Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 839 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 839, the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, Termination Act and commend my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) for introducing this bill.

H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act, would put an end to the poster child for failed Federal foreclosure programs. Announced by the administration in February 2009 and launched in March 2009, the program has languished for 2 years, hurt hundreds of thousands of homeowners, and must come to an end.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill would save $1.4 billion over 10 years. To date, the HAMP program has already consumed $840 million of the more than $30 billion of TARP funds that were set aside for the program. For this extraordinary investment, the administration predicted that 3 to 4 million homeowners would receive help.

Sadly, for many American homeowners, the program has been an abysmal failure. In fact, HAMP has hurt more homeowners than it has helped. The program has completed about 540,000 mortgage modifications. Another 740,000 unlucky homeowners had the rug pulled out from under them: their modifications were cancelled. Even the Government Accountability Office, GAO, commented that ``more borrowers have had their trial modifications cancelled than have received permanent modifications.''

Earlier this month, on March 2, the Financial Services Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing, and Community Opportunity received testimony from the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, SIGTARP, Neil Barofsky. He exposed the most hazardous failing of the program, noting that ``there have been countless published reports on HAMP participants who end up worse off for having engaged in a futile attempt to obtain the sustainable relief that the program promised. Failed trial modifications often leave borrowers with more principal outstanding on their loans, less home equity, depleted savings, and worse credit scores.'' He continued by saying that ``worst of all, even in circumstances where they never missed a payment, they may face back payments, penalties, and even late fees that suddenly become due on their `modified' mortgages and that they are unable to pay, thus resulting in the very loss of their homes that HAMP was meant to prevent.''

Mr. Chairman, many of my own constituents, like homeowners around the country, were lured into HAMP with the promise of relief. In the end, these misled homeowners ended up with no permanent modification, tens of thousands of dollars deeper in debt. One of my constituents reported that after many, many months under a trial modification, he was rejected from the program and immediately handed a bill for $42,000 in back payments, penalties, and late fees. How is that an effective foreclosure protection?

HAMP has been plagued by problems from the start and is beyond mere reform. Numerous oversight bodies, including the GAO, have cited time and time again that Treasury has failed to respond to recommendations to ``increase the transparency, accountability and consistency of the program.'' Last year, the Congressional Oversight Panel, or COP, noted that ``because Treasury's authority to restructure HAMP ended on October 3, 2010, the program's prospects are unlikely to improve substantially in the future.''

COP also stated that ``billions of taxpayer dollars will have been spent to delay rather than prevent foreclosures.'' It is clear that the administration has no intention of fixing the numerous problems in its flagship foreclosure program, a fact which has not gone unnoticed by the public.

Americans for Tax Reform submitted testimony for our March 2 hearing, stating that ``HAMP has been the U.S. Treasury and Department of Housing and Urban Development's primary spending program for combating foreclosures, and the program has been a costly failure.''

Headlines around the country agree. A recent Washington Times article said that ``Obama's helping hand hoodwinks homeowners; government mortgage assistance can be worse than nothing.'' A recent Wall Street Journal article was entitled ``Housing Market Masochism; the latest bad idea to raid banks and delay a home-price recovery.''

We need to break down the barriers that have delayed the housing market recovery, including expensive and ineffective programs that have hurt so many homeowners. Unfortunately, programs like HAMP were set up in haste and have done little to restore stability in the market.

We need to stop funding programs that don't work with money that we don't have. Out-of-control Federal spending is hurting our economic recovery. Our Nation faces a $14.2 trillion national debt, and economists agree that reducing government spending will create a more favorable environment for private sector job growth. That's exactly what unemployed Americans and homeowners need: a job and a paycheck, not a handout or other failed taxpayer-funded government programs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman from Delaware talks about his State. Let me just say that

in Illinois, if we look back quarter by quarter, HAMP permanent modifications, for example, in the second quarter of 2010 were 167,000; but the proprietary were 331,883. The next quarter, 97 HAMP and 346,910. And it goes on. And I think that's something to keep in mind, that the private sector can do it better.

