I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Madam Chair, this is an amendment which is identical to a bill passed by the House earlier this year, in March. The bill permits what is referred to as ``cramdown'' in…
I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Madam Chair, this is an amendment which is identical to a bill passed by the House earlier this year, in March. The bill permits what is referred to as ``cramdown'' in chapter 13 with regard to private home mortgages. It is intended to address this foreclosure crisis without taxpayers having to put money into the deal. It essentially forces the parties to deal with their problems without having vacancies and foreclosures in our neighborhoods.
In that sense, it helps all lenders with real estate portfolios. It helps the individuals whose homes might be foreclosed upon. It actually helps the creditors, who are forced into the chapter 13 process because, in almost every instance, their portfolios are improved by not having as many houses in foreclosure, and in almost every instance, they get better deals in the chapter 13 process than they would in the normal foreclosure process.
We should have done this long ago. It would have helped the housing crisis and, consequently, the economy of the country.
I compliment Mr. Miller from North Carolina. This was originally his bill. He has been pushing this for several years. I also compliment Ms. Zoe Lofgren from California, who couldn't be here today because of family matters, because she has been a real stalwart in moving this forward.
I reserve the balance of my time.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, let me just make a couple of observations. If, in fact, you are jobless and don't have income, you are not eligible for chapter 13. Consequently, you won't be able to cram down. It is those who do have jobs and who do have income who could survive if they had the opportunity to restructure their debt. They would be eligible. It's only those folks.
As far as increasing the cost of credit is concerned, this bill provides that it is retroactive. It doesn't apply to future credit. Many, many experts have looked at this and have concluded that it will not increase the cost of future credit.
I reserve the balance of my time.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, to other homeowners, we should say that your home values won't decline as rapidly, because there won't be as many vacancies. We are not asking you to put a dime into the deal. No taxpayer dollars go into the deal at all. To those who cannot afford chapter 13, obviously, some other remedy is called for than this; but for those who can afford a chapter 13, you are helping everybody by filing a chapter 13.
Having spent years in this business, creditors will not be harmed, and the cost of credit will not go up. That is particularly true because, in this bill, it only applies to existing mortgages. It doesn't apply to future mortgages, so it is widely conceded that the cost of credit will not go up. This is truly a win-win.
I was originally opposed. I've been in this business for a long time. I had a change of heart. The change of heart focuses on the crisis that we are in right now. You can go to my Web site. On the front page of the Web site, those who are interested will find a detailed explanation of why this is absolutely the right thing to do.
With that, it seems to me I've responded to everything that the gentleman from Virginia has said.
I reserve the balance of my time.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I will simply repeat:
Since this is only applicable to existing mortgages, it will have no effect on the cost of future mortgages. The beauty of it is we will have fewer foreclosures.
So, to the gentleman from California and to those in California who are in neighborhoods which are really struggling with this phenomenon of housing prices collapsing because of all of the vacancies, all of those folks will be helped by this without putting a single dime of taxpayer dollars in the deal. It seems to me that is a complete justification for doing this. We should have done it long ago.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, there is a thing called the ``tragedy of the commons.'' It is a theoretical concept that applies in this particular case. It refers to the opening of common areas for grazing. Then those who have sheep come in and overgraze that area, and the effect is not that everybody gets wealthier; it's that everybody gets poorer.
As an individual creditor, I am not interested in having somebody fool around with me in bankruptcy court or something like that. Yet, combined, creditors are advantaged by having fewer foreclosures on the market in a situation like this. Having represented an awful lot of banks, having spent an awful lot of my life as a bankruptcy lawyer, law professor, and commercial litigator, I am absolutely convinced that I was wrong to initially reject this concept. We should have done it a couple of years ago.
If we apply it now, we will catch what appears to be an ongoing wave of foreclosures. It will help the individuals who can rescue their homes. It will lessen the number of foreclosures, consequently helping all other homeowners. No taxpayer dollars are involved, and creditors are assisted by this with no threat whatsoever to an increase in mortgage prices.
We passed this before. We should pass it again. It is appropriate to this particular piece of legislation because the work we are doing right now is prompted as a result of the credit crisis that was caused initially by housing issues. So housing should be addressed as part of fixing the overall financial situation.