO has questioned the information system in place at HUD, and has questioned its ability to track the NSP funds.

I wish the amendment had said: Please continue using the $6 billion in an appropriate way, and in some way, do everything you can to create jobs for the American workers with the $6 billion we've given you.

It does not say that, and I cannot support the amendment the way it is drafted.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, I did not introduce an amendment because I introduced the bill. I think that bill speaks for itself.

But I am glad that my good friend admitted that this was not meant to mitigate the foreclosure process for people going through. I am glad you admitted that, because that is not what your amendment says. It says that: such entities should contact such Members of Congress directly for assistance in mitigating foreclosed properties. You can't mitigate a foreclosure when you don't help anybody with the foreclosure.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

As much as I respect my good friend--and she knows--we have worked together on a lot of issues, and I don't believe anything between us has ever been personal in all the years we have known each other. And nothing in this debate is personal. We both are well intended. We both really want to help the American people. And I say that from the heart, and you know that. And I know your efforts are for the right purposes. But good people can disagree in a good way. And on this amendment, I have to respectfully disagree, and I would ask for a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friend has said that we need to determine the approximate number of foreclosed and abandoned properties that will be purchased or rehabilitated because of termination of NSP. That is impossible. We have no idea how many times the money will be recycled, because the $6 billion that is out there could be recycled over and over and over. We don't know. We don't know how much money is going to be given away to somebody who bought the house, how much is going to be taken back in the sale. So that is an unknown quantity.

But my good friend did say that 72,000 units were impacted by NSP 1. So, America, for $6 billion you impacted 72,000 units. How do you feel about that? Now, I am not sure what we did to impact them, but we impacted them. We sure spent a lot of your money impacting them.

Now, at the same time, we are asking HUD to do a study. That is like the fox guarding the hen house. I am really sorry. Because when I asked Mercedes Marquez of HUD at our committee hearing to discuss where the money went, she finally said, The money is going to homeowners and to American citizens. And they strongly support the program and they are strongly encouraging the President to veto this bill, should it get to him.

So let's just have the very organization do a study on a program that they said they support and love and, if we are successful in getting the bill passed, would encourage the administration to veto it.

That is the biggest conflict of interest I have ever had presented to me to vote on, but it is an easy conflict of interest that I say is a conflict of interest. I would strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, I know my good friend Mrs. Maloney has the best of intentions in putting this amendment forward, but you are talking about the number of homes in each State that have been vacant 90 days or more and could ultimately receive funding under the NSP.

Well, the homes are not eligible to receive funding. Entities are eligible to receive funding. Then those entities, whether they be government or private sector, can go buy those homes. The problem is they can buy any home they want to. The only restriction on the program is that you can only earn up to 120 percent of the median income in an area to qualify to buy the house, but it does not restrict the price of the home being bought by the agency or the nonprofit. They can buy virtually any home they want to, and that is one of the flaws in the bill.

For example, if you have any home that has been vacant 90 days or more, well, I have a partner of mine and myself, we had four homes for sale in the last year that were on the market more than 90 days. The houses were in perfect condition, but yet they remained on the market for over 90 days. So based on this encouragement, one of these groups, whether it be a city, a county, a private entity that is not affiliated with government, could have bought those houses and resold the houses for far less than they paid for them. That is the flaw with this program here.

We are saying that what this wants us to do here is congressional findings to the bill listing all 50 States and the District of Columbia in separate subparagraphs and the number of homes in each State that have been vacant 90 days or more and could be eligible to receive funding in NSP.

What you mean is any home vacant for over 90 days would have to be listed, because there is not a dollar amount in the bill saying how much you can pay for a house. There is only a dollar amount saying how much a person can earn to buy the house.