I yield myself another 30 seconds.

The private sector, out of 4.1 million modifications, 3.5 million of those were private sector, and the rest of the 550. And that doesn't include the 750,000 modifications that were made by HAMP that were canceled.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

May I request again the time remaining, Mr. Chairman?

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

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

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

The gentleman is not here.

This legislation is to reiterate what the Congressional Budget Office says about----

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We keep talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. We've talked about that for several years now--jobs, jobs, jobs. What we are trying to do is to create an environment that we will be able to have the private sector create the jobs.

We need to stop funding programs that don't work with money that we don't have. And out-of-control Federal spending is hurting our economic recovery so that we can have those jobs. We've got a $14.2 trillion national debt. And economists agree that reducing government spending will create a more favorable environment for private sector growth and the ability to create jobs. We've got so much uncertainty there right now that we have got to stop the spending and stop the taxing and all the things that could happen.

So exactly what unemployed Americans want and what homeowners want and need is a job and a paycheck, not a handout or another failed taxpayer-paid government program.

I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and stop talking about the jobs. Let's focus on the substance of these amendments.

I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

I just have a question for the sponsor of this amendment. You have had several amendments in several of these bills, and I wanted to make sure this is the same as what you and Mr. McHenry agreed to.

You are just asking for this amendment, not to change the bill or anything?

You are just asking for support of this amendment and not for anything concerning the bill?

Reclaiming my time, we accept the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

My colleague from New York and many of the colleagues from that side of the aisle have been saying that if we end this program, there will be nothing. That simply isn't true. Of the 4.1 million mortgage modifications that were completed, 3.5 million were done by the private sector with no government program and not a dime from the taxpayers. There's also the Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, for homeowners with government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans. And don't forget about the Hardest Hit Fund. According to the Treasury Web site, the President established this in February, 2010, to provide targeted aid to families in States hard hit by the economic and housing market downturn. That includes $1.5 million that went to the hardest hit States--California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, and Michigan. Another $600 million went to another set--North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. And finally, $2 billion was distributed to 17 States and the District of Columbia.

In 2008, $300 million in guarantees was committed for HOPE for Homeowners, a voluntary FHA program. Only 200 loans have been modified in this program, but it does exist; $475 million has been appropriated to Neighborhood Works for foreclosure counseling for homeowners. Finally, there are countless local, State, and private sector initiatives.

We have to stop funding programs with money that we don't have. Let's make that clear. With that, I would urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed.

We will accept the amendment.

I have had similar occurrences in my district where actually one gentleman had to pay back $42,000 worth of late fees as well as the penalties and the difference between the loan modification. That's where I think this program has failed.

Yet I think your amendment is a sense for Congress to encourage the banks to work with our constituents and to provide loan modifications to those who are eligible. It also encourages banks to work with our constituents and to provide them with the best services. It encourages the banks to assist prospective homeowners with foreclosure prevention and counseling.

I think this is a help in the private sector and encourages the private sector to do this, so we would accept this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of House Resolution 170, the rule for consideration of H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, NSP, Termination Act, and H.R. 839, the Home Affordable Program (HAMP) Termination Act. H.R. 861 would end NSP and rescind 1 billion taxpayer dollars that would otherwise be spent to continue this troubled program.

In total, Congress has already spent $7 billion for NSP. And instead of stabilizing neighborhoods or helping people whose mortgages are underwater, the program allows lenders and servicers to offload their bad investments onto taxpayers and delay market recovery. Even more disturbing is that critics warn that NSP creates incentives for banks and other lenders to foreclose on troubled borrowers, worsening the crisis and kicking families out of their homes.

This program is not about helping homeowners. They have already lost their house to foreclosure. They are not involved in this. This is help for lenders and bankers to take the money and build more homes through the counties, through the States, through not-for-profits, and then to sell these homes and reap the benefits of the money. There is no place in this bill to tell us where that money goes. It probably is in a slush fund.

