Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we just heard that we were cutting Medicare; but, in fact, it was the minority party that cut $500 billion out of Medicare last year to pass ObamaCare. How quickly we forget.

Mr. Speaker, at one time, people stored cash under their mattress for safekeeping. Now people all over the world put that same money in treasury bills. That benefits every American in countless ways. Let's not lose that advantage.

The imminent threat to the safe haven of treasury bonds and our national security is default and downgrade. However, by far, the overriding danger is too much government spending. The Federal Government must do what every family in America is called on to do at times when things are tight. That's cut spending and live within their means.

As long as we ignore our spending problem, the economy will weaken, confidence will not be restored, jobs will not be created. We, and more profoundly, our children and grandchildren, will bear the costs.

Earlier, the minority leader said: What will the students say? What will the children say?

Let me say this. When we say to them your money's all gone, we spent it, we lacked the courage to address the problems, we didn't confront the problems, what will our children say to us? What will our grandchildren say?

The heritage of America has never been ``can't do''; it's always been ``can do.'' We can do it. We can rise to the challenge. We can answer our children and our grandchildren in future years and say we did the right thing for you. We did the right thing for our country. We confronted the problems.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Madam Chairman, this month we're all focused on the debt and the deficit and our negotiations to try to balance the budget. So it's with great pride that I tell the House that all 54 members of the Financial Services Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, have unanimously passed out of the committee a bipartisan piece of legislation which will save the U.S. Government and the American taxpayers $4.2 billion over the next 10 years. It does that without decreasing any of the benefits of the program. It does it in some commonsense ways.

One is that premiums will be actuarially sound. They will be based on the risk, and we will be eliminating subsidies to bring the program into balance. We further insulate taxpayers from losses by adding a reinsurance provision whereby part of the premium that people pay, just as if they do on their house or for wind coverage if they have a home on the beach--part of it is in private insurance laid off into reinsurance. The program today, if you eat up the reserves, then the Treasury is responsible for making up the difference.

After this legislation goes into effect, there will be reinsurance that will be purchased, and the taxpayer will only be exposed after risk-based premiums are exhausted, reinsurance in addition to that is exhausted. So we reduce taxpayer exposure to a tremendous extent.

Also, people have said, why is there not private insurance? Well, we have a provision in here, supported by both parties, that if the private market comes in and offers insurance for the same coverage that people will be free to choose that coverage as opposed to the national flood insurance offered by the government.

You've heard the gentlelady from Florida express her concern that 11 times this legislation has been extended. Where it has been extended, it has retarded economic growth along our coastlines, along our rivers; and you can actually imagine that a lot of the economic activity and the job creation in our country comes in these areas.

And today I think there would be no one in the House that says we want to put the economies of those areas on hold for 3 months or 6 months. We want the economy to have much fewer problems. We don't want to stop home sales; we don't want to stop commercial developments in those areas.

There are other shortcomings with the present program. One is there are disputes over whether or not land should be included within the floodplains, whether coverage should be offered. We make improvements there. We returned to a program several years ago where there's a technical advisory committee that, in addition to FEMA, will make these decisions, and it will be a more professionally based decision. Those areas which are spending money, local areas like Los Angeles, California, Ms. Waters' district; along the Mississippi River, where local governments have come together and made expenditures to protect against floods, there's acknowledgment of their work, and the phase-in period for them is extended to encourage more of that.

All in all, I think that I would just go back to where I started and say that the Financial Services Committee is no different from any other committee in this House. There are conservatives, there are liberals, there are moderates that serve on that committee, both Republicans and Democrats. But all 54 members--let me stress that again--all 54 members of the Financial Services Committee voted unanimously for this legislation. And we are prepared in our debate as we go forward to accept amendments offered by several other Members, both Democrats and Republicans, to accept those amendments where it does not do violence to the program, where it doesn't increase costs or exposure to the taxpayer.

All in all, I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, who produced this legislation. I think our constituents for months have been saying to the Congress, please set aside your political differences, please try to work together, please try to cooperate when you can do so without violating your principles.

And Mrs. Biggert and Ms. Waters, the subcommittee ranking member on her side, they put aside their differences. I worked with Chairman Frank. We had hearings, we had markups, and we produced something that I thought was not possible, and that's a bill that we all think will improve the program tremendously, will reduce the cost and reduce taxpayer exposure and really make the mapping better and

the protection for our communities in flood-prone areas work more effectively.

I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois.

I believe this is a noncontroversial amendment. It will encourage local governments to undertake repairs and remedial efforts. And I believe it is a fair, equitable change in the bill to reward local and State governments for their efforts.

With that, I would recommend passage of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think anyone in this Congress is more sincere on cutting government spending than Mr. Flake. I believe he comes here with pure motivation. I would simply say this to him and my colleagues: this is an issue that we carefully considered. It was first proposed as a result of Katrina and the losses there. As he said correctly, this program is $16 billion in the red. After Katrina, the Federal Government through FEMA, SBA and others, paid out several billion dollars not on the flood insurance program but paid out an estimated $6 billion or $7 billion to businesses because of their losses from business interruption and temporary shelter and living expenses.

In 2006, really as a result of that, the subcommittee chairman, Richard Baker, held hearings and determined that business interruption and cost-of-living coverage should be included. It has passed the House, but we have actually since then never passed a flood insurance reform bill.

As all of us know, and I think all of us agree, the legislation before us today has already been scored as a $4.2 billion savings. The reason that it saves money, the reason that it takes a program that is costing taxpayers money every day is because it requires a risk-based premium. Now, beyond that, it also requires reinsurance if the risk- based premium proves insufficient. So it has a cushion.

It also says that if private insurers will offer this plan, then the government will not. It makes a finding that a competitive private market for such coverage does not exist. That was actually based on 2006 and again last year. It certifies that the National Flood Insurance Program will offer such coverage with the prohibition that it is supplemented by taxpayer money from the Treasury. This was a concern that many of us, including Mr. Flake, you know, had, that the taxpayer would end up subsidizing this.

This legislation with this provision actually scores as a $4.2 billion savings over the next 10 years. Actually, I think it could be greater than that because, as Mr. Flake said, we don't know what is going to happen next year or the year after that. We do know this: we know when we have one of these, and in fact this year is a great example, when we have four $1 billion disasters, what did this Congress do? It appropriated disaster assistance. And that included reimbursement for living expenses and business interruption. Not only that, but the SBA, the Agricultural Department and I can't imagine how many others that we don't know about, FEMA, as a realistic matter, they are handing out checks every day when we have these disasters. Local and State governments are doing the same.