For example, if you live in Hawaii, you can make up to $73,825.20 a year and qualify to buy a home. In California, you can earn $68,416.80 a year and qualify to buy a home. It might be an $800,000 home, but you can still qualify, if they sell it to you cheap enough. In Virginia, you could earn $74,382 and buy a home; in New Jersey, $78,367; in Massachusetts, $72,384; in

Utah, $75,044; in Alaska, $76,786; in Colorado, $73,131; and in New Hampshire, $79,411.

So the concept of this program is just helping people at the lower rungs who are really struggling. I am not saying people aren't struggling in these income brackets. That is not what I mean. But I don't want the American people to have the perception we are just trying to pick up deals and sell them to the lowest of income levels.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I was in the building industry from my early twenties, and the most excitement you could ever see on a person's face was when they bought a home and they were moving into that home and they thought about raising their family.

I would love a country that every person in this country has the ability and the opportunity at some point in their life to buy a home. But, in some fashion, lenders have put people in positions to put them in homes that they could not afford, and those homes, in many cases the individuals lost those homes through foreclosures. And those people, who were well-intentioned, moved into homes that they could not afford because the lender perhaps did not describe it exactly or they thought the way the economy is going, in 3 or 4 or 5 years the house is going to be worth 40 percent more than I paid and I am going to make a lot of money. The problem is the market went the other way, as it did in 1974- 1975, 1981-1983, 1990-1996, and recently in 2007 to current the market slid.

And then we're saying we're going to go out and we're going to ask to do a survey and we're going to list any home throughout the United States in separate paragraphs that have been vacant for 90 days or more that could be eligible. Well, all of them would be eligible.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Frank, what specifically has been said throughout this debate, as if we're trying to help people at the lower rungs, which I have no problem with, but I'm saying that there was not a restriction on the amount that could be paid for the house and there was not a requirement of how much it should be sold for.

I ask for a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Some of the arguments that the gentlelady made are heart-wrenching. You hate to think about homeless people. Veterans are suffering in this country, there's no doubt about it. Veterans are coming back. Some of them have problems from being on the front in combat. In our church every week, our pastor talks about that, and we pray for these veterans. You feel sorry for them.

But we talk about elderly; we talk about veterans; we talk about children; we talk about homeless. Nothing in this bill prioritizes them in any fashion. There are groups that could be helped as a consequence of it, and I understand that, but nothing prioritizes.

I'm going to accept the gentlelady's amendment because I have no problem with trying to determine the economic impact of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. I think there's been a huge impact on the economy because we've given away, to date, $6 billion of taxpayers' money on this program. And I think we could have done a much better job at investing that money in another fashion that wouldn't have put the taxpayers at risk and perhaps created jobs in doing that.

But I met with the NAHB, National Association of Home Builders, to talk about all the people in the industry out of work. I've talked to BIA, talking about all the Building Industry Association members out of work, and they're trying to put them to work. This bill does not help them.

We talk about a giveaway to banks. In TARP 1, we lent money to banks, yes, and they paid it back with interest. Freddie and Fannie, yes, we're lending money to Freddie and Fannie. They're paying 10 percent interest on the money. So to create this straw man out there of the bank giveaway and Wall Street and Freddie and Fannie is fallacious. Freddie and Fannie are paying 10 percent interest on the money.

We did not just, the people who voted for the first half of TARP, vote to give

banks money and forget it, go home. It was to stop a major run on the banks and to stop this economy from plummeting. And Bernanke and Paulson and the administration, everybody on both sides of the aisle agreed it had to be done. And the money was paid back, and we made money on it. Shock.

This money was given away and we will not be getting it back.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

I would be happy to yield to the gentlelady. I was not meaning to be rude or forget about you.

Madam Chair, I reclaim my time.

I was going to allow for adequate time on that, but it was not a giveaway. It was a loan. You're comparing $350 billion in the first half that was lent to lenders to stabilize the economy versus $700 billion that was a giveaway.

It's my time, Madam Chair.

Regular order, Madam Chair.