The GAO, the inspector general for HUD, and other auditors have noted the program is plagued with problems, including lax reporting requirements and poor accountability. There is little evidence to suggest that the funds spent through NSP are producing cost-effective results.

Finally, the program lacks any requirement that remaining NSP funds are returned to taxpayers when a sponsored property is sold. Instead, the money is treated like a fund, somewhere, never to be returned.

The other bill approved by our committee is H.R. 839. This bill would terminate HAMP, which has become the poster child for failed foreclosure mitigation programs. According to the CBO, this bill would save $1.4 billion over 10 years.

Announced by the Obama administration in February of 2009, the HAMP program to date has spent $840 million out of the $30 billion in TARP funds that were set aside for the program. For this extraordinary investment, the administration predicted that up to 4 million homeowners would receive help. Instead, only 580,000 homeowners have received mortgage modifications.

Sadly, a failure to meet expectations is the least of the program's troubles. Of those who were promised help, 740,000 homeowners have had their modifications cancelled. In many cases, these homeowners were strung along on a false hope, only to end up in worse financial straits than if they had never heard of HAMP.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a statement from a March 2 subcommittee hearing during which Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the TARP program, or SIGTARP, exposed the most hazardous failings of the program. He said that there had been countless published reports on HAMP participants who wound up worse off, having engaged in a false attempt. Failed modifications often leave borrowers with more principal outstanding on their loans.

Numerous oversight bodies, including the GAO, have cited the Treasury for failing to respond to recommendations to increase the transparency, accountability, and consistency of the program. Americans for Tax Reform called the program ``a costly failure.''

Out-of-control spending has left us with a $14.1 trillion national debt that is damaging our recovery and harming job growth. Economists agree that reducing government spending will create a more favorable environment for private sector jobs; and that is what Americans need, a job and a paycheck, not more failed experiments and taxpayer-funded housing.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 861 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act, and I commend my colleague Mr. Miller for introducing this bill that would end NSP.

As I mentioned during the debate on the rule for this bill, in total, Congress has appropriated $7 billion for NSP. This bill could save taxpayers up to $1 billion. Instead of stabilizing neighborhoods, NSP allows lenders and servicers to off-load their bad investments onto taxpayers, and some critics point to the hazard of NSP, which actually may speed up foreclosures for families.

If the lenders and servicers know that they can quickly sell a property to a nonprofit or local government with NSP funds, why wouldn't they do this? Why wouldn't they simply evict the homeowner instead of doing a proprietary, private sector-funded modification of the mortgage that would allow the homeowner to keep his home?

This program does not help homeowners facing foreclosure; and the bottom line is that, if the lenders and servicers own a home due to foreclosure--not the taxpayers but these same lenders and servicers-- they are responsible for the upkeep, security and eventual sale of that home. Why should the taxpayers pay for this responsibility which rightly belongs to the lender or servicer? They shouldn't.

The GAO, the HUD Inspector General and other auditors have noted that the program is plagued with problems, including lax reporting requirements and poor accountability. There is no evidence to suggest that funds spent through NSP have produced cost-effective results.

Finally, upon the sale of a property, NSP does not require these groups to return the profit to the taxpayer. Instead, the money is treated like a slush fund. This money is never returned to the taxpayer but will stay with the local governments and nonprofit entities that received it. Of course, any group would support keeping the profits of homes sold instead of returning it to the taxpayer. Who wouldn't?

We need to break down barriers that have delayed recovery in the housing market, including expensive and ineffective government programs like NSP. We need to stop funding programs that don't work with money we don't have. NSP doesn't stabilize neighborhoods. It simply spends billions of taxpayer dollars to allow a few homes, scattered here and there, to be purchased, rehabilitated and resold. Again, upon the sale, the money is never returned to the taxpayer. We are facing a $14.1 trillion national debt. This debt is damaging our economic recovery and is stifling job growth.

We have been warned. Economists say, if we don't address our debt, in a couple of years we could end up bankrupt like Greece. Economists also agree that we must reduce our out-of-control government spending to create a more favorable environment for private-sector job growth. Unemployed Americans and homeowners need a job and a paycheck, not a handout or another failed, taxpayer-funded program.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the sponsor of this bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Services on International Monetary Policy and Trade, Mr. Miller.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time each side has remaining.

