Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this ill-advised effort to repeal the Home Affordable Modification Program. Instead, we ought to be focusing on how we can move together, Democrats and Republicans, to address the foreclosure crisis and keep families in their homes.

Since the housing bubble burst, over 9 million Americans have gone into foreclosure. In my little State of Delaware, annual foreclosure filings nearly tripled over the past few years. And we aren't even one of the worst, hardest hit States.

Now, one thing is clear. We can't help every one of these homeowners. Every situation is different; and, frankly, not every homeowner can or should be helped. And most of the help should come from the banks and mortgage servicers, but they are not doing nearly enough in the State of Delaware.

What is incredible to me is that, with the HAMP Termination Act, our friends on the other side of the aisle have decided not to help at all; and that will mean a more direct path to foreclosure for thousands of families.

The claim is that HAMP has hurt more people than it has helped. That is simply a ridiculous charge. Back in my home State of Delaware, the HAMP program has helped 1,600 homeowners, by far the most effective government program. That's 25 percent of the homeowners who filed for foreclosure last year.

And I know a little bit about this. I served as the chair of the foreclosure task force when I was lieutenant governor for over a year.

And the best course, the best result we know is for the private banks, as I said, and the servicers to make the modifications necessary, for the private sector to shoulder the bulk of the burden. But they're just not doing it. And so public officials need tools to help out, and HAMP is one of the best tools we have.

The real question here is whether you believe there is an appropriate role for government at all to help homeowners facing foreclosure through no fault of their own. It's okay to use taxpayers funds to bail out the banks, but my friends on the other side don't want to use a small amount to help homeowners.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 189, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Point of Order

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 155, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. It would eliminate funding for the $50 million oil and gas research and development program funded through the Department of Energy's fossil energy R&D account.

This cut, which the President also proposed in his FY12 budget, would save the taxpayers money and end an unnecessary subsidy to the oil and gas industry.

I am proposing elimination of this R&D program because the research is being done and should be done by the industry itself.

Don't just take my word for it. The industry itself is doing the job and says so. There is an ad in today's edition of The Hill newspaper on the back which says, in part, this is placed here by the people of America's oil and natural gas industry; that oil and natural gas companies are leading innovators investing hundreds of billions of dollars in innovative technology and capital projects over the past decade.

We should be using our scarce Federal dollars on clean energy innovation that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, and to stay competitive globally.

This continuing resolution would cut over $2 billion in renewable energy research and development. At a time when we are looking to cut unnecessary spending, the oil and gas R&D program should be on the chopping block as well.

The oil and gas industry has ample resources to develop these technologies without this Federal subsidy. A recent GAO report found that the industry spends over $2 billion of its own money annually on

Mr. Chairman, my point is that the industry itself is doing this research and development and should do it without a Federal subsidy. I mentioned the full-page ad in today's edition of The Hill newspaper, which says that they are doing this.

We shouldn't be subsidizing an industry that's mature and profitable. We need to be spending money on renewable energy sources so that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, in this continuing resolution, we're cutting $2 billion out of research and development for new energy sources.

I don't object to research and development going on for traditional oil and gas industry, but the industry itself ought to be doing that research.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Carney

Amendment No. 241: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Carney

Amendment No. 242: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 18, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this counterproductive effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Instead, we ought to focus on how we can move forward together, Democrats and Republicans, to address the very serious challenge of rising health care costs. Among developed nations, the United States spends twice as much as a share of GDP on health care; yet we rank near the bottom in health outcomes.

Insurance premiums more than doubled in the last decade. Absent reform, they are on pace to double again by 2020. These costs are unsustainable for Delaware families and for the Federal budget. There can't be serious conversation about deficit reduction without talking about health care cost containment. Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP alone consume one-quarter of the Federal budget. The Affordable Care Act will curb health care cost growth, but there is a lot more that needs to be done.

I came to Congress to make the tough, thoughtful decisions necessary to improve the Affordable Care Act, not repeal it. And I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that.

Article IV, section 1: ``Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.''