Why not, instead of this being handed out, why not have the people who own the businesses, who are living there, why not offer them coverage and let them pay the premium and let them share the loss? There are many places in the West where a flood, it would be almost impossible. There are many places in this country where a flood is simply not a problem. Why should those people be required to pay taxpayer money for what has become basically the Federal Government coming in and reimbursing everyone that doesn't have insurance? That is a question that we have asked.

We have just had the largest outbreak of tornadoes and death in the United States in Alabama. I have heard people say we have a situation where

there is no insurance and the Federal Government comes in and says, if you have insurance, you have got it covered; and if you don't, we'll make it up. I don't like that idea. I think it encourages people not to have coverage.

This offers them coverage. The next step is telling them no to these others program; you should have had insurance.

I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment. As many of us on the Financial Services Committee know, the flood insurance program is a public-private partnership where private insurance companies write the coverage and service the policies, with the government setting the coverage and the requirements.

Recently, State Farm Insurance decided that they no longer wanted to participate in the program, and they transferred--I guess that's a nice word. An unflattering term which is more accurate would be they dumped 800,000 policies back on the Federal Government. This was after they collected premiums and their agents sold the coverage.

This amendment would make changes to that, where if an insurance company wants to participate in the plan, they can; if they want to profit from the plan, they can. But they don't have the unilateral right to dump those policies back on the government agencies.

Prior to that, there were about 150 policies that the government was administering directly.

What this amendment would do is called a depopulation amendment. It directs FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program to take those policies and distribute them among insurance companies who are willing to service those contracts. And I'm happy to report to the Congress and the Members that many mainline insurance companies have agreed to take up these policies.

Out of respect for State Farm agents, many of whom I think were displeased and surprised by their parent company abandoning these policies, it would give them the right to also service those policies. However, there may be some legal problems with that, but we at least don't rule that out.

The depopulation of these policies--and by that, the return to what the program was set up to function like, and that was with private servicers and agents. Handling the policies would be done over a 1-year time frame.

I actually believe that we should have actually depopulated more than we did, but we did this as an accommodation to FEMA and to some of the State Farm agents. I think this is a noncontroversial amendment.

I would like to commend Mr. Loebsack for his amendment. I also would like to say that because it does require or ask that TV and radio be utilized to get the word out, the next amendment by the lady from Michigan actually would--and I have taken no position on her amendment--but it actually asks that national flood insurance not incur advertising expenses. And I think there is some good points to that, some bad points. But as this amendment proves, the local stations themselves and the local media can get these things out. So that might be a point in favor of her first amendment.

I am very opposed to her second amendment. I don't want the Members to confuse support, or at least non-opposition to her first amendment, as support for her second. But I commend the gentleman, and I think it's a good sense amendment and would urge strong support to the Loebsack amendment.

I think the gentleman from Illinois was arguing on the last amendment, not this amendment. If the Members will take everything he said, transfer it to the amendment before, it would be appropriate. But I disagree with his argument.

Mr. Chairman, I'm joined on the floor today by my colleagues from the southern States. We have Members from Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia together. Families in our States have lost over 300 of their loved ones, and I ask that the House at this time join my colleagues and me in a moment of silence for these families and victims. Our thoughts and prayers go with them.

I just returned from my home State of Alabama, where we have lost over 250 of our citizens. The loss of life would have been much greater had NOAA and Dr. Jane Lubchenco and her wonderful staff not given us an early warning. But some of our storms hit at night, and people were unaware of it.

I am joining several of my colleagues today to reintroduce legislation that Brad Ellsworth and I have introduced in the last two Congresses, to have weather radios installed in manufactured housing. This would save many lives. One of the advocates of this lost her 2- year-old child. The Senate has not passed this legislation, but we are going to try again this year, and if we are successful, we will save lives.

The cost of these radios is less than $10, but the cost of not having them, as we found out this weekend in Alabama, is the loss of many lives.

I thank the chairman.

Imagine that you are on the bank of a river. It's deep in winter. It's a peaceful scene. You look out on the river, and it's frozen. There's a deep current of cold water under the ice. But then you see a small child, and he is walking out onto the ice. He doesn't fall, and he walks further out. You begin to warn the child, but he walks further out. As we know, the ice gets thinner the further out we go. And we are on that ice today as a country, and every day we take one step further out. And tragically, the young child falls through the ice and is swept away.

That's what we're here to talk about. We're here to talk about the repeated warnings that we've received.

Chairman Bernanke told us just last week that unless we act immediately in a long-term way, we will not have economic growth nor will we have financial stability.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, told us that the greatest threat to our economy and to our national security is our debt.

The IMF yesterday--this is unthinkable. They said of all the advanced countries in the world, our debt was growing the fastest, it was unsustainable, and it would lead to instability both here and across the world.

Now, imagine those pictures of countries where the children are in economic distress where there's no stability. Those could be our children. Those could be our grandchildren. So with the warning today is a vote for our children and our grandchildren. We've heard the warning. We're not children. Let's save our children and grandchildren from that fall through the ice.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of Extension Home Economics in the State of Alabama and the important educational role played by home demonstration and county agents throughout our state. Generations of families in Alabama have led better and more self-sufficient lives as a result of home economics programs, which are based on a foundation of teaching consumer and decision making skills that last a lifetime.

The roots of Extension home economics education in Alabama can be traced to the founding of the first Girls' Tomato Clubs in Pike and Walker counties in 1911. The spread of similar clubs demonstrated the great need for homemaker education. Those modest beginnings provided fertile soil for the creation of a statewide Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, which was established as part of the land grant college system. The original staff included a state home demonstration agent.

The Alabama Cooperative Extension Service is known for a number of impressive firsts, including the development of a model program to teach low-income young homemakers and the appointment of the first Negro demonstration agent in Alabama in 1915. Extension workers and citizens in Alabama participated in the ``food for defense'' program during World War II and their memorable mattress campaign resulted in the completion of more than 500,000 mattresses and 200,000 comforters to support the campaign for liberty.

A hallmark of home economics education in Alabama has been its responsiveness to changing economic and cultural needs. During the challenging years of the Great Depression, instruction in conservation and wise management of scarce resources helped to tide over many families during difficult times. The post-war years brought a new emphasis on consumer education and sound decision making as women entered the workforce in greater numbers. More recently, lifestyle, health, and technology education has assumed heightened importance. In our complex society, home economics now encompasses everything from health, nutrition, and family life to financial, consumer, and employment matters. The end goal remains the same: creating a wise consumer, a strong family unit, and productive citizens in our communities.