At this time I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

The gentleman might be interested to know that there was a HOPE VI bill that was an amendment to that, to H.R. 3524, made by Representative Sessions. The amendment sought to maintain HUD's authority to issue demolition only grants, and that failed by a recorded vote of 186-221. Voting ``no'' on that was the gentleman, Mr. Frank and Ms. Waters, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Velazquez.

I have been listening to all of this, and I think that everybody knows, we all want to get the housing market back on track. We all want to be able to help those that are in trouble.

But many of my colleagues on the other side have said that if you end these programs there will be nothing, and that's just not true. Of the 4.1 million mortgage modifications that were completed, 3.5 million were done by the private sector with no government program and not a dime from the taxpayers. So there is a market out there.

There is also the Home Affordable Refinance Program, HARP, for homeowners. And don't forget the Hardest Hit Fund, which President Obama established. And in 2008, $300 million in guarantees were committed for homeowners, a voluntary FHA program. $475 million had been appropriated to Neighbor Works for foreclosure counseling. And finally, there are countless local, State and private sector initiatives.

So let us not forget that this is being taken care of. And rather than have a program that really doesn't affect those that have been foreclosed on, it really is a program for counties, not-for-profits, for States, and it can cause incentives for banks and other lenders to foreclose on troubled borrowers, worsening and prolonging the housing credit crisis.

So let's get back to what this bill really does, and it doesn't help taxpayers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, President Ronald Reagan famously said--with tongue in cheek, no doubt--that the closest thing to eternal life on this Earth is a Federal Government program.

I rise today in support of H.R. 830, legislation offered by my friend from Illinois (Mr. Dold). At the risk of disproving the late President's axiom, let me just say that H.R. 830 will demonstrate that Congress does have the good sense, the fortitude, and the wherewithal to bring an end to a Federal program, especially one that is not working.

The program in question is the FHA Refinancing Program, which was authorized under the broadest of provisions in the TARP legislation back in 2008. In 2010, the program was conceived in haste, enacted with no vote in Congress, and was designed to augment another failed program, the Making Homes Affordable Program, or HAMP, which has done more harm than good.

Under the FHA Refinancing Program, the FHA is directed to use TARP funds to refinance mortgages that are current but underwater. Its record has been abysmal, with the FHA Commissioner stating during our hearing last month: ``As of February 11, 44 loans have been endorsed.'' Where else but in Washington would it be a good idea to obligate $8 billion in taxpayer funds and disburse $50 million of those dollars? Now, whether it's to help 44 homeowners or not, we don't know how many will be in default or what it will cost. But that money has been disbursed from the U.S. Treasury.

Mr. Chairman, this bill ends another failed government program. Taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for failure. I would urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment came up in committee and failed during our committee markup by a vote of 33-22. The amendment removes all references to the mortgagee letter issued by HUD concerning the FHA Refinance Program, and I think that this announcement was the defining document for the program and provided guidance to lenders on the FHA Refinance Program.

I think our concern is that the amendment leaves the door open for the Treasury and for HUD to at a later date create another substantially similar program to the FHA Refinance Program, again, without the express consent of Congress.

As the sponsor of the bill mentioned, this program was never authorized by Congress. The funding came from the TARP moneys that were set aside for the HAMP program, and the mortgagee letter was effectively the authorizing document for the program. If this were to be in, there would be no nullification of the program; it wouldn't be terminated. This mortgagee letter speaks directly to this program, and I don't think that it affects the other parts of the FHA. It really just voids the letter, in doing so, to end the program.

We don't need to further burden the FHA with this program. An FHA program right now is currently operating below its congressionally mandated 2 percent capital reserve ratio, and this program has the potential to further expose taxpayers to FHA losses. Even the administration has expressed concerns over the new program loan performance. During testimony delivered to the Financial Services Committee, the FHA Commissioner testified ``these loans may perform worse than refinanced loans that were not previously under water.''

This is another example of the administration's using TARP dollars in questionable ways. I think that the program is similar in scope to the failed HOPE for Homeowners program established under FHA in 2008, and even that program has helped fewer than 200 borrowers since its inception.

So we are concerned that the method of funding for this program exposes taxpayers to higher levels of TARP money. I don't think that it affects FHA other than that this program is terminated. This program, along with its companion programs and the failed HAMP program, should be terminated, and all unobligated funds associated with the program should instead be used to pay down the Nation's unsustainable debt. I would oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you. I think what we are doing here is to terminate the mortgage letter which sets up the program and to make sure that there won't be a substantially similar letter.

No, I don't.

I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because in my opinion it violates clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it's amending.

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

Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the amendment because in my opinion it violates clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it is amending. It is not germane to the bill because it expands the scope of the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against this amendment because it violates clause 10 of rule XXI as it has the net effect of increasing mandatory spending within the time period set forth in the rule.

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

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because, in my opinion, it violates clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it is amending. It is not germane to the bill because it is outside the scope of the bill.

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

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against this amendment because in my opinion it violates clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it is amending. And it is not germane to the bill because it's outside the scope of the bill.

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

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment of my good friend and colleague because in my opinion it violates clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it is amending. It is not germane to the bill because it is outside the scope of the bill.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 830, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, House Resolution 151, and House Resolution 150, the rule for H.R. 830.

Last week, the Committee on Financial Services considered and approved two bills: H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act, and H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act. H.R. 836 would terminate the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program and rescind any unobligated balances remaining under the program.

The Emergency Mortgage Relief Program, created by the Dodd-Frank Act, establishes a $1 billion fund to provide loans or credit advances to borrowers who cannot pay their mortgages because of unemployment or reduction in income. To date, no funds have been provided to homeowners under this program, and serious questions remain about its cost, effectiveness, and benefits. The CBO estimates the program will have a 98 percent subsidy rate, meaning that for every dollar loaned under this program, 98 cents is not expected to be repaid. Given the country's current fiscal situation, no program warrants funding when benefits are speculative at best and substantial taxpayer losses are certain.

The other bill approved by the Financial Services Committee, H.R. 830, which will be addressed by rule in a little bit, H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act, would rescind all unobligated balances made available for use under this program. More than $8 billion in TARP funds have been set aside for the FHA Refinance Program, and $50 million has been disbursed since September 2010.

For this extraordinary investment of their money, taxpayers have thus far gotten very little return. The administration originally estimated this program would help between 500,000 and 1.5 million homeowners. However, only 44 loans have been refinanced and only 245 applications have been submitted.

This program has been plagued by problems from the start. Borrowers are frustrated that few lenders participate in the program, and it is difficult for borrowers to even find out if their mortgage servicer has agreed to participate. Rather than continue to spend money we do not have on programs that do not work, Congress should focus on creating the certainty job creators need for economic activity and hiring. This means we must root out wasteful government spending on ineffective programs such as the FHA Refinance Program. What the American people want are jobs, not a handout or a program that doesn't work or is ineffective.

I urge my colleagues to support the rules for H.R. 836 and H.R. 830.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the members of the Westmont Lions Club as they celebrate the club's 75th year of service in the Village of Westmont.

Chartered on January 8, 1936, the Lions Club is the oldest and one of the most dedicated service organizations in Westmont. Over the past 75 years, the Westmont Lions Club has risen to Helen Keller's challenge to become the ``knights of the blind'' by setting up several scholarship programs, as well as by hosting such fundraising events as A Magical Vision Fundraiser.

They have worked very hard to become a pillar of service in my congressional district. I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating the Westmont Lions Club for its 75 years of service to the Village of Westmont and wish them the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 69, I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, we are now 6 months into our fiscal year, and we have not been able to pass a dozen or more individual appropriations bills within that time. We inherited a spending regime, but we have a mandate from the American people to cut spending. We must do it equitably, fairly and quickly; and I think that Mr. LaTourette has come up with an amendment which has a really fair way of doing this:

Don't zero out programs without hearings. Don't pick winners and losers. Don't do this without having the proper hearings and oversight. By reducing our discretionary programs at the same rate across the board, we don't risk alienating future priorities or vulnerable constituencies that may receive funding which is at risk of being terminated.