I think we're comparing things that have nothing to do with the bill before us. So we can talk about Wall Street. We can talk about banks. If anything, this has helped banks because it's taken foreclosed properties that they've had and it's bought them. So we can add all these straw men to the debate that we want to. The thing is, should we give away taxpayer dollars? I say no and I ask for an ``aye'' on the gentlelady's amendment.

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

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

I withdraw my point of order.

That was a very nice picture of a storefront. It was not a picture of a home. Now, why would you impose a terrible program on rural America that you don't want on urban America?

You have to say we have given away $6 billion of taxpayer monies and it will never come back to the Federal Government. We are saying let's preserve the last billion dollars.

There is a huge lack of accountability in this program. The inspector general of HUD has already identified multiple misuses of NSP money at the State level. The GAO has questioned the information system that places HUD at risk using the tracking system.

How many of you want to use your money to buy this house that Chairman Bachus has pointed out? Nobody. But, taxpayers, guess what? We are using your money. The biggest problem with this program is unfair allocation.

Now, rural America, you probably got ripped off in this whole process like everybody else did because, let's see, where did the money go? In the NSP 1, we spent $4 billion. In the NSP 2, $1.93 billion. We are saying the last billion dollars, let's at least save that for the taxpayers and use it for some beneficial purpose.

Where did the money go? Let's see if it was fairly distributed. Let's look at my area. L.A. County got $26.3 million. San Bernardino County, one of the hardest hit, got $33.2 million. Orange County got $4.3 million. San Diego County, $5.1 million. A total of $68.9 million on hard-hit counties.

Now, let's see. What did nongovernment agency groups get out there that are incorporated? Neighborhood Lending Partners, Incorporated got $50 million; the Community Builders, Incorporated got $78.6 million; Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Service, Incorporated got $60 million; Neighborhood Lending Partners of West Florida, Incorporated got $50 million; and Chicanos por la Causa, Inc. got $137 million.

Now, all of my counties got $68.9 million; the Community Builders got $78.6 million; Chicanos por la Causa got $137 million. Is that considered nonequitable qualification? It is nonequitable, period. It does not make sense. And we say $1.3 billion went to nongovernment agencies.

Now, somebody said I was racist because I said Chicanos por la Causa got $137 million. They got 10 percent of all the funds given to nongovernment agencies. If it was Germans for Affordable Housing that got $137 million, I would oppose it just like I oppose this one.

Now, taxpayers understand, clearly, it did not prevent one foreclosure in this entire country. Not one person got to keep their home because we spent $6 billion. In fact, imagine the family who owned the home. Maybe the ma or pa got in trouble with their job. They couldn't quite make the payments. For the last 3 years, they have been unable to repair the plumbing. They couldn't replace the oven that wasn't working. A couple windows were broken out.

The house needed painting. And they had to sit there and let their house go back to the lender, to watch some entity, a nonprofit or government agency, buy that home, fix it up, and sell it to somebody else. How would you feel when nobody came to your aid when you were losing your home, but yet your tax dollars were used to buy that home to give it to somebody else?

Now, understand clearly, the argument they have made is look at all the money we gave to bail out the banks. Well, I got an update from Treasury today. Ninety-nine percent of the money that we lent to banks has been paid back. And, guess what? We made $20 billion on it. But we gave $7 billion away to this program. So, yes, we made 20, and we ended up with a net 13, by lending the money that you say bailed out the banks. It was a loan.

This program does nothing but say we are going to send you a check, and you never send us a dime back. And the sweet part is you can pay any amount of money you want for the house. It is almost impossible to violate the terms of this deal, because there are no conditions. You can pay $800,000 for a house and sell it for $50. The requirement is whatever you pay for the house, plus whatever you pay to rehabilitate the house, you have to sell it for less.

