Floor Statements

I thank the gentlemen.

Mr. Chairman and Members, the gentleman from Alabama evidently has amnesia. Clinton administration eliminated the deficit and left a balanced budget. It was the Bush administration that created the deficit.

I rise in strong support for this, the Progressive Caucus alternative balanced people's budget. During the last administration, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle maxed out our Nation's credit card for wars and tax cuts for the rich, all the while saying deficits don't matter. Now they are using our deficit crisis as a rationale to undermine programs that they have never supported and push a divisive social agenda that is a sideshow to our budget debate.

Mr. Chairman, this country is not broke. We have spent our money on wars and tax credits for the very rich, and now it is time to entertain the people's budget, a balanced budget.

The Ryan budget breaks our promise to these American families by expecting them to bear the entire burden of deficit reduction, neglecting the fact that just 4 months ago my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle insisted on $80 billion in tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of individuals in this country.

This is a balanced budget. I ask my colleagues to support this very responsible, balanced budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires airport operators, as a condition for receiving grants under the Airport Improvement Program, to consult on a regular basis with representatives of the local community regarding airport operations and their impact on the community.

Airports and airport operations have a profound impact on the communities that surround them. Airplane takeoffs and landings can make noise that interrupts families in their homes and workers in their offices. Daytime takeoffs can interrupt school children who are trying to learn and teachers who are trying to teach. Nighttime takeoffs can make it difficult for local residents to sleep. Jet fuel emissions and other harmful pollutants contribute to air pollution, and traffic congestion surrounding an airport adds to the noise and to the pollution.

Needless to say, airports play an important role in our economy and our society. But airport operators should be good neighbors in their communities. Being a good neighbor simply means consulting with the local community regarding airport operations. It means minimizing the nighttime takeoffs and landings so that residents can sleep. It means assisting families with residential noise mitigation programs, such as retrofitting windows, doors, siding, and insulation, to help keep aircraft noise to a minimum. It means consulting with local residents and small businesses regarding plans to expand, upgrade or realign runways and other airport facilities, and listening to their concerns.

My amendment requires airport operators that receive Airport Improvement Program grants to consult on a regular basis regarding airport operations and their impact on the community. Airport operators would be required to include in these consultations local residents who are impacted by airport operations. Airport operators would specifically be required to include any organization, the membership of which includes at least 20 people who reside within 10 miles of the airport, that notifies the operator of its desire to be consulted.

This amendment is not overly burdensome for airports and does not cost money for the Federal Government. It merely requires airport operators to be good neighbors, and it holds them accountable to the communities that they serve.

Mr. Chairman and Members, I have one of the world's largest airports in my district--and they do a good job--but I'm constantly contacted by residents in the surrounding community who are raising questions about new plans, new operations, airport noise, and other kinds of things that, if the airport operators were in communication with the communities in some kind of formalized way, they would have a better understanding. It's not that these neighbors are saying they don't want these airports. As a matter of fact, we're pleased that they have LAX in our community. It is job-intensive, and we like the idea that the people who work there are able not only to earn a good living but to live in the community, and they contribute to the economy of the community.

We're simply talking about urging and encouraging a relationship where the airport operators share with the schools and with the residents what they're doing. Oftentimes, it would just make for a better understanding. It's not always controversial. It's not always confrontational. But it is shining a light on what is going on and getting people cooperating and understanding the operations of the airport.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Do I understand that the other amendment that I have coming up that's more specific to Los Angeles is something that you would be more inclined to cooperate on rather than this amendment?

Well, that's fine. Because I do know that this amendment that I'm offering is a national amendment that would cause all of the airports to come into compliance with this kind of cooperative amendment. And if, in fact, the gentleman is offering cooperation on the next amendment, I would withdraw this one.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my amendment, which is a commonsense provision that provides transparency and clarity for distressed homeowners.

My amendment would require the Secretary of the Treasury to send a letter to HAMP applicants that they will not be considered for a modification due to termination of the program, and that they can contact their Member of Congress for assistance in negotiating with or acquiring a loan modification from their servicer.

I raise this amendment because my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have the majority in the House, and they will probably prevail on this amendment; but I think that we have a responsibility to say to our constituents what we are doing and what we are not doing.

Many of them have just begun to learn about the loan modification program, the HAMP program, and all of a sudden it is going to be pulled out from under them if this amendment prevails and if it passes on the opposite side of the aisle and in the Senate, et cetera; and the constituents need to know exactly what we have done.

Now, I worked with Mr. McHenry on this amendment and we worked out some language that he thought was fair, and I believe we do have his support. That is not to say that I support the bill because I don't support this amendment. I don't support this bill that would literally dismantle the HAMP program.

Yes, there are criticisms about this program. I and others would have liked for it to have been broader, for it to have helped more people. But don't forget, over 600,000 people have been helped. I know the target was 3 million to 4 million people, and we certainly haven't come close to that.

But to do away with this program would leave the American taxpayers who have gotten into loans, oftentimes tricked into these loans, misled into these loans by the loan initiators, the banks and the mortgage companies that told them that they could help them get a mortgage even though these were exotic products, these were teaser loans, these were no doc loans, these were loans that were going to reset and cause the taxpayer to be in a loan that they could not afford.

Many innocent people trying to live the American Dream signed on the dotted line. And also there was a lot of fraud involved where some of these loan initiators signed on the dotted line for the homeowner or the would-be homeowner. And so we have this crisis, this subprime crisis that we have been going through, and there is a lot of misery out there, people who were just trying to own a home who now find themselves in foreclosure.

The banks were not helping with loan modification, so we had to come up with something. The administration came up with the HAMP program. It is a voluntary program. But they signed on to these agreements with the banks to say that they would do loan modifications under certain conditions. And the administration had to do this because the banks were not helping out the homeowners. As a matter of fact, the banks said: Well, we don't have anything to do with this anymore. It is up to the servicers.

What a lot of people don't know is who is the servicer. The servicer is simply in most cases a company that is owned by the bank. They own their own servicing company, which means that once the mortgage is signed on by the homeowner, they now give it to this other company that they own, these servicers; and the servicers have the responsibility for collecting on the mortgage, for collecting on late fees, for collecting on attorney fees, and for doing loan modifications. But the homeowners couldn't get to them. HAMP is supposed to help them get to them.

These servicers have gotten away with being unregulated for all of these years. As a matter of fact, there are no standards for servicers. If you call one bank, they will send you to their loss mitigation department. What they don't tell you, banks such as Bank of America, their loss mitigation is an offshore operation. You may be talking to somebody in India who has got this little cookie-cutter sheet which says: How much money do you make? How many times have you been late on your payment? Let's figure out how not to give you a loan modification, but maybe to give you a few months to catch up. But loss mitigation means a lot of different things in all of these different banks, if you are lucky enough to get to the servicer.

I would just simply ask for support for transparency and support to keep this program going.

Yes, this is absolutely the same thing we agreed to.

I beg your pardon?

This amendment is a transparency amendment that I worked on with Mr. McHenry, where our constituents would be notified and have an opportunity.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Chairman and Members, I think that my colleague from Minnesota said it all: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the American taxpayers who trusted us to regulate this industry that had responsibility for these mortgages? Are you on the side of taxpayers who simply wanted to live the American Dream, who simply wanted to get into a mortgage so that they could own a home and do what it is the American Dream says we can do and we can accomplish?

They trusted us to make sure that our regulators did their job. We all let them down. We allowed these mortgage firms, these loan initiators, these big banks to create these exotic products, products we had never heard of before.

Nobody questioned what was a no doc loan. Nobody asked what is this teaser loan. Nobody talked about what happens when these loans reset. And the American taxpayer was confronted with a mortgage with 30, 40 pieces of paper and they signed on the dotted line, because they wanted to live the American Dream. Little did they know that they would not be able to meet the reset amount, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years from now; and so they got caught up in the scheme. It was a huge, fraudulent scheme perpetrated on the American people by major financial institutions.

Americans didn't decide all of a sudden that they didn't want to pay their bills, that they didn't want to pay their mortgage. Something big happened. And what happened was this big fraud that was perpetrated on the American people came to reality and the devil came due, and now it was time to pay, and they couldn't afford it.

Added to that, the recession that was caused by the subprime meltdown caused people to be in situations where they lost their jobs, or they were now in jobs that paid less than the jobs that they had when the economy was good. And so now we have people who have lost all these homes. They're foreclosed on, they're boarded up, they're abandoned. And, guess what, they're bringing down the neighborhoods. Those people who stay in the neighborhoods and keep up their homes, they're losing value because of these boarded-up properties and because of these abandoned properties.

So the government said, and I said and Barney Frank said, those of us who created this program said, we have a responsibility to help the American people, because, through no fault of their own, now their homes are underwater, their homes have lost value, and so we have the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program does give money to counties and cities and nonprofits and all to go in and rehab these properties, put them back on the market, upgrade the neighborhood, reduce the cost to fire and police and all of those city agencies that now have got to look after these boarded-up properties, where the animals are coming in and the weeds are growing up and neighbors are saying, My government, please help me.

That's what the Neighborhood Stabilization Program is all about. And it creates jobs. It creates jobs, because now we've got the contractors, the subcontractors, the painters, the Realtors all involved in helping to rehab this neighborhood, helping to stabilize these communities, creating jobs, assisting the American taxpayers who got into these situations through no fault of their own.

Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of those who rip off our taxpayers? Or are you on the side of the taxpayers who sent you here to look after them and to be responsible?

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment would simply require the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to send a notice to all of the NSP grantees who would have received funding under the third round of NSP that the program has been terminated. Further, the notice would include the name and contact information for the Member of Congress representing that grantee's district, along with a notice saying that the grantee can contact that Member directly for assistance in mitigating foreclosed properties.

As you know, we passed such an amendment off the floor when we took up the FHA bill, which would have basically allowed the homeowners to refinance their properties. So we have one such amendment with the elimination of that program.

The CBO has scored this amendment at zero cost. Since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which provided the NSP funds that are now subject to this repeal, my office has received many calls from potential grantees about the status of the program and what funding they could expect.

Because this act would rescind those funds nearly 8 months after the passage of Dodd-Frank, I think that a simple letter from HUD, sent to States, counties and cities, which would simply notify them of this change, is in order. Moreover, a note to these States, counties and cities saying that their Members of Congress are available to assist them in mitigating foreclosed properties can help these grantees find alternative solutions.

I've discovered there are any number of Members starting to do this kind of thing. They are getting calls from their constituents who are asking for help with loan modifications, and the Members are able to, not get involved with the particular problem, but to help guide them and send them to the proper servicers to get their loan modifications. This is similar to that. Simply, our office has been able to say: Yes, the program is no longer in existence, but this is what you can do if there is an alternative.

Now, I would prefer not to rehash the back-and-forth we saw in the Financial Services Committee about the termination of this program. Members on my side of the aisle showed pictures, talked about the problems caused by abandoned properties, and even showcased letters from their districts, letters which talked about the good work NSP was doing. Yet the debate, it seems, will not sway my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Instead, I think it's best to focus on my amendment.

I believe this is a commonsense provision that can be accepted by both sides of the aisle regardless of whether they agree with the underlying bill. Grantees should be made aware of this funding recision, and Members of Congress should stand ready to help communities mitigate the effects of blighted properties.

I would ask for the support of my colleagues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have heard so many convoluted arguments today about this legislation from the opposite side of the aisle.

My colleague from California, my friend and someone I highly respect, knows that he does not have to wish what an amendment would say. If he is interested in an amendment, he can offer it. My colleague from California did not offer the amendment that he has just alluded to, and he did not suggest when we were in committee that somehow he would like to have an alternative. So I find it rather curious that he would come to the floor and start wishing what my amendment would say.