The chairman of Appropriations and this whole body have done a great job in looking at all of this, and I think we will come out with something that we will all be very proud of. The LaTourette amendment offers another way to do just that.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that has grown and grown and grown. But let me say that I would agree with the gentleman from Michigan, that we do not want the Asian carp to be able to get into the Great Lakes and into Lake Michigan first.

We have been working on this issue for 12 years and it really makes me upset to think that they seem to say, well, nothing has happened, and now it's an emergency, that the Asian carp are going to get into Lake Michigan. Let me tell you that we have set up two electronic dispersal barriers that are in my district to stop the Asian carp from getting through. This is the only path from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes and these two barriers are there.

The Asian carp are 42 miles from the city of Chicago, and this is an emergency and they have 42 miles to go. They have moved very slowly. Most of the population of the Asian carp are in the Illinois River around Channahon and right now, Channahon, they have a

contract with China to send the Asian carp over to be used as food in China.

The Army Corps of Engineers has been doing everything, and this is for the last 12 years, and the Congress has funded this, to make sure that those Asian carp never reach the Great Lakes. And if they do, it would be devastating. So things that have happened, the two dispersal barriers, the bubble barriers, electro-fishing, oxygenation, rotenone used to kill the fish, the bypass screening barriers to combat the Asian carp.

The problem is, and it's not just that the carp will get in there-- and the gentleman from Michigan raised the question of whether this was the only way that the Army Corps has said to stop the carp. It is not. And, in fact, the Army Corps has said that even if the locks are closed, the Asian carp will be able to get through those locks. So this is not the answer. The answer is to find all of these ways to combat that.

Invasive species are legally hard to deal with, but I think what Army Corps and all of the other agencies have been doing is something that we will be able to contain them and eventually--I've been on fish kills before. There were 22,000 fish that were killed to make sure that these Asian carp had not gotten beyond the barriers. Not one of these fish was an Asian carp.

But the problems that we're really facing are economic, devastating to the State of Illinois, devastating to the States below Illinois, down to the Gulf of Mexico, devastating to anyone that is using the locks to send goods back and forth.

And, in fact, we are facing 800,000 jobs lost with the barge traffic. People don't realize how much this is used because of the barge. You're not stopped by a barge when the gates go down. You're not stopped having a barge on the streets.

What has been determined is that if we were to shut down the barge traffic, it would take--oh, well, we just put them on the rail and we put them on trucks. If we were to put these on trucks, if you were to take and line up the trucks from the east coast to the west coast, line them all up across the country and then put them all back going back to the east coast, that's how many trucks would be to be able to move the asphalt, the salt, the coal, all of these big, big items that are used and used in the economic thing of things. As well as the food and everything else that goes up and down.

So I think that the Corps has testified that all the things are working. There is another study out that is going to be finished by 2015. We have got to get this right and they worked. But having worked for 12 years on this, it really upsets me when the gentleman states a study from Wayne State saying that it would only cost $4.5 million in damages for economic. Oh, no. The barge people, all the people estimate it's at least $29 billion.

This bill was to make sure that we can get the economy back, that we can create the jobs. This will destroy jobs.

And I'm also talking about flooding. It will flood the city of Chicago, and it will flood 124 suburbs. I urge a negative vote on this.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kline amendment. It is imperative that Congress put the brakes on what has become this administration's culture of runaway regulation.

Specifically, the amendment under consideration will prohibit the use of funds in the underlying bill for the implementation of a misguided regulation commonly referred to as the gainful employment rule, which has already led to job loss and uncertainty in the proprietary college sector. Moving forward, I'm concerned that that rule will jeopardize access to many educational and training programs that provide students with skills to meet the demands of an ever-changing labor market.