And it doesn't say who you have to sell it to. A nonprofit, I am not saying they would, could have a cousin who wanted to buy the house that they paid $180,000 for and they could sell it legitimately for $20,000, and, guess what? You have not violated the terms of NSP 1, 2 or 3, and you have not broken the law. And when you sell the house, if you sell it, you can take the money and recycle it again. You could even take this money and do a private venture with a private group, splitting profits, and, falling under the conditions of how you buy the house and sell the house, money gets split. There are very few restrictions in this bill.

This is a terrible bill. I would encourage a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in memory of Dr. Tim Burlingame, a great American who faithfully and tirelessly served the community and inspired thousands of young people to better themselves through the word of God.

From 1980 to 1984, I had the pleasure of working with Dr. Burlingame as a member of the Board of Directors of Sonrise Christian School. Dr. Burlingame dutifully worked to ensure his students received the finest academic and religious education from preschool to eighth grade. In August 2010, Dr. Burlingame retired from Sonrise Christian School as head administrator, a position he held for 35 years.

Dr. Burlingame generously gave his time to many educational causes. He served as a board member for the Western Christian School and the Association of Christian Schools International where he also acted as commissioner. He was a leader whose impact was undoubtedly felt well beyond the San Gabriel Valley communities to which he was so devoted.

Dr. Burlingame was an exceptional community volunteer. He was an active member of the Rotary Club, the Covina Planning Commission and a Director for the Covina Chamber of Commerce where he served a term as President.

On October 28, 2010, Dr. Burlingame left our mortal world and returned home to God.

Dr. Burlingame was a devoted Christian, loving husband, father, grandfather and valued community leader. I am proud of his many accomplishments and contributions. He has made a lasting mark on my life and countless others.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that this Congress join me in honoring the memory of Dr. Tim Burlingame, a truly great American.

This side hasn't forgotten what went on. We haven't forgotten about Madoff. But the problem is that some people have forgotten that, in 1998, a whistleblower first went to the SEC on Madoff and they did nothing--nothing. Repeatedly, individuals went to the SEC on Madoff and they did nothing.

Now, we can pass all the new regulations through Dodd-Frank we want to pass. Madoff went to jail because he was a criminal. He violated the law. And you don't need 20 laws in place to punish a person for one act. We did it. Dodd-Frank goes far beyond that. It is 243 new regulations in the pipeline; 243 is scary.

Now, the SEC has failed in many ways. I know many of my friends on this side of the aisle heard me talk about mark to market principles for 4 years with the SEC. Now, mark to market means when the lender makes a loan, they have to mark the value on their books of what the product is worth at current market value.

For example, if 5 years ago a piece of property is worth $20 million, they lent $15 million, today it's worth only $12 million, well, the SEC says we should lend no more than $8 million. Now the loan comes up for renewal and the loan is performing, meaning the individual who owns the property is current on his payments. What the lender is required to do based on SEC requirements, because Federal regulators have no control over that because SEC sets the requirements, they can either set a $7 million set-aside because the loan is overvalued based on the books, or they can say to the individual, You owe us $7 million to reinstate the loan. In this economy, most people don't have the $7 million.

Had we modified mark to market standards and looked at loans on realistic fortune principles in the future, most of these lenders today would be in business and many people would not have lost their loans and their product that they had under that loan.

We have done nothing through the SEC. In fact, the first time I asked the SEC Chairwoman in the hearing, and the question was 4 minutes long regarding mark to market principles, she looked at me and she said, I'll get back to you on that, Congressman.

Nothing to date has happened.

So to look at the SEC and say they are saints, they are doing their job and they are protecting the citizenry and the individuals out there, I can't say that. I would like to see these individuals held accountable for what they did not do. In 1998, had they moved with Madoff and done what they should have done, or in 2000 or 2002, a lot of investors would have more money than they have today, but they did not.

Just as our Nation is trying to recover, it seems like the Obama administration is doing nothing but making it harder for American businesses.

Thank you for giving me the time, Mr. Gallegly. I know you are honored to represent the library and are personal friends with the family, and that speaks volumes for your character.

