Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the basic principle of this economic stimulus package I agree with, and that is allowing taxpayers to keep more of what they contribute to the government in order to keep more of what they earn so they can spend it for their families and the communities.

Yesterday, the Speaker said that she estimates that each dollar of broad tax cuts leads to $1.26 in economic growth. Now, that's a wonderful thing, 26 percent return on your investment for allowing people to keep what they earn. That's wonderful and that's a very good thing. Tax relief spurs economic growth. That is true.

But we have to also go a step further in this economic stimulus package. At a time when people are concerned about high gas prices, rising costs of health care, as well as keeping their homes, we have to be acutely aware of helping them. And I think what we can do as a Congress is go a step further in this stimulus package, one step further, and that is to take the rising taxes, the tax increases that are on the table and take them off the table.

Look, we need to do a whole lot more to keep this economy strong, to keep it consistently strong. We need to make permanent the tax relief from 2001 and 2003. I think it would be immoral for Washington politicians to take more out of people's hard-earned incomes for wasteful spending programs. And I think we have to go further.

By taking that tax increase off the table, we will help every kitchen table in America, for every middle-class family in America.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and appreciate her leadership.

Leave it to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make an inefficient program even more inefficient. By imposing these arbitrary and uncredited green standards, it will drive up construction costs. And in the end, that means we will have fewer units put out in this housing program. And it also delays the spending of the $1.3 billion HOPE VI surplus that we currently have.

I think it is a better use of the money to allow the Secretary to establish standards that are appropriate for the region, appropriate for the product being put out, and this gives the flexibility to do that.

What I would say is that the Capito amendment still allows for green standards, high, strong, green standards, but it does not impose arbitrary standards. It allows for a collaborative effort for this to go forward, and it strikes the right balance, not a one-size-fits-all approach.

I urge adoption of her amendment.

Mr. Speaker, at $2.9 trillion, the Federal budget is bigger than the entire economy of every single country on Earth, except Japan. Bigger than the economies of China, bigger than the economy of Britain, bigger than the economy of Germany. Just the Federal budget is larger than all of those economies.

So, Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I want to ask them this question: Out of $2.9 trillion, can't you trim enough money to stop impending tax increases on the middle class and every American in this country, rather than proposing new tax increases? Unfortunately, the actions of this Congress say no, that the Democrat majority is intent on raising taxes in order to grow and expand this rather large and bloated Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important the American people know what the Democrats in Congress are intending to do, and that is to raise taxes and grow government.

I thank the ranking member for yielding time, and I appreciate his leadership and friendship on the committee. He has worked very hard on this issue, as has the whole committee. But we have come to different conclusions on this.

I think there are some admirable parts of this legislation. In particular, the addition that the ranking member was able to make in consultation with the chairman on licensing of mortgage brokers. I think that is helpful and positive and makes consumers more aware of people they are dealing with.

I also believe the Green-McHenry-Neugebauer amendment that we were able to put in place in the committee is very help to the marketplace. It gives borrowers more understanding of the financial product they are about to take part in, the financial transaction they are about to take part of in. I think informed consumers are better off than uninformed consumers. Financial literacy is key; and, therefore, the process of counseling which is within this bill is helpful.

But in the end, this is about homeownership. It is about the opportunity for families to get a home of their choosing. It is about families making a financial decision for themselves, not Washington, D.C. telling them what products they can and cannot get. Unfortunately, that is what this bill does.

This bill will limit homeownership and limit the opportunities that families have by limiting the mortgage choices in the private sector and in the marketplace.

Furthermore, it does nothing to fix the current crisis we are in. Let me repeat that: this bill will do nothing to fix the current mortgage crisis we are facing. In fact, rather, it will deepen the crisis we are facing by limiting people's opportunities to refinance or finance their home.

Let me give you a couple of examples. This bill I believe will encourage more litigation and have a chilling effect on the secondary markets. Therefore, less money will be available for people to get mortgages.

Second, it will limit the loan terms available. In fact, it limits the ability for people to finance the points and fees and closing costs of many mortgage products and bans prepayment penalties.

So, in essence, if somebody currently has a prepayment penalty in their mortgage that they have and they seek refinancing, they will be unable to finance that prepayment penalty that they currently have, thereby locking them into a cycle of debt and foreclosure.