In function, this rule would prohibit college programs from receiving Federal student loans unless new complicated loan repayment criteria are met. As such, the rule incentivizes institutions to pursue only those repayment plans which satisfy arbitrary government goals rather than the plans that best fit students' needs. This may be loan repayment; also ignoring measures of seemingly equal importance such as on-time graduation rates and clear placement.

Equally troubling, under the rule, proprietary institutions would, sadly, be forced to navigate an additional restrictive layer of Federal bureaucracy, requiring Federal approval in order to offer any new programs. Unfortunately, this provision fails to realize what is the agile nature of these proprietary institutions that uniquely position them to help unite a properly equipped workforce with employers in today's uncertain job market. By unlawfully restricting the flexibility, we risk failure to capitalize on emergency economic opportunities.

Moreover the gainful employment rule applies almost exclusively to one sector of higher education, the proprietary schools which tend to teach job-specific skills, often to at-risk populations such as low- income, minorities, single parents, high school dropouts with GEDs, and first-generation college students who do not have financial help from parents. Somehow there is the notion that the bad actors of the Federal higher education loans world is exclusively within the proprietary college sector. This is preposterous, but the fact is that the administration has chosen to discriminate against these schools. The fact remains, a student can graduate from any institution of higher education with inadequate income to repay their debts, and students should not suffer simply because the school that best suits their needs operates under a for-profit model.

I have repeatedly asked the Department of Education to refrain from implementing this rule until we have clear data on the state of our Nation's overall higher education system. If the administration were serious about addressing unscrupulous recruiting practices at the college level, this data would be compiled and made available, and particularly to Members of Congress. As it stands, we have little more than this singular, last-minute vote to slow down the administration's race to squeeze the for-profit college sector out of existence.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would cut funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, commonly known as ARPA-E, by $50 million, and it would put that funding towards deficit reduction.

For my colleagues who know me, they know it is not easy for me to cut funding for energy research. I have always maintained that there are two priorities I believe in and will continue to promote in Congress. Energy R&D is one of them. I believe the greatest investments we can make to secure our economic competitiveness are those investments that cultivate scientists and engineers of the future and provide the research infrastructure from which they can innovate and create jobs.

ARPA-E was first proposed in 2005 in the distinguished report entitled, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' Modeled on DARPA, ARPA- E was recommended along with dozens of recommendations designed to spur scientific investment. These recommendations were authorized as a part of the first America COMPETES Act of 2007 and reauthorized again last year.

Despite my strong support and leadership for COMPETES and its programs, I have had concerns about ARPA-E since inception. As a senior member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, our minority views on the President's fiscal year 2010 budget accurately reflect my sentiment:

``Those of us in opposition to ARPA-E maintain the view that creating a new agency to do work that is currently being done at the DOE is not a justified use of the limited funds available to the Department, and we support the Department's previous decision to not establish ARPA-E but to engage in ARPA-E-type projects within the current DOE structure.''

Most importantly, I have always believed that ARPA-E threatens to divert resources from the DOE's Office of Science, the largest supporter of basic research. That is why I secured language through COMPETES 2007 that would prohibit funding for ARPA-E unless the Office of Science is fully funded. I felt this was the most productive way to move forward with the ARPA-E concept and to prevent duplication or competition with other DOE programs. However, when we reauthorized COMPETES last year, this language was not included; and, unfortunately, my attempts to limit ARPA-E appropriations were unsuccessful.

In supporting my concerns about spreading resources too thin, now- Secretary Steven Chu said the following of ARPA-E in testimony before the Energy subcommittee in 2006: ``In funding ARPA-E, it is critical that its funding not jeopardize the basic research supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Science. The committee's recommendations are prioritized, and its top recommendation in the area of research is to increase the funding for basic research by 10 percent per year over the next 7 years.''

Mr. Chairman, were it not for the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment stimulus bill, ARPA-E would never have been funded. I urge my colleagues to join me in cutting ARPA-E funding and in rejecting duplication and stretched resources.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.