I rise today to honor the remembrance of the most beloved figure and inspiring man I know of in politics, the late Ronald Reagan.

I think many Members of Congress and politicians speak volumes for the man when they stand before a crowd and say, ``I'm a Reagan Republican.'' When you can leave a legacy like that behind, because not many people say they're a Miller Republican or a Gallegly Republican, but a Reagan Republican, speaks volumes for who the man was.

As we commemorate Ronald Reagan's centennial birthday, I am honored to have the opportunity to reflect on his many accomplishments as a leader and a person. As President, Ronald Reagan believed in the American Dream. And when he talked about the American Dream, he always had this huge smile on his face because he believed in the American Dream.

His wisdom and leadership in promoting freedom, prosperity, and compassionate respect for all individuals guided our great Nation during times of both tranquility and turmoil.

President Reagan's strong belief in a limited government and fiscal responsibility should serve as a model for us today. As President, he refused to deviate from his principles and strong belief in the power of the free market. His success in reducing taxes and government spending led to a period of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity.

In the area of foreign policy, Ronald Reagan's support for a strong national defense strengthened America's standing in the world. His belief that America should serve as a beacon for democracy and freedom was unrelenting. The Reagan administration's tough stance against communist regimes and the negotiation of treaties with Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev culminated in the symbolic end of the Cold War and the liberation of millions across the globe.

As we reflect on the life and legacy left by President Reagan, his resounding words of resolve bring hope to our Nation through these times of trial and tribulation. It is my hope that President Reagan's vision for our Nation will long be remembered and revered.

I am honored to represent this man in California and say he is a hero.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat health care law contains a number of provisions that will cripple our economy and stifle job creation. With the unemployment rate above 9 percent, the last thing we should do is implement policies that will hinder the ability of employers to expand their businesses and create jobs. Unfortunately, ObamaCare does just that by punishing employers who do not or cannot provide government-approved health insurance to employees.

Businesses of every size are already struggling with the strain of rising health care costs. By imposing higher costs on employers, this onerous mandate will lead to lower wages and fewer workers. In fact, a study by the National Federation of Independent Business estimates the employer mandate will destroy 1.6 million jobs with more than half of those job losses coming from small businesses--the nation's primary source for new jobs.

To get our economy back on track, it is vital that we repeal ObamaCare immediately, and enact commonsense policies that will lower health costs for families and small businesses and protect jobs.

Madam Speaker, tonight, I rise to honor my good friend from Minnesota, Chairman Jim Oberstar. Over the years we have developed a strong friendship as we have worked together on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Chairman Oberstar leaves the House of Representatives as a legend in his own right. He has helped create decades of transportation policy which not only leaves behind a legacy here in the Capitol, but also around the Nation. Chairman Oberstar is a great

man that will continue to influence transportation policy in the future through his knowledge of the past. His presence on the Committee will truly be missed, but his influence will continue on through the decades.

Over the years, Chairman Oberstar has demonstrated his pragmatic approach to policy. He has always been willing to listen to both sides of an argument before carefully proceeding forward with a position. I, along with others, always knew where Chairman Oberstar stood on an issue and he was always willing to take the time to respectfully explain the reasoning behind his position. I have always admired his ability to find common ground and subsequently move forward in the name of sound policy.

While I will miss my good friend from Minnesota, he will continue to be a leader in the world of transportation and water policy. My friend, I wish you the best as you embark on this next adventure in your life.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Mrs. Joyce Madeline Butler, a 40-year Southern California resident and a beacon of service to her community.

Mrs. Butler was born July 22, 1943 right here in Washington, DC.

After spending her childhood in DC, Mrs. Butler moved to Hemet, CA. In the late 1960s she met her husband George, and they were married in 1968. When they arrived in Chino Hills, California years later they raised a variety of animals including rabbits, pigs, cows, and chickens. Mrs. Butler joined the Future Farmers of America shortly after cementing her love of animals.

In 1995, Mrs. Butler suffered a heart attack and was given a five-way bypass procedure in January of 1996. After her recovery, she continued to serve her family and was actively involved in her community of Chino Hills.

In 2002, Mrs. Butler took part in the formation of the Los Serranos Neighborhood Group, and in 2005 founded the Support Our Area Residents, SOAR, a group formed to provide area residents with home repairs and yard maintenance. She was recognized as a Chino Hills Citizen of the Year in 2007, and in her final years volunteered for Friends of the Library and Habitat for Humanity.

Mrs. Butler was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2008, and was called home to the Lord on November 9, 2010 at the age of 67 at her home in Chino Hills. She was surrounded by friends and family who maintain she was as comfortable as could be possible.

Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that this Congress join me in honoring the life of Mrs. Joyce Butler for her years of selfless service to her community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1326, a resolution calling on the Government of Japan to immediately address the growing problem of American children abducted to Japan.

Since 1994, the Office of Children's Issues--commonly referred to as OCI--at the United States State Department had opened

194 cases involving 269 U.S. children abducted to or wrongfully retained in Japan. As of March 25, 2010, OCI had 85 open cases involving over 121 American children abducted to Japan. Of these abducted children, Keisuke Collins, is the son of one of my constituents, Randy Collins.

Unfortunately, since the signing of the Treaty of Peace with Japan between the Allied Powers and the Government of Japan in 1951, the Japanese Government has never issued and enforced a legal decision to return a single abducted child to the United States. In addition, Japan has not agreed to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which has resulted in the continued absence of an immediate remedy that would enable the expedited return of abducted children to their custodial parent in the United States. Sadly, the Government of Japan is the only G-7 country that has not acceded to the Hague Convention.

This problem is also compounded by Japan's legal system. Because Japan's existing family law system does not recognize joint custody nor actively enforces parental access agreements for both its own citizens and foreigners, there is little hope for children to have contact with the noncustodial parent in violation of internationally recognized and protected rights. What is worse, the Government of Japan has repeatedly claimed to foreign governments that parental child abduction is not considered a crime in Japan despite the fact that Article 3 of the Japanese Penal Code does indeed make it a crime for a Japanese citizen to abduct a child and move the child across national borders.

Although Japan's current Justice Minister said upon her appointment that she is determined to show that Japan ``is very proactive'' in adopting international protocols and conventions that are the ``international standard,'' child abductions to Japan continue to be a very serious and rampant problem. Consequently, is critical for the United States and Japan to work together to prevent future incidents of international parental child abduction to Japan.

As such, I call on my colleagues to support House Resolution 1326. This resolution calls on the Government of Japan to immediately address the growing problem of abduction to and retention of American children in Japan. The resolution also calls on Japan to work closely with the United States to return these children to their custodial parent in the United States and to provide left-behind parents immediate access to their children. Lastly, House Resolution 1326 calls on Japan to immediately adopt the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction so that these abducted children can be returned to their custodial parent.

As an original cosponsor of this resolution, it is of utmost importance to not only me, but to my constituents Randy and Keisuke, that it is passed with the overwhelming support of the House of Representatives. These abducted kids--and their families--cannot wait any longer.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Albert R. Maniscalco, a longtime Southern California resident and friend to many.

Mr. Maniscalco was born April 11, 1929 in Detroit, Michigan.

He proudly served in the United States Army in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, from 1946-1949. Following his service, Mr. Maniscalco retired from the drywall and construction industry.

Although he never married he was regarded as a father figure and grandfather to many families whom he loved as his own. His closest friends and relatives would say that he was the kindest man they had ever known.

Mr. Maniscalco was called home to the Lord on August 10, 2010 at the age of 81 in Garden Grove, CA. On September 2nd he was laid to rest at the Riverside National Cemetery with Military Honors.

Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that this Congress join me in honoring the life of Mr. Albert Maniscalco for his service to our country and community.