The State of Alabama is fortunate to have an extensive network of cooperative extension agents, university professionals, and elementary and secondary educators dedicated to the well-being of our families. Working seamlessly together, they provide an unparalleled service to the State of Alabama that enhances the quality of family life daily. On the occasion of the special celebratory luncheon being held in Montgomery on April 19 to salute the mission of home economics, it is a pleasure to recognize 100 years of achievement and look forward to a second century of service.

I thank the gentlewoman.

As Republicans and Democrats, let's talk about what this bill does. This bill shuts down a Federal program which spends money. Every dime of that money, of the over 1,000 million dollars, has already been spent, and they have authorized $29 billion more to be spent. Now, that's taxpayer money; and that is money that, in 2008, we promised the American people, when the banks paid it back, that it would go into the Treasury. That was a promise that we made. So this bill keeps that promise, and that's that the money will be returned to the Treasury.

Now, why do we make that promise and why do we defend that promise today on the floor of the House? Because, ladies and gentlemen, we are spending our children and grandchildren into financial oblivion. We are threatening the national security of this country.

Now, where do I get such a fact as that? Why do I say that it is a threat to national security, which I said last week and I was criticized?

Well, let me quote Defense Secretary Robert Gates when he said 2 months ago, ``this country's dire fiscal situation and the threat it poses to American influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the U.S. Government gets its finances in order.''

And I was told, well, that didn't say that it was a threat to our national security. But following that statement, Admiral Mike Mullen made this statement, the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, ``The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.'' In case you weren't listening, let me say that again. ``The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.'' Now, that wasn't a Republican on the floor of the House. That was the Joint Chiefs of Staff's Mike Mullen.

We are spending $1.42 for every $1 we get. We are borrowing 42 cents of that. Twelve percent of our debt is owed to the Chinese. Every day we write the Chinese a check for $120 million. They could buy the most advanced strike jet fighter in the world and still have $20 million to put in their pocket each day. In 1970, only 19 percent of our national debt was owed to other countries; today, it approaches 50 percent.

Now, let's not talk about whether we can afford this program; let's talk about whether our children and our grandchildren can, because-- let's not kid ourselves--we can't pay it back. Now, do we want to spend $30 billion of our children's and our grandchildren's money?

First of all, should we do that morally? But let's just assume that you say yes, we should do this with our children and grandchildren's money. Well, who should we pay that money to?

You talked about the banks. Where does this money go? It goes to the banks. Every dime of it is paid to a bank. You have a borrower, you have a lender. As many of you have correctly said, and I agree with you, people loaned homeowners money they couldn't afford to pay back. And is that the taxpayers' fault? Should they pick up the bill? No. It is the bank's, or it may be the homeowner's. But the people that ought to pay it back are not the taxpayers, and if it can't be paid back, the banks ought to take the loss.

You talk about the homeowners, but it is the banks that will be paid. And you talk about 500,000 Americans that have been helped. You didn't mention almost 1 million that have been made worse off. Now, again, is that some mean Republican saying they are worse off? No.

Today, March 29, a letter from the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States. Do you know who that is? It is La Raza. What did they say? Let me quote what the largest, and I think we would all agree, a very liberal organization, what did they say?

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, they said. ``Structural flaws, especially the voluntary nature of HAMP, have resulted in an abysmal performance by mortgage servicers and hundreds of thousands of families losing their homes to foreclosure unnecessarily.'' They say this program has resulted in hundreds of thousands of American homeowners losing their homes.

Now, are they the only people who have said this? No. Our own Inspector General, our own Neil Barofsky, SIGTARP, who was put in charge of monitoring this program, what did he say? Let me quote what he said. ``HAMP benefits only a small portion of distressed homeowners, offers others little more than false hope, and in certain cases causes more harm than good.'' When did he say that? He said it this month before our committee. This month.

How about the Congressional oversight panel, a majority of which are Democrats. What did they say? They said billions of taxpayer dollars-- billions, billions--will have been spent to delay rather than prevent foreclosures.

Now, that is not Republicans who are getting some crazy idea that this program isn't working. No. It is Democrats.

And who has President Obama appointed to temporarily run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Well, it is Elizabeth Warren, we all know the answer to that. What does Elizabeth Warren say about this program? Let me quote what she said. Just the facts. Not Spencer Bachus, not Patrick McHenry, not Judy Biggert. No. Elizabeth Warren, who works out of the White House and who is in charge of consumer protection. Here is what she said, December 14th: ``Because Treasury's authority to restructure HAMP ended on October 3, 2010, the program's prospects are unlikely to improve substantially in the future.'' In other words, they are not going to improve this program.

So let's end by saying this. We say shut it down. You say mend it. Let's mend this program. Why? Let's not pretend. We are not talking about mending. We are talking about pretending. The Treasury, according to Elizabeth Warren, doesn't even have the ability to do that.

The administration itself, not someone here, but your administration, Laurie Maggiano, a Treasury official, said at the Mortgage Banking Conference February 24, just a month ago, ``You won't see any major new programs coming out. We may tweak around the edges, but our primary objective in 2011 is excellence in the program we have.'' Well, there has been no excellence in the program. It has failed. The largest Hispanic group in America has said, end this program.

But I tell you what, our grandchildren and children would say this, and you continue to say, and I agree with you, we have got 13 million American families underwater with their mortgages, and you want to pick and choose 500,000 of those to help. What about the others? Should the Federal Government pay everybody's mortgage that is behind?

Why, one out of four American families are underwater on their home. You have got, it just came out yesterday: 13 million vacant houses in America, and almost immediately you come up with a cash-for-keys program where you are going to buy these abandoned properties from the banks, from the speculators.

I don't think you have listened to the American people. I don't think you heard what they said in November. This program has been criticized ever since its inception. You haven't mended it. You are talking about mending it today.

Where is your bill to mend it? Is there a bill to amend it? Have you introduced it? Is there a bill?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

You will be?

Is the gentleman saying you will be?

What, today? Was it filed today, or Monday?

Last week. Two years----

I reclaim my time. One thousand million dollars and $29 billion of authorization, 2 years of a failed program, and the week before we come to the floor, you file a bill. You file a bill. I'm sorry to say to the ranking member, you can file the bill, we will take a look at it, but we are ending this failure.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of H.R. 839, 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 reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill, to include striking ``paragraph (1)'' on page 5, line 16, and inserting in lieu thereof ``subparagraph (A)''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 1148 be re-referred primarily to the Committee on Financial Services and additionally to the Committees on Agriculture, House Administration, Judiciary, Ethics, and Rules.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address two things that the minority has raised. One is they've talked about fairness. And I will tell you that there's nothing fair about this program. In fact, it's an unfair program. It's unfair for most Americans. The second thing they've talked about is foreclosures. This program causes foreclosures. This program encourages foreclosures. This program promotes foreclosures.

Now let's talk about the foreclosures first and then we'll talk about fair. What does this program do? Does it prevent foreclosures? No. It encourages foreclosures. It allows nonprofits, community organizations, and cities and counties to buy foreclosed properties. In other words, to create a market for foreclosed properties. The minority supplied us with pictures of two of these properties. This is the one in Baltimore, Maryland. This was one of two. I think the other one was in Los Angeles, as I recall. This is the property.

Now, just like all these properties, it's not owned by a homeowner. There's no homeowner there. It's owned by a bank or a real estate speculator. It might have been somebody that put someone in this house with what we call an exploding loan. Put someone in that house that couldn't afford it.

So, what do we do? We construct a program that says to this bank that owns this property, that's paying taxes to the government on this property--we don't say to tear this down, or we don't say we're going to condemn it and convert it, and we're going to get it with no charge. No. We buy it. Now, is that right?

You said the banks caused this, the lenders. We ought to penalize those that are at fault. Well, how does penalizing a lender who made a loan on this property, how is writing them a check fair? No, it's not. This is a bailout for lenders and speculators. Now, is it fair? Well, is it fair to our grandchildren and our children, $4 billion every day that goes out of our Treasury, more than we bring in. Four billion dollars a day. In fact, the deficit for February was 230-something billion dollars.

Now, every day they talk about fairness, and I have quoted this with every one of these failed programs. I have quoted Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who says our debt is the biggest threat to our national security, the existence of our country. Well, let's just talk about one thing we do every day. We owe China 9\1/2\ percent of our debt; 9 to 9\1/2\ percent is owed to China. Every day we write a check to China because we won't face up to this exploding spending of $120 million a day.

They could buy a Joint Strike Force Fighter every day and still put $20 million in their pocket. Every day. They could build an Air Force bigger than our Air Force in 5 years on money they earn from us and that our taxpayers pay because we won't confront programs like this. Because ``fair'' to us is saying yes to everyone except the taxpayers.

And, oh, there are 4 million foreclosures in this country this year. That's a terrible figure. But I tell you, this program will do nothing but increase that number. And to think that it's fair to our children and grandchildren to devise a program but not have the money to pay it and stick it on our children and grandchildren, it ought to infuriate any of us who are grandparents. It does me.

It's time now to end this foolishness which threatens the very existence of our country.

Well, there you go again. Instead of talking about this program, you want to talk about the Brazil cotton deal, or you want to talk about Afghanistan. And I'll talk about those.

But before I do, I have a question for you, for my colleagues on the Democratic side who talk about investing in this property. I want you to get a good look at this.

Are you willing to put your money up to buy that?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Let's tear it down. I agree with you. And let's make the person who owns it tear it down. And this idea that this person can't be found, that this person----

I would ask for order.

Announcement by the Chair

And I would say to the Chair--and I appreciate that--that if any of my colleagues want to buy this property and think it's a good investment, they can hire painters and Realtors and put all these people to work, but the taxpayers, they're having trouble paying their own mortgages. They're having trouble financing their own children's education. And whose side are we on?

Listen, this program has benefited less than 2,000 pieces of property--banks--but we've got 12 million American families who are underwater on their mortgage. And do you think it's even fair to pay off, as y'all proposed, a half a million of those mortgages? How about the other 21 out of 22? You know, you can't pay off all 12 million. You will break the country. So you say, well, we're going to do the best we can. You're going to pick winners and losers.

Let me tell you something. The taxpayers that are paying their mortgages or own their own homes or didn't get into this problem--don't you get the message from November? The American people don't want us paying--they don't want to pay for someone else's obligations.

Now, let's talk about this Brazilian cotton, and let me tell you, if I were you--I'd say to the Chair, if I were the ranking member, I would talk about anything but buying this property and fixing it up. I'd do anything to avoid that conversation. I'd avoid anything to talk about that we're paying the banks with taxpayer money.

But you mentioned Brazil and you said it was a stupid deal. You said it took a Flip Wilson to do this. Well, it was Ron Kirk, trade ambassador, that entered into the agreement. And who hired him? President Obama. So you ought to take it up with the Democratic administration who saddled us with this $150 million obligation.

I close with Afghanistan. I have a son who's in the U.S. Marines. He was in there for 10 years and he's out now, but let me tell you something. I will spend money to build up an Afghan force so we can bring our young men and women home.

[From the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Executive

Office of the President]

U.S., Brazil Agree on Framework Regarding WTO Cotton Dispute

Washington, DC.--Today Brazil's Ministers reached a

decision in support of a Framework regarding the Cotton

dispute, which would avert the imposition of countermeasures

of more than $800 million this year. This includes more than

$560 million in countermeasures against U.S. exports which

were scheduled to go into effect on Monday, June 21, 2010, as

well as possible countermeasures on intellectual property

rights that could have taken effect later. We are pleased

with this decision, and look forward to signing the Framework

soon.

The findings in the Cotton dispute concern U.S. cotton

support under the marketing loan and countercyclical payment

programs, and the GSM-102 Export Credit Guarantee Program. In

line with these findings, the Framework has two major

elements.

First, it would provide, as a basis for a discussion toward

reaching a mutually agreed solution to the dispute, a limit

on trade-distorting cotton subsidies. Second, the Framework

would provide benchmarks for changes to certain elements of

the current GSM-102 program. In the Framework, the United

States and Brazil would agree to meet quarterly to discuss

the successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill as it relates

to trade-distorting cotton subsidies and the operation of

GSM-102. The Framework would not serve as a permanent

solution to the Cotton dispute. However, it would provide

specific interim steps and a process for continued

discussions on the programs at issue with a view to reaching

a solution to the dispute.

``I am pleased that we have been able to negotiate a

Framework regarding the WTO Cotton dispute that would avoid

the imposition of countermeasures against U.S. trade,

including goods and intellectual property,'' said Ambassador

Kirk. ``While respecting the role of the United States

Congress in developing the next Farm Bill, this Framework

would now allow us to continue to work toward a final

resolution of the Cotton dispute. I believe this Framework

will go a long way in alleviating the uncertainty in our

business communities and enhance the ability of the United

States and Brazil to build upon our dynamic trading

relationship.''

``This framework agreement provides a way forward as we

work with Congress toward a new farm bill in 2012,'' said

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. ``Although it is not a

permanent solution, I am pleased that it allows us to

maintain our programs while considering adjustments and

avoiding the immediate imposition of countermeasures against

U.S. exports as a result of the WTO cotton decision.''

Background

The Cotton dispute is a long-running dispute brought by

Brazil against the United States. In 2005 and again in 2008,

the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that certain U.S.

agricultural support payments and guarantees are inconsistent

with WTO commitments: (1) payments to cotton producers under

the marketing loan and countercyclical programs; and (2)

export credit guarantees under the GSM-102 program, a USDA

program used to provide guarantees for credit extended by

U.S. banks or exporters to approved foreign banks for

purchases of U.S. agricultural exports.

On August 31, 2009, WTO arbitrators issued arbitration

awards in this dispute. These awards provided the level of

countermeasures that Brazil could impose against U.S. trade.

The annual amount of countermeasures has two parts: 1) a

fixed amount of $147.3 million for the cotton payments and 2)

an amount for the GSM-102 program that varies based upon

program usage. Using the data that we have given Brazil (in

accordance with the arbitrators' award), the current total of

authorized countermeasures is more than $800 million.

The arbitrators also provided that Brazil could impose

cross-sectoral countermeasures (i.e. countermeasures in

sectors outside of trade in goods, specifically intellectual

property and services). It may impose cross-sectoral

countermeasures to the extent that it applies total

countermeasures in excess of a threshold. The threshold

varies annually, but is currently approximately $560 million.

Therefore, of the approximately $820 million in

countermeasures Brazil could impose now, about $260 million

of that could be cross-sectoral.

On March 8, 2010 Brazil announced a final list of products

that would face higher tariffs beginning on April 7, 2010.

Goods on the list include autos, pharmaceuticals, medical

equipment, electronics, textiles, wheat, fruit and nuts, and

cotton. Brazil had not made a final decision on which U.S.

intellectual property rights might be affected by cross-

sectoral countermeasures, but it had begun the process to

make this determination.

On April 1, Deputy USTR Miriam Sapiro and USDA

Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Jim

Miller met with Ambassador Antonio Patriota, Secretary

General of Brazil's Ministry of External Relations to discuss

possible resolution of the dispute. As a result of that

dialogue, the Government of Brazil agreed not to impose any

countermeasures on U.S. trade at that time. In exchange, the.

United States agreed to work with Brazil to establish a fund

of approximately $147.3 million per year on a pro rata basis

to provide technical assistance and capacity building to the

cotton sector in Brazil, and for international cooperation

related to the same sector in certain other countries. Under

the Memorandum of Understanding that the United States and

Brazil signed on April 20, 2010, the fund would continue

until passage of the next Farm Bill or a mutually agreed

solution to the Cotton dispute is reached, whichever is

sooner. The fund is subject to transparency and auditing

requirements.

The United States also agreed to make certain near term

modifications to the operation of the GSM-102 Export Credit

Guarantee Program, and to engage with the Government of

Brazil in technical discussions regarding further operation

of the program. In addition, the United States published a

proposed rule on April 16, 2010, to recognize the State of

Santa Catarina as free of foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest,

classical swine fever, African swine fever, and swine

vesicular disease, based on World Organization for Animal

Health Guidelines, and to complete a risk evaluation and

identify appropriate risk mitigation measures to determine

whether fresh beef can be imported from Brazil while

preventing the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease in the

United States.

The parties further agreed on April 1 that they would work

to develop a Framework regarding the Cotton dispute by June

21, which

would provide a path forward for a negotiated solution to the

Cotton dispute and allow both countries to avoid the impact

of countermeasures. Negotiators from Brazil and the United

States have been engaged intensively over the past several

months, and successfully concluded this Framework.

Brazil is the United States' 10th largest trading partner

with a total two-way goods trade of approximately $60 billion

in 2009.

Well, let me ask you this----

It was the person that you wrote the check to. You have to buy it, and you wrote the check out. So you know who the owner is.

You wrote the check to somebody.

Well, let me ask you this: The IG said they couldn't trace some of this money, and I think we've all figured that out. If we don't know whom we're paying----

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

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

Madam Chair, at this time I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The American people have sent us here to tell the truth, and the truth is that there are too many government programs that do not work and actually make things worse. These government programs are paid for by the American people.

You can say that it's not from the Treasury, or that it's from the Treasury; that it's from TARP, it's not from TARP. But the fact remains that it is from the American taxpayer. In fact, the gentleman at one time said it comes out of the Treasury. Then he said it comes from TARP. But the promise in 2008 was that it would go back to the American people. It would go back in the national Treasury. In fact, it does not. I will address where it goes, and I think the American people, when they find out where it goes under this program, they're going to be even more upset. I don't think they'll be surprised, because I think they've come to realize that there's not a lot of will in Washington to protect them, the taxpayers.

The American people already know that there are too many ineffective government programs that cost too much, and this is a poster child for those programs. If you can't cut this program, I'm not sure you can cut any. And when we find such programs, we as the representatives of the people have a duty and a responsibility to the taxpayers to end these programs. That's what we are doing this morning. We're going to end this program. That's what we're here for.

In this legislation by the gentleman from Texas, we stop a $1 billion failed spending program. Now it's a well-intentioned program. But just as the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so is the road to higher deficits and record-breaking debt, a debt that our children and our grandchildren will have to pay.

You know, when we talk about the taxpayers ultimately fund this program, when we borrow at 42 cents out of every dollar, it's our children and our grandchildren that will have to pay for these programs. We're charging something and we're telling them to pay the bill.

Today, we have an unthinkable debt of $14 trillion, a debt that imposes a birth tax on every child born in America. It's $45,000 today. Just last year it was $35,000. It's grown by $10,000. Even worse, this debt or birth tax is growing every day, because our government is spending some days $5 billion, some days $8 billion more than it takes in and adding to what our children and grandchildren will have to pay.

One question that the American people often confront is, are they better off than their parents and will their children be better off than they are, and their grandchildren? It's interesting that in survey after survey, or poll after poll, the American people say, we're better off than our parents. Our parents fought for our freedom, they preserved it in numerous wars, they saved their money, they watched their money, they worked hard, and they left us in good shape.

But when that same question is a little different question, ``Do you think your children or grandchildren will be better off?'' the American people know. They instinctively know. ``No'' is the answer, sadly. And that's because of our national debt and our deficit. In fact, both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary Robert Gates have said that it's a national security problem. Our debt threatens our very existence as a country.

This Washington spending binge is driving our country right off a cliff. We've seen the effect of overspending on our economy today. The government absorbs so much money from our citizens that it's hard to create private jobs. Each dollar out of the economy is a job that the private sector can't create.

Now actually President Reagan and President Clinton both realized this and they grew the economy. Those were the only two years with a growing economy and government spending either level or going down. That's the

only time in our country we had a surplus. They both realized that it was the private sector that would see us out of this. This growth in the Federal Government and in its spending is hampering job creation. And that's what these homeowners need. They need a job.

Let's look at this program. This is from the Obama administration. This is their budget that was just filed. Here is what the American people need to know. What does this program do? It offers a loan of up to $50,000 to pay all arrearages to homeowners on their first mortgage. Fifty thousand dollars. And then to pay up to 24 consecutive months of mortgage payments; 24 months of their mortgage payment.

Both the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Massachusetts kept talking about the large financial institutions. That's who is owed the money. In fact, we're not getting this money from the large financial institutions. Just the contrary. We're paying them, because they're the ones that hold this mortgage. So when the taxpayers write a $50,000 check under this program to pay arrearages on the mortgage, who do you think it goes to? It goes to Bank of America. It goes to Morgan Chase. It goes to Citigroup. It's shocking that the gentleman from Massachusetts would actually say that this money is coming from the very institutions that are going to receive this money. This billion dollars is not going to homeowners. It's going to these large financial institutions. He says they're the ones that ought to be paying this, not the homeowners or not the taxpayers. We always thought the homeowners were supposed to pay their mortgages. But I think we could all agree that it's not the taxpayer. It's just an astounding thing.

He says that if Flip Wilson told us to vote for something, we would. But it wasn't Flip Wilson. It was Ron Kirk. And what did he tell us? If I were Chairman Frank, I would talk about anything but this failed program. I think that's why they've talked about everything but this failed program. It was Ron Kirk that told us that our automobile sector would suffer, that our pharmaceutical sector would suffer. He said that this would cost jobs in medical equipment, electronics, textiles, wheat, fruit, nuts, cotton. He did include cotton. He said $60 billion worth of exports were at risk.

Well, do the math: 7,000 jobs for each $1 billion worth of exports, that's 420,000 jobs. So do you want to vote against something that would put 420,000 Americans out of jobs? And then they would all line up for another government program that the minority would design?

The other thing--and this is the last thing I'll say. They keep saying that the taxpayers will get paid back. Well let me introduce this. This is from the Obama administration. This is their same budget for fiscal year 2012. It estimates the losses on this program, and they have accused us of making up these figures, 97.72. That's the loss on this program, 98 cents out of every dollar. Madam Chair, it's time to end this failed program.

I thank the gentleman.

We are talking about our soldiers, our veterans. What do they do? They fight for our freedom, for our national defense. What is the greatest threat to our country now? What is the greatest threat to our national security? It is the debt. Don't take my word for it.

Admiral Mullen said just 2 months ago: The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently said on CNN: The country's dire fiscal situation and the threat it poses to American influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the United States Government faces its financial crisis.

We can start representing our soldiers and our veterans and those they defend by cutting out this worthless $1 billion program where 98 cents out of every dollar is never repaid. Let's move today. Let's defend our country. Let's start cutting our debt.

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. 830 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Chairman, just this week the American people received some very sobering news. The budget deficit for the month of February alone is $223 billion. That is $8 billion every day. That is money that we are having to borrow from countries around the world.

It wasn't long ago that our budget deficit for the entire year was only $220 billion. But thanks to a Washington spending binge that has occurred over the last 4 years, now our monthly budget deficit is larger than our annual deficit used to be. In fact, February's budget deficit was the largest monthly budget deficit in the history of the United States. Larger in real dollars than when we were fighting for our existence during World War II. Higher than the Civil War. And that has happened even though government receipts posted an increase this February from last February.

Our national debt in the last 4 years has doubled. Now think of that. In the first 220 years of our existence, we incurred a national debt which, in the last 4 years, we've doubled. And by the end of this administration, unless we take action today--action the American people asked us to take last November--we will have tripled the deficit.

In 7 years or a little less than 7 years, we will have tripled our deficit.

That's why we're here on the floor today, because the American people have sent us a message. They said, ``Don't spend us into a financial oblivion. We have to balance our own budgets at home. We expect the same from those that we send to Washington to represent us.''

The bill that we're debating today is an example of two things: too many government programs--spending programs--and too many ineffective government programs. It is a poster child for both.

It's also an example of a broken promise. In 2008, during our financial meltdown, which has led to a recession and record unemployment, we promised the American people that those steps that were taken, that that money that was loaned, would be paid back to the national Treasury.

I am happy to say that today most of the money that was lent to what some have called a Wall Street bailout, what the American people certainly call a bailout, it has been paid back with interest, but it's not found its way into the national Treasury. It's not been paid back despite promises to the American people on this very floor of this House a little less than 3 years ago.

Instead, that money has been diverted into all sorts--and that's the TARP bailout money--it's been used for other social programs, just what many warned on the floor of this House would happen. It's turned into a slush fund. And one of the programs that it has funded is a well- intentioned program in which $8 billion, that's 8,000 million dollars, has been designated for the FHA Refinance Program. Now, the FHA program today, the reserves are low. And that's a program that is not in the greatest of shape. It's like most government programs. Eight billion dollars for a program to allow homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages to get a reduction in their mortgage.

Now, not all can take advantage of this program. There are what the American people have come to know as winners and losers. With all government programs, it seems that some benefit, but 99 percent of Americans don't benefit. And that's what's happened here. The administration said we'll literally have hundreds of thousands of people that will line up for this program. But because lenders and borrowers are getting together and working out, or some homeowners are deciding that they can't afford their mortgage and they're selling their houses, 42 American families have been assisted by this program.

Now, this is a program that authorizes $8 billion. And $50 million has actually been set aside and disbursed. In fact, the budget that the President has submitted has a $50 million subtraction there for a program that's helped 42 families; $50 million, 42 families. But think about this. How many families are underwater? How many American families have a home where they owe more than the home is worth? Twelve million, somewhere above 11 million--let's say 12 million.

That means that even if this program could have helped 100,000 that it would help 1 out of every 120 American families. One out of 120. And yes, some government employee sitting behind a desk would say you are eligible, you can apply, you win. At the most, all the programs we're going to consider this week and next week, which if we act, will save the American taxpayers billions and billions and billions of dollars, all of them will benefit only an estimated 500,000 families.

As the Inspector General has said, about 50 to 60 percent of those families, even if it goes to families--as we found out yesterday in a hearing, a lot of it is going to nonprofit groups. In Los Angeles alone, more went to a nonprofit group than went to the county government. But we are only helping 1 out of 22 families. What about those other 21 families? They're making their mortgage payment, and they're not asking the government for help.

It seems that we're in a country where the majority of Americans aren't underwater; about one-fourth are. But out of all those, we're starting programs to help in this case 42 families, in another case 200,000 families. And we're asking every American family, and we're asking their government, to start programs when we don't have enough money to finance the programs we have.

But more than that, I put a photograph up. And this is the bottom line on this program. Fifty million dollars has been put into a fund, and $8 billion has been authorized for this program. And it's money we don't have. And it's

money we won't pay back. It's those children in that photograph. It's our constituents' children and grandchildren that will have to pay that back.

Our national debt is $12 trillion--$14 trillion. You memorize a number, and in a few months it's irrelevant. It's no longer the real number. Robert Gates on January 6, in outlining the Pentagon's budget, said, ``This country's dire fiscal situation and the threat it poses to American influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the U.S. Government gets its finances in order.'' Well, who will get it in order? It has to be the President and this Congress. That's his quote January 6.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff say that our national debt is a national security problem. But the message just doesn't seem to get to this floor, because today people will come to this floor and say, oh, if we get rid of this program everybody that can't pay their mortgage needs to call their Congressman and say you need to pay my mortgage, or there needs to be a government program to pay my mortgage. Well, let's not kid ourselves. Those children, that's who we are obligating. Last year we could stand on the floor and say that they each come into this world owing $35,000. Today it's $45,000.

Today we're going to have to make some hard choices for them, for our children and our grandchildren. And oh, yeah, these programs do some good. Although for most homeowners who can't pay their mortgages and they're given a reduction, it doesn't work. The default rate in most of these programs is over 50 percent. One of the programs we will consider tomorrow, out of every dollar of taxpayer money lent, 98 percent is never repaid. Never repaid. How can a country continue to function like that? What kind of future do these children have?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, if I were Ranking Member Frank, I would do exactly what he's doing. I wouldn't talk about the fact that there are only 42 people who have been served by this program. I wouldn't talk about the fact that only $50 million has been set aside. I wouldn't talk about the $8 billion that has been authorized. I wouldn't talk about the fact that the American people were told this money would be repaid into the National Treasury. No. I would talk about the cotton subsidy, the deal with Brazil. That deal sounds pretty bad. It really does. The ranking member agrees.

He kept talking about this the last month, about don't shut down this ineffective program to help balance the budget because some of us voted for the cotton deal with Brazil. Well, in fact, the majority of this Congress, the overwhelming majority did.

But, let's talk about that deal. Who made that deal? Did the gentleman from Alabama make that deal? Did the gentleman from Texas that's going to speak on our side, did he make the deal? Did the gentleman from Nevada make that deal? Did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold) make that deal? No. The Obama administration made that deal.

The U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. Kirk, made that deal in an agreement with the Brazilian Government, not your Republican colleagues. Here's what he told us. He said that $60 billion worth of trade depended on our ability to export into Brazil without the tariffs they were going to impose on us. That's 420,000 U.S. jobs that were threatened, and he told us that if we didn't do that, they would impose billion $820 worth of countertariffs on such products as pharmaceuticals, autos, electronics, textiles, wheat, fruit, nuts, cotton, medical equipment. So he made a deal with them to make them certain payments, to compensate for that.

Now, I don't know if he misrepresented. I don't think that President Obama and his administration and his U.S. Trade Representative would have misrepresented this. But if that was a bad deal, then the ranking member ought to go over there and to complain to the President, whom he defends, because both of them, apparently, want to spend money at every turn and every chance they get.

U.S., Brazil Agree on Framework Regarding WTO Cotton Dispute

Washington, D.C.--Today Brazil's Ministers reached a

decision in support of a Framework regarding the Cotton

dispute, which would avert the imposition of countermeasures

of more than $800 million this year. This includes more than

$560 million in countermeasures against U.S. exports which

were scheduled to go into effect on Monday, June 21, 2010, as

well as possible countermeasures on intellectual property

rights that could have taken effect later. We are pleased

with this decision, and look forward to signing the Framework

soon.

The findings in the Cotton dispute concern U.S. cotton

support under the marketing loan and countercyclical payment

programs, and the GSM-102 Export Credit Guarantee Program. In

line with these findings, the Framework has two major

elements.

First, it would provide, as a basis for a discussion toward

reaching a mutually agreed solution to the dispute, a limit

on trade-distorting cotton subsidies. Second, the Framework

would provide benchmarks for changes to certain elements of

the current GSM-102 program. In the Framework, the United

States and Brazil would agree to meet quarterly to discuss

the successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill as it relates

to trade-distorting cotton subsidies and the operation of

GSM-102. The Framework would not serve as a permanent

solution to the Cotton dispute. However, it would provide

specific interim steps and a process for continued

discussions on the programs at issue with a view to reaching

a solution to the dispute.

``I am pleased that we have been able to negotiate a

Framework regarding the WTO Cotton dispute that would avoid

the imposition of countermeasures against U.S. trade,

including goods and intellectual property,'' said Ambassador

Kirk. ``While respecting the role of the United States

Congress in developing the next Farm Bill, this Framework

would now allow us to continue to work toward a final

resolution of the Cotton dispute. I believe this Framework

will go a long way in alleviating the uncertainty in our

business communities and enhance the ability of the United

States and Brazil to build upon our dynamic trading

relationship.''

``This framework agreement provides a way forward as we

work with Congress toward a new farm bill in 2012,'' said

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. ``Although it is not a

permanent solution, I am pleased that it allows us to

maintain our programs while considering adjustments and

avoiding the immediate imposition of countermeasures against

U.S. exports as a result of the WTO cotton decision.''

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, Members of this body, what are we talking about when we're talking about cutting government spending? We're talking about these children.

These children cannot afford a future where its Federal Government spends $8 billion more every day than it takes in.

Now, the ranking member has criticized our military spending. I could have a picture of my grandchildren up, and I could have a picture of one of my little granddaughters whose dad served in the U.S. Marines. Their unit served in Afghanistan and in Iraq. So I make no apology for supporting our troops. Now if the President decides to call them home, my son would support that.

Now, Ranking Member Frank said this sits in a fund. This program that has helped 44 families whose average mortgage was $330,000--that's more than the cost of a home in my district. But here is President Obama's report to us that $50 million has been disbursed, but the alarming figure is $8.12 billion that's obligated.

The gentlelady from New York said that the banks--Citibank, Bank of America--they're all lining up to use this program. I would be too. This transfers obligations from lenders to the taxpayer. As long as these mortgages were making money, the banks profited. But all of a sudden when they're underwater and a borrower maybe can't make the payment, hey, if I was a bank, I would say, yeah, let the government, let the taxpayers reduce this mortgage. That ought to be between the bank and the homeowners.

Forty-two families? You say all these four programs we're going to debate this week and next week--which cost billions of dollars--they're going to help half a million families? There are 12 million families that are underwater.

Let's talk about something very important. If we don't get our financial house in order, I'll quote the words of Admiral Mike Mullen on August 25 before CNN, and I will close with this, ``The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.'' And that threat comes from this body and the administration. It's time to cut spending. Think about them. Think about their future.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. 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.

It's not germane to the bill because it's outside the scope of the bill and fails to draw the nexus to the bill.

Mr. Chair, she lists the number of mortgages that are underwater and says that this program may help them. Obviously, there are many of those, the buyers are behind on their payments and they wouldn't qualify for help. Just the number 44 ought to tell you that when you list 12 million homeowners and then say that the termination of this program would have helped is quite a stretch. There are certain other qualifications under this legislation that are not met by simply being underwater.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, there seems to be some confusion on what the underlying bill does and what the amendments are trying to accomplish. In fact, in certain cases, it's quite evident that some of my colleagues don't understand the bill.

This bill authorizes $8 billion to go towards the FHA refinance plan. It has already disbursed $50 million. Now we're hearing these claims of 10 million and 11 million homeowners. There are probably closer to 12 million homeowners that are underwater than 11. I think the numbers are understated. So let's assume 12 million.

This Federal program that we've disbursed $50 million to, how many American families have had their mortgages refinanced? Forty-two.

Now, who refinanced those? Who paid for that? Was it the lenders who loaned the money? No. Was it the borrowers who borrowed the money? No. It was these children, because it was taxpayer money.

Now you say they're not taxpayers. No, but they're going to have to pay this back because we're spending $8 billion more every day than we're taking in in revenue.

It was announced earlier this week--I think the American people, and I don't blame them, don't want to really put their arms around this-- but we just announced a deficit for the month of February, 28 days, that was more than the deficit 4 years ago for the entire year. We're hemorrhaging red ink.

Are we better off than our parents? Most of us are. Are these children going to be better off than we are? Not if we don't start cutting spending. And the American people, those who are parents and grandparents, are crying out for this Congress to address this. And that's what we're on this floor today to do.

Now, if I were one of the 12 million homeowners who was underwater, I might say, Why those 42? But if I were the taxpayers, I would say, Why are you taking money from me that we have to borrow from other countries--42 cents out of every dollar that we're putting into this program--why are you paying this mortgage down? Isn't that the lender-- if a loan gets in trouble, is it up to the taxpayers to bail that lender out?

Someone mentioned Bank of America. Somebody mentioned Citibank. If I were Citibank or Bank of America and someone who was making their payments who was underwater who may

walk off, yeah, I'd say if the taxpayers will come in and take that obligation off my hands, I would love that.

My district, the average home is worth $212,000. And it's the highest--one of the highest in the State. And actually when I say that, let me say the community I live in, which is one of the more--it's above average in income.

But the average loan here that people borrowed was $313,000--the loan itself. That's quite a loan. And to say that the taxpayers need to pay that mortgage down makes no sense when these are the children, this is the generation that's going to have to pay it back.

We need to get serious. We need to get out pictures of our children and our grandchildren and we need to say, Do we really need to come to the rescue of these banks when they've overextended loans?

How about all of those Americans who are making their payments and didn't buy a house and are not underwater? Should you ask those Americans to pay to banks money that they didn't obligate themselves to? The answer is ``no.'' ``No'' to more government spending.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Would the gentlelady tell the Members, when you write that check to help them with their underwater home, that check goes to Bank of America. That check goes to Citibank. That check goes to just fill in the bank, fill in the mortgage company. It goes to whoever loaned the money. It doesn't go to the homeowner. Are they benefited? Yes. And tell the Members of this body who pays for that check. We do. The American people.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Let me say this: I would prefer that this amendment notify all Americans, particularly taxpayers, that we are stopping a program that authorizes $8 billion worth of spending.

Having said that, I think this is a good amendment. I know there may be Members who say they don't want to be contacted, but I will tell you this: People do call us from time to time, and they say, I'm having trouble with paying my mortgage. I'm facing foreclosure, and I can't get in touch with my lender or my servicer, and I'm not sure who I should talk to.

We put them in communication many times with the servicer or the lender. We go further and actually help some of them with their applications. On 18 occasions this last year, we helped citizens with applications to lenders for modifications.

I think it's a good service, particularly with the recession we have now. I think it's a far, far better approach than a government program that uses taxpayer dollars, because we are contacting the lender or the servicer, and that is who ought to talk to the borrower. That's who could have an obligation or who has an interest in working it out. On almost every occasion with the mortgages, it is in the interest of the borrower and the lender to work it out.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Thank you.

If I continue to have time, let me say this in closing: I do want to caution Members that it is not an obligation of Congress or of Members of Congress--and I think Ms. Waters would agree--to intervene and to suggest to the lenders that they do anything other than give due consideration. We simply put them in communication. Now, we will help them with the applications, but I think it is important, in all our dealings, that we do not try to intervene in legal obligations or in any way appear to coerce or influence that outcome.

I think this is a very good amendment, and I would encourage Members to support it. There are also VA programs and FHA programs that we can put borrowers in touch with. This, I believe, is an amendment I will support.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this is simply a procedural measure to stop this legislation which cuts yet again another wasteful government program. This program has already allocated $50 million and it has only helped 42 American families. Do that math. It authorizes $8 billion. That's at a time when this country has a record deficit for this year.

And yet they don't get the message, my Democratic colleagues. They simply do not realize this money goes to the lender, this goes to the banks, that's who the checks are made out to. And who pays for it? The taxpayers. And, ultimately, this is who pays for it: our children and our grandchildren. We can't pay it back because we borrow 42 cents out of every dollar. And let me tell you, a lot of them have grandparents. When you talk about seniors, let's talk about our children and our grandchildren. Let's talk about that we're endangering their future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).