I believe this bill is harmful to long-term homeownership in America that is at an all-time high. I think what we should be doing is encouraging homeownership in this country and making more opportunities available to get the credit that they need in order to get a home for their families.

So I oppose this bill on very simple grounds: that it will limit homeownership and limit the opportunities and options that Americans have. With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and help homeownership in America.

I thank the ranking member.

In brief, my colleagues must understand the simplicity of this amendment. What it would say is the secondary market has to give a road map for those who are facing foreclosure for them to get out of their mortgage. In essence, what it says is, if you want out of your mortgage, here's the road map to do it.

I think this would be a destructive influence on the market. It would further undermine the secondary market and the liquidity in the marketplace and would further harm home ownership. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is really the crux of this debate that we are having here on the House floor on how to best take on the mortgage crisis that we are facing as a country.

This is a very substantive debate. I think it is a very legitimate debate for the House to have, about how we approach the mortgage marketplace and ensure that individuals, families, can still access credit so they can actually get a home for themselves and their children.

Now, the issue at hand is title III of the bill, the so-called North Carolina standard, put forward by my colleagues from North Carolina, Mr. Watt and Mr. Miller. What, in essence, they do is make all subprime loans HOEPA loans. These are really high-cost loans, so-called innovative loans.

What this does is make all subprime loans HOEPA loans, and, as the Comptroller of the Currency said in a recent hearing before the Financial Services Committee, ``It is fair to say that in the past HOEPA loans were viewed as so extreme that few institutions provided HOEPA loans because it was such a rigorous and, what is the word, a scarlet letter of sorts that people wouldn't make the loans. So when you look at our home loan registry, for example, you don't find many HOEPA loans anymore.''

Well, there were 10 million mortgages let in 2006. Only 15,200 were HOEPA loans. A very small percentage.

In essence, what title III of this bill does is it, in essence, eliminates the subprime marketplace in America. What it does in North Carolina, it has curtailed refinancing and initial financing in the subprime marketplace. This is very harmful to individuals and families.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me quote Congressman Miller from our recent subprime markup in Financial Services. ``Yes, there are fewer loans being made in North Carolina,'' is the reference. ``That is also an intended consequence of reform. This is the heart of the bill.''

The statistics for North Carolina, amongst subprime lenders there is a decline of 8.1 percent in the last 5 years. In comparison States, there was a growth of 1 percent of prime lending. In comparison States, loans by subprime lenders increased by 4.6 percent, and loans made in North Carolina decreased, subprime loans, by 8.1 percent. There is a significant disparity there.

Furthermore, in refinancing in subprime loans in North Carolina, there was a decline of 11.4 percent. In comparable States, there was an increase of 4 percent.

It shows that there are fewer loans being made and less availability of credit in North Carolina because of the so-called North Carolina standard.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would inform my colleague I have the right to close.

Two additional points on my amendment here. It strikes title III, which bans rolling closing costs, points and fees into the financing of subprime mortgages, as well as eliminating prepayment penalties. So if someone currently has a prepayment penalty and they want to get out of this high-cost mortgage they currently have, and they seek to refinance their way into a more affordable mortgage, they would be prevented from rolling that prepayment penalty into the next loan.

So my contention is title III of this bill eliminates people's options and opportunities to refinance their way out of foreclosure and default.

So I would encourage my colleagues to vote for my amendment to strike I think the most egregious title within this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Who has the right to close on an amendment? Is it those opposed to it or those who are offering the amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me tell you one story in North Carolina. Ben Ingle is a mortgage broker at NBI Mortgage in Shelby, North Carolina. Ben was able to secure a loan for a woman who was a victim of domestic violence and a victim of her ex-husband's bad credit. Her ex-husband ruined her credit. In this process, she got out of an abusive relationship and wanted to have a home for her son and herself, but she had a tough time because of her credit situation.

Well, Ben was able to work with her over an extended period of time. In fact, when it was all said and done, under this legislation before us today, Ben would have been only able to make $4.16 an hour for the work that he did for this lady to qualify her for a loan.

Now, she is very happy to be in a loan today and have a mortgage today and have a home for her son. But what this bill does is harm our communities and I think our mortgage brokers that are doing the right thing.

At the end of the day, mortgage originators are a part of our community. They are community leaders oftentimes, and what we are trying to do is battle unscrupulous actors and have good protections for homeownership in America.