Secondly, I want to straighten out something. My colleague from California keeps talking about how this bill does not stop any foreclosures. The NSP legislation was not intended to stop foreclosures. It was intended to do exactly what the name implies, which is to stabilize communities by taking these boarded up and abandoned properties, rehabbing them or tearing them down so that they discontinue the devaluing of the properties of those homeowners who are trying to keep

their properties up and stay in the community.

If he, in fact, was concerned about helping homeowners, he would have supported the FHA refi programs. That program, he voted against. The FHA refi program was basically a program for middle class people who paid their bills on time, but who simply knew that their homes were underwater. They were not worth what they thought they should be worth when they got into the market, and they want to refinance them. He voted against that.

So I am not so sure, when he talks about this NSP program not helping anybody stay in their homes, whether or not he really, really wants to help people stay in their homes when he is voting against something like the FHA refi.

As for jobs, this bill creates jobs; and I think my colleague knows that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment would direct the Secretary of HUD to conduct a study to determine the approximate number of foreclosed and abandoned properties that will not be purchased or rehabilitated in the district of each Member of Congress as a result of the rescission and termination of funding under this act. The Secretary would then report these findings to Congress. CBO has scored this amendment at zero cost.

Now, personally, I do not believe that the Neighborhood Stabilization Program should be terminated because NSP creates jobs. So far, about 72,000 housing units are projected to be impacted by round one of NSP. HUD projects that an additional 24,000 housing units are projected to be impacted by NSP2.

Each of these projects requires the work of contractors, such as roofers and painters and landscapers and pavers. And through the program, other real estate professionals like Realtors and title insurance agents have also received employment and contracting opportunities. This NSP program really does create jobs, and this is a program that creates jobs by doing important work in the community.

Contrary to what some say, the problem of homes abandoned by banks is common, and it is difficult for municipalities to mitigate their effects. As GAO has noted in a report from November 2010, servicers sometimes charge off properties or fail to formally foreclose on borrowers because the costs of maintaining the property post- foreclosure exceed the costs of just writing the property off. These charge-offs typically occur after the foreclosure proceedings were initiated. However, borrowers aren't aware that the servicers are stopping short of taking their title.

Because borrowers think that their servicer has finalized the foreclosure process, they may move away and become unreachable by the municipal agency now dealing with the upkeep of the property.

Additionally, it may become logistically difficult or cost prohibitive to track down thousands of borrowers now responsible for property maintenance, taxes, and code violations because of servicers' failure to formally foreclose.

Additionally, NSP provides an alternative to speculative investors purchasing foreclosed properties. Unlike homeowners and municipalities, some speculative investors often purchase properties for cash and in bulk, sometimes sight unseen, buying them up before others have a chance to bid. Some of these investors may not resell properties to owner-occupants, but let them sit on the market without any improvements while the investor waits for housing prices to rebound.

Alternatively, anecdotal evidence suggests that investor-owners sometimes rent properties out to tenants with little or no rehabilitation or maintenance of the property.

We had a field hearing in Minneapolis in January 2010. At that field hearing, State Senator Linda Higgins said, ``Homes are being snapped up by investors. Some are clueless about how to rehabilitate a building and get good tenants. Others think that the laws really aren't meant for them. They buy a house for pennies, paint the wall, scrub the kitchen appliances, and rent it out. They forget the small details like the condemnation order and the requirements for lifting the condemnation and getting a new certificate of

occupancy and the need for a rental license.''

That is not to say that all private investment is bad, but we must recognize that the work NSP is doing is a critical counterweight to some of these bad practices. For all of these reasons, I will defend the work that NSP is doing across the country. However, we are here now because we need to talk about this amendment and what it would do once this program is terminated.

My NSP study amendment would provide critical information to Members of Congress. If Members knew the number of abandoned and foreclosed properties in their district that will not be mitigated because of this rescission of funds, they would be better prepared to help grantees access responsible private market sources of funds that can help community revitalization. I would ask my colleagues' support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise to present my amendment, which I believe is a commonsense provision that provides transparency and clarity for distressed homeowners.

Specifically, this amendment would require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to publish on HUD's Web site a statement indicating that the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program has been eliminated. The amendment explains that this program would have provided unemployed homeowners with low or no-interest loans to assist them in paying their mortgages.

Further, my amendment directs unemployed homeowners to contact their Members of Congress directly since the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program is no longer available.

If you listen to the recent debate, you can understand why this is important. First of all, we need transparency in what we do and in the public policy that we make. We need to be able to communicate better and clearly with our constituents.

And so they have been told and started to get involved with this program that would assist unemployed homeowners to be able to stay in their homes. As you know, this program was specifically developed so that it could deal with the high unemployment rates and the fact that people who had been working--some of them all of their lives--are now unemployed or underemployed or have medical conditions that cause them not to be able to pay their bills in the way that they had been paying them in the past. And so now that we are coming along just since this program has started and saying, oh, sorry, the program is eliminated, we need to be able to communicate that, and this is what this amendment would do.

American homeowners deserve our assistance and they deserve our help. We have just experienced a recession, almost a depression, where small businesses and big businesses alike had to close their doors or to downsize, and it has left us with some of the highest unemployment rates that we have experienced in many, many years. And still the unemployment rates are unacceptably high, still hovering around 9 percent, and in some communities it's even worse than that. It goes up to 15 and 20, and in some communities even 30 percent. And so our American citizens have turned to government and said, What can I do? Can you help?

This is but one of four programs that was designed to help them. Unfortunately, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have decided that not only are they going to eliminate this program, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program for unemployed homeowners, but they have decided they are going to eliminate the HAMP program, that is the Home Affordable Modification Program.

Yesterday, they voted off this floor the FHA program that would assist homeowners in refinancing. And don't forget, this FHA program was really for middle class citizens who paid their bills, who were not in default, had not lost their homes yet but their homes were underwater and they were trying to stay in them by reducing the mortgage. This legislation under the FHA would have helped them to do that.

You're going to hear more about the NSP program that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are eliminating also.

But today, this is the most sensitive that we're doing now. This is the most sensitive because we have seen in Pennsylvania, as was described by my friend Mr. Chaka Fattah from that State, how this program has worked well for the last 20 years in assisting unemployed homeowners. We will set the regulations for how this is done. And of course they will look at these individuals in terms of how long they've been unemployed, how they've paid their bills, and whether or not they believe they're capable of not only utilizing the program but repaying these loans at some point. I don't think it's too much to ask of us to be of assistance.

I notice that my colleague from Texas referred to it as ``these people.'' These people are our people. These people are American citizens. These are constituents who vote and send us here to make good public policy. It has been said over and over again that we bailed out the too-big-to-fail institutions, that we were generous in our loans to them, billions of dollars that went into those too-big-to-fail institutions.

So I would simply ask for an ``aye'' vote on this very simple amendment that would bring some transparency to what we're doing.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the statements that were just made by the new gentleman from Arkansas, the one who claims that he and others are providing legitimate leadership for the first time. I would like to be in opposition to the fact that he describes what we're doing as ``pouring money down a rat hole.''

Let me just be very clear about my opposition. I do not like the American people being referred to that way. One of the other gentlemen on the opposite side of the aisle this morning referred to our citizens as ``these people.'' Now I hear our citizens being referred to as people who are receiving funds that are going down a rat hole.

The American citizens are not rats. The money that we are appropriating through good public policy is not money that's going down a rat hole. As a matter of fact, he knows, if he knows anything about this crisis that we're confronted with, that not only have we bailed out the biggest institutions in America that are too big to fail with billions of dollars that we loaned to them--and I didn't hear anybody talking about that money ``going down a

rat hole'' or ``those people'' or ``these people.''

Let us be a little bit more respectful as representatives of the people in the way we describe our public policy here.

I don't consider that credible leadership, Madam Chair, and I would ask the gentleman to refrain from referring to the citizens of this country in that way.

And I would ask the Members of Congress to reject those arguments and to look at what we are doing and to understand, as the gentlelady from California has said, if they want to be credible in how they reduce the deficit, they should look at the money that we're spending on a war that we can't win--money, the billions that we're putting into Afghanistan. But no, they choose not to do that.

They choose to attack the most vulnerable in our society, people who have worked all of their lives who are asking their government for a little assistance because now they're underemployed or unemployed or they have medical conditions that don't allow them to meet their obligations.

I stand with the people. I stand with the citizens. The people on this side of the aisle generated the public policy under these four programs to help American citizens. And for those who don't want to help people whose homes are underwater, who don't want to help people whose neighborhoods are being decimated by these boarded-up properties, who don't want to help hardworking citizens who have worked all of their lives, who don't want to rise to the occasion of this crisis in our economic system, let them continue to identify themselves.

I have an amendment here that says, okay, if that's how you feel, then let's post on the HUD Web site exactly what we're doing. We're eliminating this program. And let the citizens call us so that we can tell them, yes, we have a program. They would like to say this program has not been started. It has. As a matter of fact, we started to get calls right after the Dodd-Frank bill was signed into law with people asking about the program, wanting to get in the program, being thankful that we had somehow come up with ways to help them.

It's not a program that has not begun; it has begun. And this amendment that I have before this floor would simply say: Tell the people that you are eliminating the program. Let them know that it no longer exists. Clear up any confusion about whether or not we stand with the people or we are going to work against the people.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment would mandate that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of the Treasury conduct a study on the negative impacts of underwater mortgage loans, or loans where the borrower owes more than the house is worth, on the housing market and the economy of the United States and report those findings to Congress. Importantly, the report would also include recommendations to Congress on how to mitigate the effects of these underwater mortgages.

Before I go any further talking about these underwater mortgages, I think it is extremely important for me to help everyone understand that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are moving to eliminate all of the programs that we have worked so hard to develop; good, strong public policy to assist homeowners of America in a number of ways.

They are eliminating this FHA program that will assist with refinance on homes that are underwater. They are eliminating the HAMP program that we are going to hear more about. They are eliminating the neighborhood stabilization program, commonly referred to as NSP. And they are eliminating the program for homeowners who find themselves out of a job who would be able to borrow and, of course, to pay back the money that is loaned to them--they cannot afford to pay their mortgages because of the loss of their job.

So while they are eliminating all of the programs that many of us have worked so hard to develop--in the former Congress, I was the chair of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, and so I know these programs very well. Not only do I know these programs very well, I understand very well what has happened here in America that has caused homeowners to be in the situations they are in now.

We have a situation that occurred that created this crisis with the subprime meltdown. We had loans that were initiated in this country that were exotic loans, loans that were teaser loans, no documentation loans, liar loans, loans that reset. People were encouraged to sign up for mortgages that they did not understand.

Now we have millions of Americans, really through no fault of their own, and I have said it once and I will say it again: That all of a sudden homeowners didn't decide that they were going to default, that somehow they weren't going to pay their bills. It certainly didn't happen like that. It happened because of what I just alluded to, all of the tricks and the fraud that were perpetrated on American homeowners who were simply trying to live the American dream.

We don't have the numbers in committee any more or on this floor. My friends on the opposite side of the aisle are in control. They have the majority, and they are going to eliminate the programs. We have made every argument possible that you can make in committee to try and hold on to these programs. As you have seen on the floor today, we have the gentlelady from New York reminding them how many homes they have underwater. And, of course, they know because they are getting the calls, just as we are getting the calls, from homeowners begging for assistance. So while we won't be able to stop them, I'm trying to make sure that at least we do this study so we can help bring to light what has taken place and how these underwater mortgages pose a severe threat to our economy.

If you owe more than your home is worth, you can't pick up and move if you get a new job. You're stuck. That impedes our economic recovery. Likewise, you can't move if you want to go attend school somewhere. And you can't move in order to care for an elderly parent.

The chief economist for First American CoreLogic noted last month that negative equity is a significant drag on both the housing market and on economic growth. It is driving foreclosures and decreasing mobility for millions of homeowners. Since we expect home prices to slightly increase during 2010, negative equity will remain the dominant issue in the housing and mortgage markets for some time to come. The FHA refinance program is a modest step to address the problem of underwater mortgages. This program would provide that if banks agree to at least a 10 percent principal write-down for the borrower, the borrower can refinance into a FHA loan. Only borrowers current on their mortgages, not those in default, qualify for the program. So this study will help people to understand the impact it is having. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on my amendment.

Point of Order

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word, I suppose.

If we terminate a program, we should understand the impacts of such a termination, and so this is relevant.

This is the point of order.

The point of order indicates that this is not germane. I am maintaining that this is germane because if we terminate a program, we should understand the impact of such termination. I believe that does speak to the point of order.

The Republicans say this program doesn't work. So our regulators should suggest to Congress what they think will work. This is just a study. This is not a new program or an extension of the FHA short refinance program.

I do think this amendment is germane, for a number of reasons. The gentleman talked about the fact that this country was almost brought to the brink of total disaster because of this subprime meltdown. He pointed to things, that have already been identified, that we can put squarely on the shoulders of the servicers who are responsible for the management of these mortgages after they have been packaged, securitized, and then sent on their way to be collected on.

This gentleman is talking about the fact that many of these servicers when they are trying to collect on these mortgages can see that fraud has taken place, but they do nothing about it. They can see that amendments have been slipped in that the homeowners did not know about. They can see that sometimes the signature does not even belong to the homeowner, but they continue to try and collect on these mortgages.

I think that this amendment is germane. I would ask that the Chair rule in favor of this amendment. It is time somebody paid a price for what has been done to the American public.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, I rise to support the amendment. I'm opposed to the point of order. I think it is absolutely germane. Not only do we have a bill before us that will eliminate taxpayers' ability to have their homes that are underwater refinanced; this also impacts their taxes. They will continue to have to be taxed on those homes at the same rate. And so here we have before us the Universal Homeowner Tax Relief Act that would impact 30 million Americans nationwide.

And I must add that if we can, in this House and in this Congress, give tax breaks to the richest 1 percent of Americans in the way that we have done, certainly we can support these homeowners who are underwater, these homeowners who have been tricked into mortgages that they didn't understand, these homeowners who are the victims of fraud. And I think this is germane.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise because I want to make sure that the chair of our committee, who just took the floor, understands that we understand the bill. When our chairman first took the floor to talk about what this bill is and what it is not, he said he did not think that we really understood what the bill was all about. I would like to assure you that the Members on this side of the aisle understand this legislation. I would like to assure you that those of us who work on the Financial Services Committee, who put these bills into operation, who organized these bills, who presented these bills, who got these bills passed into law to help homeowners, understand what is now happening to them.

We understand that the bill before us would eliminate this program. This is an FHA program that's designed to provide refinance opportunities for those homes that are underwater.

What do we mean when we say ``underwater''? We mean that when middle class homeowners, hardworking citizens went and signed for that mortgage where they were paying $250,000, $300,000, $400,000 for a home, they signed that mortgage, that was supposed to be the value of that home. That's what it was assessed at at the time. That was what it is supposed to be worth.

Now, because of this crisis that we are in, the subprime meltdown that we are in, this economic difficulty, these homes have lost their value. They are no longer the homes that they signed that mortgage for. The value has changed. That $400,000 home, that $300,000 home that middle class citizens were now buying is 35 percent less, or 50 percent less in some areas.

No, I will not yield.

These homeowners are saying, Will you please help me? Will you please do something about the fact that I am working every day, paying a mortgage amount for a home that's 35 to 50 percent less than what I signed up for? Will my government please help me? This is not fair. They're simply saying, Can't you do something? And we said, Yes. We put into play legislation, FHA, that would help to refinance these homes. Let's get the amounts right.

I now yield to the gentleman from Alabama, because I don't want to deny my friend the opportunity to have his say.

Reclaiming my time, I am focused on the homeowner who was supposed to be protected by the regulators that have been appointed and given the jobs of regulation so that they could make sure that our consumers are being treated fairly. We failed them. We let them down. We allowed them to get into mortgages where fraud was quite evident. We did not do the job. And so now they have these homes that are underwater, and they're saying, Help us. And we did. That's what this FHA legislation would have done, helped to refinance so that they could lower their mortgage payments.

Now, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are saying to the taxpayers and to the homeowners, No, we're not going to help you. We know your home is underwater. We know this information. We know what the servicers have done to you. We know that you are working every day to pay a mortgage for a home that you thought was worth an amount that is no longer so.

So we are saying please don't do that. We're saying please don't do that. Don't strip the homeowners of this opportunity to refinance this home.

In addition to stripping the homeowners of this opportunity, the other programs that you are going to hear about, the other three programs, the HAMP program, the NSP program, the

program for homeowners who have lost their jobs who simply want a loan, we're saying no to all of this. We're saying, No, homeowners, we're not going to help you.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Waters

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 6 be modified with the modification that is at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment that I've worked on with my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle is simply about transparency. It is simply about making ourselves available to the homeowners who are trying to get some help because they are under water. This amendment would simply say that the program is no longer in existence and that you may call us to help you to get to your lender or to get to your servicer in some way.

It is certainly not what I would prefer to have to do, but I understand we're going to lose. The Members on the opposite side of the aisle have made up their minds, and they have decided that this is important and that this is what they're going to do.

So I would simply like our citizens to know that this program that they may have started to hear about is no longer in existence and that, if they call us, we will agree that we will try and help them, in some modest way, to get to their servicers or to their lenders.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you so much.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your cooperation on this amendment. I know that there are other words that you would, perhaps, use to explain to the homeowner or to the citizen your point of view; but you did work with me on this, and you thought that this kind of transparency was good.

I do commend you because I know that you have worked directly with some of your constituents. We found out, as we talked with you, that you had helped 18 people with loan modifications and that you were willing to contact the servicers. As you know, there are those who tell us that we shouldn't be doing any of this, but I think you and I agree that we should offer some assistance to the homeowners who contact us.

I would like to thank you for that.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill, add the following

new section:

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill, add the following

new section:

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill, add the following

new section:

Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the King amendment.

Repealing or de-funding health care reform is part of the Republicans' No Jobs Agenda. The Affordable Care Act will create jobs. One study says that repealing the law will put in jeopardy the 250,000 to 400,000 new jobs this law will create each year.

More importantly, de-funding the Affordable Care Act will jeopardize the many benefits this law provides to the American people.

1. The Affordable Care Act prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, like diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and HIV/AIDS.

2. Starting this year, the Affordable Care Act provides seniors in the ``donut hole'' a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescription drugs.

3. Also starting this year, small businesses may qualify for a tax credit that covers up to 35 percent of the cost of providing health insurance to their workers.

4. The Affordable Care Act provides $11 billion for community health centers, which serve low-income and uninsured families in my district and throughout the country.

5. The Affordable Care Act provides $15 billion for wellness and prevention activities, such as cancer screenings and child immunizations.

6. The Affordable Care Act provides funding to train additional primary care doctors and nurses, who will be able to serve patients in underserved parts of the country, like Los Angeles County.

7. Most importantly, the Affordable Care Act guarantees all Americans access to affordable health insurance that covers essential medical benefits and that cannot be taken away when they get sick and need it most.

De-funding the Affordable Care Act will impact all Americans, but especially harm the least of these--women, children, people of color, the poor, the homeless--people who often lack a voice and whom I have championed during my four decades in public service. People of color are disproportionately impacted by a lack of access to health insurance. According to the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Minority Health, 20 percent of African-Americans were uninsured in the United States in 2007, and 32 percent of the Hispanic population was uninsured.

Quality health care must be available for all Americans regardless of race, level of income, gender, or the existence of a pre-existing condition. That's why the Affordable Care Act specifically addresses health disparities and protects the rights of people with pre-existing conditions, and that's we must fully fund the Affordable Care Act.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

The majority's continuing resolution cuts funding to the SEC by $188 billion. Such a cut would leave our financial markets, including the derivatives market, unpoliced and effectively unregulated. In effect, the continuing resolution would take the Wall Street cop--its only cop--off the beat.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act will prevent another financial crisis like the one that crippled credit markets in 2008 by authorizing the SEC to regulate derivatives, provide oversight of investment advisers and broker-dealers, and rein in credit rating agencies. In order to do this, the SEC needs additional funding.

I am a little bit surprised that the gentlelady from Missouri talks about punishing the agency and making them understand. No, this is about accepting responsibility and helping to protect the average investor. We have people who lost all of their savings in their 401(k)s with the meltdown, and now we're talking about not funding the very agency that has the responsibility for protecting the investors? I don't think so.

Unfortunately, House Republicans don't want the SEC to staff up or to even maintain their current staffing levels. If this cut becomes law, the SEC would have to lay off hundreds of staff and cut its information technology budget down to $86 million, it's lowest level of information technology spending since 2003. At this level, the SEC would not be able to implement the new system it needs to protect the Nation's security markets.

From 2005 to 2007, during the period up to the crisis that imploded in 2008, the SEC lost 10 percent of its staff. In addition, from 2005 to 2009, the SEC's investments in information technology declined 50 percent. During this time period, trading volume doubled. The number of investment advisers has increased by 50 percent and the funds they manage have increased 55 percent to $33 trillion.

Let's put these numbers into perspective. The SEC's 3,800 employees currently oversee approximately 35,000 entities, including 11,450 investment advisers, 7,600 mutual funds, 5,000 broker-dealers, and more than 10,000 public companies. Furthermore, these staff police companies that trade, on average, 8.5 billion shares in the listed equity markets alone every day.

What does this mean for the average investor? Without adequate funding, the SEC won't be able to do its job, as simple as that, of protecting the average investor. As financial markets and investors become more and more complex, the average investor has confidence in making an investment because he or she knows that there is a system in place to protect them. This continuing resolution will undermine that system.

We've all heard of Bernie Madoff and the massive multiyear fraud he perpetrated on thousands of investors. Bernie Madoff was just one man. Imagine a world in which there are hundreds of Bernie Madoffs who prey unchecked on investors. That's the world we will be in if the majority's cut for the SEC becomes law.

So, Mr. Chairman and Members, if we want to create jobs and spur investment in our economy, we must fully fund the SEC. I don't see how anyone can make a rational argument that the SEC should be level funded or underfunded when we know that that's the only police on the beat to protect our investors and ensure that people who have invested in their retirement won't have to go back to work at 65 and 70 and 75 years old. That's what happened when we had this meltdown.

And so now we know what happened. We have good management over there. We have people who understand what they need. They have come to people who have been elected and sent to Congress to do a job. That job is to look out for the average person, the average American. All of our constituents are not interested in punishing the SEC. They want to make it work. And I submit to you that this amendment is important to help make it work. Do not follow the lead of the people on the opposite side of the aisle who would endanger all of us and all of our investors.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman and Members, I have long been an advocate of consumer protections and consumer rights. And I'm proud of the work we accomplished in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Madam Chairman, and Members, I didn't get elected to the Congress of the United States of America to protect big banks, banks too big to fail, or to protect their shoddy products, criminal schemes that are designed to rip off innocent citizens who go to work every day. I don't know how anybody can come to this floor and represent that the consumers, the workers, the people of this country, don't need any protection.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is needed because it is very clear that our current regulatory framework inadequately protects consumers. Just look at the wrongful foreclosures on our veterans which was exposed by reporters last month and was the subject of a Veterans Affairs hearing last week. You go tell those veterans that they didn't need that protection, that they shouldn't be protected.

The proliferation of harmful financial products and practices went unchecked because our banking regulators were tasked with both consumer protection and bank safety and soundness responsibilities. And we've seen that the pro-bank, anti-consumer stance won every time. That's why we created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to make sure that the consumer voices aren't shouted down by the industries, and that an independent agency is beholden to the consumers and not the CEOs of the big financial institutions.

Opponents of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau claim we don't need this agency, they say, because the other banking regulators are already charged with consumer protection. This argument doesn't hold water because there are several types of consumer financial products which, because they were offered by nonbanks,

fall into what may be classified as the shadow banking industry. These products and institutions escape Federal regulation, yet often lead to Federal problems such as our current economic foreclosure crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would bring nonbanks that offer financial services to and interact with consumers into our regulatory system.

Another reason the CFPB is needed is to protect consumers from complicated products and hidden predatory fees. According to Elizabeth Warren, who is a special adviser to the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the average credit card offer now comes bundled with more than 100 pages of fine print. Buried within this fine print are provisions about restrictions, teaser rates, and penalties. This fine print makes it nearly impossible for consumers to make informed decisions and pick the credit card or other lending product which is right for them. This leads some borrowers to be trapped in credit cards or loan products with hidden and abusive fees.

The CFPB would resolve this problem by working with the industry to reduce the fine print and hidden fees. We also need CFPB to provide stability to our financial markets, which is supported by consumer lending.

Our current crisis began when collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities were packed with exotic products, which are known as no doc loans and liar loans. It was exacerbated as consumers were continually squeezed with excessive penalties and fees from bank products, reducing purchasing power, and leading families everywhere to make tough decisions.

A strong regulator, one which focused solely on consumer safety and championed simpler disclosure and product, could have prevented all of this. We need CFPB. This kind of crisis should never occur again.

Amendments to defund CFPB or to prevent it from doing its work will only hurt American consumers and, in turn, our economy. So I urge a ``no'' vote on these amendments.

Madam Chair and Members, I don't know how any elected any official could go home and talk to their constituents and tell them they want to limit the funding to the SEC, the cop on the Wall Street block to protect investors, and then add to it, ``and I don't want you to have any consumer protection.''

We don't like what has been done. We're against these kinds of regulations. It is baffling. It is not to be understood, and I believe that in the final analysis this body will do the right thing.

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

I rise to support the Nadler-Lee-Stark amendment.

I would like to thank them for bringing this amendment to the floor. I would like to thank all of them and the other Progressives in this House for the work that has been done in an attempt to make sense out of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and for all of the traveling, the speeches, and the organizing that has been done around this war issue.

Mr. Chairman, we continue to fight to bring our troops home. I know that there are those who would think that perhaps because they have not heard a lot from us that somehow we had removed ourselves from the struggle, but

that is certainly not true. We have been respectful. We have allowed this administration to make some commitments. The American people decided to give the administration the opportunity to work to bring our troops home, and we are still committed to that.

This CR would provide $100 billion for military operations in Afghanistan. That doesn't sound as if we are trying to wind down. That doesn't sound as if we are ready to recognize that it is time to get out of Afghanistan. Why are we there?

Unfortunately, this war has been very traumatic on our soldiers, on their families, and on the American public. Yes, as has been said over and over again, we salute our soldiers. We appreciate the sacrifices that they have made--and have they made sacrifices. There have been more suicides in this war and in the Iraq war than we have had in all of the wars of the United States of America. It breaks my heart to hear about the brain injuries and the loss of limbs that these soldiers have suffered.

Why is this happening? What are we doing?

Leon Panetta, the head of the CIA, says there are fewer than 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. That is more than $1 billion per al Qaeda operative. Again, let me reiterate: the CIA tells us there are fewer than 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. At the rate that we're going with the CR providing $100 billion for military operations, that is more than $1 billion per al Qaeda operative.

Our amendment would limit the funds for military operations in Afghanistan to $10 billion to provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of forces.

As we stand here debating this $100 billion allocation in the CR, I cannot help but contrast that with the fact that our domestic agenda is being cut and cut and cut, not only by this CR but by the budgets, both from the opposite side of the aisle and from the White House. The homelessness is shameful in America. We have people who are wondering how they're going to keep their homes warm. We are cutting heating oil in America. The environment is taking a licking in this CR.

At the same time that we talk about innovation and creating jobs, I don't see anything in this CR that will create any jobs. What I see are unwise expenditures such as we are witnessing with the $100 billion. What I see on the opposite side of the aisle is a dedicated commitment to getting rid of regulations that can save us money and create jobs.

So, led by the Progressives, we stand strong in our commitment that this war must end. We must bring our soldiers home. It is time for us to concentrate on the domestic agenda. There are those who would tell us we are training the military in Afghanistan, that we are going to have Afghanistan soldiers who will be ready to take over. I don't see that happening.

What is ``win''? What is ``success''? How do you define it? I haven't found anybody on the opposite side of the aisle who can define that.

I would say it is time for us to have the courage to do what must be done. Let's support the Nadler-Lee-Stark amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Kline-Foxx-Hastings-McCarthy amendment that would stop the Department of Education's proposed gainful employment regulation. Proprietary colleges account for only 7 percent of the higher education student population; yet last year 44 percent of student loan borrowers who defaulted within 2 years of beginning their repayment were students who had attended for-profit schools.

Mr. Chairman, I know something about these private postsecondary schools. One could make the argument, and you will hear, oh, not all of the schools. Of course, not 100 percent of the schools are ripoff schools, but a huge majority of them are. I have experienced some of this firsthand.