Title III of this bill would prevent this young lady from having the option to get the lending she needed for a home. This is about homeownership. I urge Members to vote for my amendment and vote against the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, what a proud day for the Bulldogs of Gardner-Webb University.

My constituents, the Bulldogs, defeated the seven-time national champs Kentucky Wildcats in basketball just the other night by 18 points. Gardner-Webb University, a school of 4,000 students located in Boiling Springs, North Carolina, in my district, showed no fear in front of 23,000 cheering and hostile Wildcat fans in Kentucky's famed Rupp Arena. What a great night.

I come to the floor to congratulate Gardner-Webb University; the basketball team at Gardner-Webb University; the Bulldogs, generally speaking, the great students there at Gardner-Webb; and the president of the college, Frank Bonner; as well as the coach, Rick Scruggs, for their momentous basketball victory.

Let me tell you something. The Bulldogs have proven once again that with enough hard work and dedication, any obstacle can be overcome. And it also proves that no basketball team from North Carolina is ever really the underdog.

With that, I congratulate the Bulldogs. I congratulate Gardner-Webb University and the great basketball team and the students that they have.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1008 I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained on my return to the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1009 I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained on my return to the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Madam Speaker, I am confident the only thing worse than having to pay taxes is figuring out how to fill out the forms to pay taxes. As Albert Einstein said: ``The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.'' He was right. It is 16,485 pages. Our income tax is an outrage, an outrage long in need of reform and simplification.

Last week Republicans introduced an alternative to this outrage. The Taxpayer Choice Act does what it says. It gives taxpayers a choice between all the headaches of the current tax system or a highly simplified alternative tax. It simplifies the process for taxpayers and gives them what they deserve, a transparent, efficient, simple and fair Tax Code and completely eliminates AMT tax and makes permanent the capital gains and dividends tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

Madam Speaker, it is long time that we pass fundamental tax reform and give taxpayers the choice, the Taxpayer Choice Act.

I thank my colleague for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking the chairman, Mr. Frank, for engaging in, as he always does, a really great debate, and I agree with his idea here but I disagree with the principle that he's using to achieve it by expanding and creating a new government program.

The HOME program, the gentleman before me just spoke of, provides a very similar application of funds, $2 billion a year, to help with rental assistance and affordable housing. Rather than fixing this program and improving it, they are creating a whole other program.

And, as I said, I disagree with the principle on the size and scope of government and government's role, but Mr. Chairman, there's a common thread running through the agenda of this new Democrat majority, and that common thread is that there's a massive expansion of government. If government is not needed, they will add a little government intervention, and if there's already too much government intervention, they will just expand it even more.

The bill we're debating falls squarely into the second category. The bill, so

far as I can tell, is all about more government control of this process. Rather than using the marketplace to improve the affordability of homes, they're creating another government program which redistributes money, in fact, a tax on every mortgage in this country, and then redistribute it to those through a government program. It makes no sense to create another duplicative program.

As my colleague from Alabama said, there are already over 30 affordable housing programs within the government. Most of those programs do not, in fact, build houses, but they give rental assistance. They give assistance so people can buy their first home. They give assistance in a number of different categories, but the Federal Government doesn't build homes. We have to allow the private sector to do that, which is what I think is most important.

But what is especially true in light of the fact that this bill we're debating today creates a new program that is nearly identical to one already existing, the HOME program, which, as I said earlier, is a $2- billion-a-year program, let's fix that program. Let's look at market- based incentives to allow people to afford housing. Let's allow the marketplace to work rather than create another government program, and that's why we should vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the strength of a community is best judged by how it deals with and faces adversity. Burke County, North Carolina exemplifies and illustrates how strong communities defeat hardship by channeling their efforts and resources for improvement.

When unemployment nearly quadrupled in 5 years, my constituents there banded together to build a better future. They recognize that an educated workforce is the key to economic growth, so they developed a plan to ensure that all high school graduates in the county have the opportunity to go to the local community college for a 2-year degree. Western Piedmont Community College is that college where they are offering it.

Through the hard work of Arrick Gordon and the Burke Alliance for Youth, the Burke Education Endowment Program is nearly at that goal. This weekend, the Overmountain Jamboree and Barbecue Cookoff, which will combine two powerful forces, North Carolina barbecue and country music, will be held this weekend in Morganton, and that will raise the final sum needed to provide that much-needed education to the local youth. It shows the strength of the community, and it shows the strength of the people of North Carolina.