While I was working with poor students in South Los Angeles, we were trying to get them into GED classes. The recruiters would come along and tell them that they could get them into their schools, they could help them to get Pell Grants, and they could help them get a career, and, lo and behold, they would sign up. You would see them a few days later, some were going to be dental assistants and they had a little green jacket on and they had a little box that they carried to make it look as if they were carrying dental tools. But it was just a matter of months later when you would find sometimes the school was out of business. They had been going to school, there were no teachers, there was no equipment.

They were ripoff schools. And I want to tell you, they make a lot of money. Take a look at this one school, Capella. They earned $335 million in profits; 78 percent of that was government money.

Now, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle will have you believe they want to save the government money. They want to make sure that they do everything to protect the government from spending the taxpayers' money unwisely. Something is wrong with this picture when they take the floor and argue for the continued ripoff of our students and our taxpayer money to these schools.

Let me tell you who some of them are. Corinthian, bad reputation; Everest, ITT, Westwood. And, guess what? Kaplan University. Guess who owns Kaplan? The Washington Post. Do you think The Washington Post makes most of its money from the newspaper? You got another thought coming. Their profits and their revenue for the most part is coming from Kaplan University, which has been found to have done all kinds of things to get these students in, charging them higher prices for these classes. They are not getting jobs, they don't get a career, and they end up not only owing the government money, but they are prevented from having a decent quality of life because now they can't get a section 8, they can't get another Pell Grant, and, you know what? In many States they are going after Social Security money and retirement money.

This is the next big scandal in America. You think that the meltdown that we just had and the foreclosures that we are experiencing across this country are bad. You wait until the investigations are done and the truth is told and the amount of money is counted from the ripoffs.

Now, I know that this is a powerful lobby that I am working against. I understand that. They roam these Halls, and they have plenty of resources, and they put out plenty of materials. They buy full-page ads. They are up on television, the Joe Blow School of Computer Learning that has no school. I want to tell you, I understand how tough this is.

But what I don't understand is how they could be joined by people who

claim to care about the taxpayers' money and claim that they are fighting to reduce government, when in fact they are supporting the ripoff schools that are increasing the amount of Pell Grants that we give to schools, who will not get any jobs or create any careers.

This is not right. We should not have to suffer this kind of misrepresentation. Members of this House should be in support of students who want to learn. The worst thing that can happen to students who drop out of school, to students who haven't made it, to all of a sudden think that somehow they are going to get a job and get into one of these ripoff schools and get disappointed time and time again.

I know what populations they are targeting. I see them. They are targeting the welfare mothers. They are targeting gang-bangers. They are targeting all kinds of people that they know are going to have a difficult time succeeding.

So you keep doing this, it is going to catch up with you. I ask that this amendment not be supported.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise to address what I consider very serious problems with this continuing resolution and this defense budget and the lack of attention to jobs.

I am going to talk about something that's quite unpopular. We all know that we have 9 percent unemployment in this country, which is significant. We all know that communities all over America are suffering, not simply rural communities, not simply suburban areas, not simply inner cities. But people are hurting, having lost their jobs, all over America.

In some communities, it's not 9 percent, it's not 10 percent, it's not even 15 or 20 percent. We have communities in America where there is 30 and 40 percent unemployment.

There are those who would like to say, well, that's in those urban areas. No, it is not simply in urban areas. We have poor rural communities that have Representatives who come here every day talking about they are representing them, when in fact they never speak to the needs of those communities. They don't talk about the lack of health care that people have had to endure for so many years, the inability for people in these rural communities to access clinics. Some of us are fighting for all people, not only the cities and the towns, but these rural areas that are being hurt so badly.

Now, it is not popular to even use the word ``poor.'' As a matter of fact, you hear over and over again about concerns for the middle class. Of course, we are all concerned for the middle class. But who represents the poor people in America these days? There are some of us who do, and proudly so, and we are referred to as ``big spenders.'' Tax and spend, they say. And they don't talk about the poverty in their own community.

But let me just tell you, with this continuing resolution the CDBG, Community Development Block Grant, money is going to hurt all of these communities across America. Many of these Representatives who support cutting CDBG from $4.45 billion down to $1.5 billion are going to hurt their cities. Their mayors are absolutely going nuts about what is happening with the cutting of CDBG, the last block grant funding that they can depend on to assist with economic development that helps to create jobs in America.

You hear a lot about that we care about jobs. Well, we know what people care about jobs based on where they place their priorities. My friends are cutting in areas where we could be creating jobs and have demonstrated that they have zero bills to create jobs. The mindless cuts that they are proposing means 1 million job cuts: no jobs for nurses, teachers, police, firefighters, manufacturing, small businesses.

We need to put America back to work, and we can do this if we are sensible, if we are targeting the cuts in areas that can take it.

Why are we spending the amount that we are spending on the military budget and defense budget when we have those who are telling us--for example, Secretary Gates announced his intention to terminate the expeditionary fighting vehicle program and the surface launch medium- range air-to-air missile system. Why are we trying to disregard what we have been told by the very people who understand this defense budget better than anybody else?

No, we want to continue to fund a budget that doesn't need any funding, not talking about how we reduce and eliminate the funding for Afghanistan and bring our soldiers home and put that money into our own domestic needs. We are talking about somehow cutting in ways that they would have people believe that they are helping them when in fact they are hurting them.

This continuing resolution does nothing for strengthening the economy. It does nothing for creating jobs. It does nothing for support of those cities who are fighting desperately to hold on to opportunities for people who have nowhere else to turn. Not only do we have the cuts in areas that would create jobs, but also many of these areas are faced with foreclosures.

Offered By: Mr. Waters

Amendment No. 175: Page 354, beginning on line 6, strike

``That the funds'' and all that follows through ``: Provided

further,''.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 176: Page 232, beginning on line 3, strike

section 1536.

Offered By: Ms. Waters

Amendment No. 397: Page 217, line 13, after the dollar

amount insert ``(reduced to $0)''.

Page 354, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $586,600,000)''.