Madam Speaker, we are often told safety doesn't happen by accident. And it is no accident that Caldwell County has been kept safe under the careful watch of Lenoir Fire Chief Ken Briscoe, who has been fighting fires for more than 30 years.

Chief Briscoe wrote the book on firefighting, literally. He developed extensive training curricula while working with the State fire marshal's office, sharing his wisdom and experience with more than 1,400 North Carolina fire departments.

Chief Briscoe then returned to the front lines of firefighting, taking the helm of the Lenoir Fire Department, and we have been fortunate to have him. The Lenoir Fire Department is a top-notch organization. And because of his leadership there, Chief Briscoe has recently been named North Carolina's top firefighter by the North Carolina State Firemen's Association.

In the words of one of his lieutenants, ``Chief Briscoe is a firefighter's fireman.'' I am honored to know such a public servant and call him a friend.

Congratulations, Chief Briscoe. We are very proud of you. You have earned this award, and you have kept the people of western North Carolina safe. Thank you for your service.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from West Virginia for yielding. The ranking member is very generous with yielding.

I want to thank the committee chairman, my colleague from Massachusetts, for having an open and fair process in the committee. We had a number of amendments through that whole process that were vigorously debated, and there was a lot of discussion about continuing that vigorous debate on the House floor to work out some compromises, and the committee Chair honors his word in committee. I want to thank him for that.

Unfortunately, the Rules Committee did not allow these amendments to come forward to the House floor, and that is a great shame. I think the work product coming off this House floor will be less than it could have been had we had an open and fair process here on the House floor.

It is obvious and true that the National Flood Insurance Program is already in deep trouble. It's $18 billion in the hole. Since 1981, over the last 26 years, it's borrowed from the Treasury 14 times, $18 billion in the hole. Certainly it needs reform.

I think the underlying reforms for flood insurance in this bill are appropriate and good, and I appreciate the chairman of the committee, and I appreciate my colleague from Massachusetts accepting my amendment in the committee that says that new and renewing multi-peril policies shouldn't be extended in a time when the National Flood Insurance Program is borrowing from the Treasury. I think that's proper, and I appreciate him accepting that in this bill.

But overall, this addition of wind will actually step into the private sector and private market that is largely working and has largely worked for the last 100 years in this country. There have been a number of failures, and that is on occasion what happens; but with the private sector, it can be done on an actuarially sound basis.

What we're doing under this bill by adding a wind proposal is exposing the taxpayers to tens of billions of dollars' worth of additional unfunded liabilities, and that's why I'm going to have to sadly vote against this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, 220 years ago, 55 delegates assembled in Philadelphia, ``to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.''

The principles set forth by our Founding Fathers are still important today, and the Constitution and founding documents are essential to understand our history as a nation. They remain the bedrock of American society, and it is essential that we honor our Constitution as the embodiment of the freedoms we hold dear. That is why I introduced the U.S. History Resolution.

This resolution acknowledges the importance of promoting U.S. history in our schools and communities, with a particular focus on America's founding documents.

As the saying goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. And to avoid this fate, we should repeat it often, but to repeat it in schools, to repeat it to our children so they understand where we came from so we can know where we are going. And that will promote a better America.

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

The gentleman's words are out of order. The gentleman is using language that is unbecoming of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, traveling to the Holy Land in August, I saw firsthand the challenges facing our ally and friend, Israel. From Syria, the terrorist state in the north, to Lebanon and the chaos existing there further to the north, to the enemies that surround the state, I saw the challenges traveling down the Galilee to the Jordan, down to the Dead Sea and going to the capital, Jerusalem.

While it was my great privilege to walk on that sacred holy ground, I also realized the eye-opening national security issues that they face as a nation. Israel is our greatest ally in the war against Islamic extremists, and it is our function to support them in Israel. It is our imperative to support them. That's why our 10-year security agreement that we recently signed between the United States and Israel is so necessary for the ongoing security, not just of Israel, but of the United States. Israel's enemies are our enemies. We share a common cause, and it is necessary that we stand strong for Israel because it makes us that much stronger.

I encourage the American people to support our greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel.