[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H3119-H3124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5818, NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION
ACT OF 2008
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1174 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1174
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5818) to authorize the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development to make loans to States to acquire
foreclosed housing and to make grants to States for related
costs. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Financial Services now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising
under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of
rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. After a motion that the Committee rise has been
rejected on a legislative day, the Chair may entertain
another such motion on that day only if offered by the
chairman of the Committee on Financial Services or the
Majority Leader or a designee. After a motion to strike out
the enacting words of the bill (as described in clause 9 of
rule XVIII) has been rejected, the Chair may not entertain
another such motion during further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. During consideration in the House of H.R. 5818
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
{time} 1215
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I am pleased
to yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague from the Rules
Committee, Mr. Hastings from Washington. All time yielded during
consideration of the rule is for debate only, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative
days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 1174.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1174 provides for
consideration of H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008,
under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate
controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule makes in
order seven amendments listed in the Rules Committee report, each of
which is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides for one
motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Neighborhood
Stabilization Act of 2008 and this rule. This New Direction Congress,
led by Democrats, understands the impact of this unfortunate Bush
economy on neighborhoods throughout America. In order for our country
to recover from this economic downturn, it is critical that we
stabilize housing for our neighbors and rebuild communities with more
affordable housing.
In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke urged Congress to take
[[Page H3120]]
action earlier this week. He stated in part, summarized in this news
report, ``The reasons behind surging late payments and foreclosures can
vary, and that needs to be taken into account when developing
solutions. For instance, in parts of New England, States in the Great
Lakes, including Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin, show increased
mortgage delinquencies and notable increases in unemployment rates.
California, Florida, and parts of Colorado, on the other hand, saw
delinquencies rise during a period when unemployment generally
decreased but the value of homes declined.''
He said, ``A widespread decline in home prices, by contrast, is a
relatively novel phenomenon, and lenders and servicers will have to
develop new and flexible strategies to deal with this issue. Rising
foreclosures add to the glut of unsold homes, and that put more
downward pressure on prices, aggravating the housing slump. More rapid
declines in house prices could have an adverse impact on the broader
economy.''
See, this affects us all, and it affects the stability of the
financial system overall. So it is vitally important that we bring this
package today, this first bill, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act and
more to come because of the record number of foreclosures facing our
neighbors back home.
Under President Bush's economic policies, the number of families
entering into foreclosure has increased from over 700,000 to 1.5
million last year, but today, we're going to bring new hope to our
communities through revitalized neighborhoods and targeted affordable
housing to families that need it most.
The Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008 provides our local
communities with the tools they need to purchase and rehabilitate
vacant and foreclosed homes. Now we all know a vacant, deteriorated,
foreclosed home in our neighborhood has a devastating impact. We've all
seen them. We've driven by them. They're overgrown. They are not paying
the taxes like everyone else in the neighborhood is paying. They're
causing a drain on services and local governments.
Our initiatives today will help these nonprofit agencies and our
local governments purchase those properties, turn them around,
rehabilitate them and make them available to families that need them
most, and in order to see that families with the greatest needs receive
housing first, these new loans and affordable homes will be targeted
especially to middle class families and those hardworking families back
in our communities.
I know this will help families in my home State of Florida which has
been among the Nation's hardest hit States, particularly in my
community in the Tampa Bay area. In fact, it was not long ago that one
of my neighbors called to tell me that he recently lost his home to
foreclosure, and he was dealing with the repercussions from that loss,
trying to find another affordable place to live for him and his family.
He was pleased to know, however, that this Congress had already acted
on a mortgage forgiveness debt relief act signed into law last year,
and because of that act, he will not suffer a double whammy and get hit
with an unaffordable tax bill to accompany the loss of his home.
This legislation will help families from my community and communities
across this Nation to rebuild and create more affordable housing. I am
proud that this Congress has been so proactive and taken so many steps
to combat the housing crisis. Millions of Americans will be helped
because of the proactive leadership of Chairman Barney Frank on the
Financial Services Committee and Chairwoman Maxine Waters.
I am pleased to witness firsthand that this new Democratic Congress
has made the lives of folks in my neighborhood and my community a whole
lot better. Today, we will continue to move forward by passing the
Neighborhood Stabilization Act and follow on that with the American
Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act. These efforts reflect
the continued work of this New Direction Congress and offer the most
comprehensive response yet to the American mortgage crisis. We are
providing much-needed help to hardworking families in this unfortunate
Bush economy.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague
from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this is an oppressive rule,
written to restrict debate in the House and to strip away rights from
the minority.
This rule makes in order four Democrat amendments and only three
Republican amendments. This means that 80 percent of requested Democrat
amendments were made in order, but just 33 percent, or one-third, of
Republican amendments filed with the Rules Committee were made in
order. Mr. Speaker, this isn't balanced. It's restrictive and not in
the tradition of having an open debate on important issues.
Last night at the Rules Committee, Financial Services Committee
Chairman Frank said that he supported allowing debate on an amendment
relating to illegal immigration and legitimate concerns of ensuring
that persons illegally present in this country do not benefit from the
new Federal program created by this bill.
Rules Committee Democrats responded by making in order the least
substantive, most meaningless and unenforceable immigration amendment
possible. A Republican amendment by Representative Ginny Brown-Waite.
of Florida had very clearly and explicitly made certain that anyone
illegally present in this country cannot rent or buy a house from this
new government program. That amendment was not made in order. Every
Democrat on the Rules Committee voted to deny the House voting on this
meaningful amendment.
Mr. Speaker, when Democrat leaders aren't totally shutting down
debate, they are giving the House window dressing instead of substance
on important issues. Not content with blocking two-thirds of Republican
amendments and restricting the opportunity of every Member of this
institution to come to the House floor and offer amendments to improve,
fix or alter this bill, House Democrat leaders went even further to
shut down the minority, squelch dissent and take away their
parliamentary rights.
Section 2 of this rule takes away the right of any Member of this
House to make a motion that the House rise out of the Committee of the
Whole and places it solely in the hands of the Democrat majority leader
or the Democrat chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Speaker, the new majority promised to run the most open, honest
House in history. Instead of keeping their promises to the American
people, Democrat leaders are acting with impunity as they shed any
semblance of openness, fairness or regular order.
I don't believe many of the freshmen Democrat Members who were
elected in the last election came to Congress to block debate and
prohibit Members from offering amendments on the House floor. Yet, Mr.
Speaker, they have joined lock-step with Speaker Pelosi in stooping to
a level of oppressive partisanship that far exceeds the sins of any
previous Congresses. It's a shameful record that shatters the promise
Democrat leaders made to the American people to run an open, honest
House.
Mr. Speaker, all this is being done to pass a bill that would create
a brand new, Big Government, $15 billion Federal program to buy,
remodel, resell or rent thousands and thousands of houses across the
country. Who will profit from this new $15 billion government program
are the lenders who made the bad loans and then foreclosed on families
who didn't make their mortgage payments. It's a bailout for home
lenders that knowingly took risks.
It's terribly unwise and wasteful of taxpayer dollars to create a new
government program that invites other lenders to take gambles on home
loans because the American taxpayer will come along and wipe away their
bad decisions. Mr. Speaker, why should American taxpayers be footing
the bill for calculated mistakes made by others? Why should American
taxpayers,
[[Page H3121]]
who are making their mortgage payments each month or who are paying
rent, have to come along and fund billions of dollars to give away
grants and zero interest loans for those who speculated, gambled and
lost? Mr. Speaker, taxpayers should not take this hit.
Now I recognize that this bill is titled the Neighborhood
Stabilization Act and that its stated intent is to help rehabilitate
neighborhoods in metropolitan cities and urban communities that have
multiple foreclosed homes sitting vacant and empty. But, Mr. Speaker,
why should rural and middle America be forced to have their tax dollars
used to bail out lenders in big cities and urban areas? I believe, Mr.
Speaker, we should work to find incentives for people to purchase these
homes and improve these neighborhoods.
{time} 1230
But we should oppose a new $15 billion spending program so the
Federal Government can be involved in flipping houses or renting out
homes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this oppressive rule and
the bad underlying bill.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in support of
this very, very important measure.
Today, this House of Representatives will vote on the most
comprehensive response yet, bringing badly needed help to this Nation's
troubling mortgage crisis.
These House measures we will debate today will help in several areas:
Number one, it will help families facing foreclosures to keep their
homes; two, it will help families avoid foreclosures in the future; and
three, it will help the recovery of communities in cities and towns
across this Nation who are harmed by empty houses that are caught in
the foreclosure process. And that's why I rise to support this bill
today.
This is our first bill out of the gate on this important measure. And
it is extraordinarily important, Mr. Speaker, and that's why I support
this rule.
As we look across the landscape of America today, in neighborhood
after neighborhood, homes empty, buildings empty, vandalism on high,
violent crime on high, neighboring homes' property values going down,
and right today, mortgages that are higher than the actual value of the
property. And my good friends on the other side of the aisle question,
why are we moving? Why is this a bailout? This is not a bailout. If
anything, my dear friends, this is a bail-in. This is a bail-in to save
communities.
Some of the same arguments that I heard on this side were heard
during when we had other disasters. This is a disaster, just as we had
Katrina, just as we had tornados, just as we had unforeseen
circumstances. I even heard some say, when Katrina was coming, well,
they knew the hurricane was coming, why didn't they get out of the way?
This country needs help, and they're looking for their government to do
what government is supposed to do, help their country in a moment of
greatest need. And there is no greater need today than to help in this
mortgage crisis.
And foremost for that help is to get into these communities, give our
State and local governments, whose fire departments, whose police
departments, already strained, are overstrained, and to help those
neighboring homes who are going down in value because these properties
are standing there idle and empty and are nothing but havens for crime.
That's why, Mr. Speaker, this bill is so important.
I commend Ms. Waters and Chairman Frank for putting together the
leadership of this bill, which I'm proud to be a cosponsor of, because
it goes to the heart of the matter, and that is, saving America's
communities. Fifteen billion dollars spread in two fashions, 7.5 for
loans, 7.5 for grants. It's an excellent idea whose time has come.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
each side get an additional 2 minutes so I can engage the gentleman and
so he can have the time to yield to me.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I object. I do not yield for that purpose.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman does not yield for that
request.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a member of
the Financial Services Committee.
Mrs. CAPITO. I thank the gentleman for recognizing me.
I am on the Financial Services Committee. And we have debated and had
many hearings on what we all share is an issue before us with great
urgency. We are facing serious challenges here in the housing market,
and I think our committee has done great work on a bipartisan basis to
pass numerous measures and to listen to the concerns all across the
board.
But I think the greatest concern for me and for all of us here should
be that individual in that home who stays up late at night or can't
sleep at night because they can't figure out how they're going to stay
in their house and afford to keep their home, keep their family safe in
their home, and meet the challenges of either an adjustable rate or a
house that maybe has devalued so much that they feel like their only
option may be to walk away from their mortgage.
So we have two bills before us today. Later on, we're going to be
considering H.R. 5818, which is the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of
2008. This doesn't help that individual who can't sleep at night who
we're most concerned about. The aim is to help big cities and other
urban areas that have foreclosed properties, to revitalize that. That's
an issue for another day. In my view, the issue we need to debate today
is how we're going to help that individual who can't meet the
challenges and wants to stay in their home.
And so on the larger bill that we're going to be considering later,
unfortunately the bipartisan tone of our committee sort of broke down
in the process. We had, I think, very spirited debates in front of our
committee where our philosophies were shared and we actually found a
lot of common ground, which is the way it should be. Because when an
originator came forward with a bad loan or didn't ask for financials or
didn't ask for background information on a potential buyer, they didn't
ask, are you a Republican or a Democrat? This isn't a partisan issue.
That's why I think we should have a full and open debate here, and
that's why I advocated for an open rule in front of the Rules
Committee.
So the solutions that we're offering today are going to be diluted
because we're not going to be able to hear the debate on the floor
because the Rules Committee has decided, in their infinite wisdom--and
I'm a former member of a Rules Committee, so I can say that--that the
majority is using a seldom used rule that will really prevent our side
from offering even a motion to recommit, where we can at least have our
voice heard on this floor.
So I'm very disappointed that at this day in time, when we have that
person at night staying up, that family wondering how they're going to
stay in their home that night, they are not going to be able to see the
choices that are before us as a body where we can say, we think this is
more helpful, or we think this direction is the way we should go. For
that I'm tremendously disappointed, especially in light of the
committee that I serve on, Financial Services, where we did have this
debate and we had ideas that came forward and more ideas that could
come forward on this House today.
With that, I oppose this rule.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, we're going to do everything we can in our
power to help American families across this Nation that, yes, are
facing foreclosure. In this package we bring today we will help the
folks who are facing those adjustable rates and keep them out of
foreclosure. But I don't think we should turn a blind eye to the
significant increase in foreclosures, the rate of foreclosures that has
happened since 2003 under the Bush Administration. In 2003, 734,000
foreclosures; 2004, 835,000 foreclosures. More in 2005 and 2006. 2007,
a record-breaking 1.5 million foreclosed homes in America. This
Neighborhood Stabilization Act will address those vacant foreclosed
homes in our neighborhoods.
I am going to call upon my colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms.
Matsui from California, to further address the
[[Page H3122]]
issue. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying
legislation.
The housing crisis has had an unprecedented effect on our economy.
Our families, our neighborhoods, our communities are facing daily
challenges, seeing increased foreclosures and vacancies everywhere they
turn.
My own hometown of Sacramento is among the hardest hit in this
country. Just last quarter, nearly 5,300 homes were foreclosed on. And
sadly, there is no end in sight. My district is fifth in the Nation in
adjustable rate mortgages, many of which are reset to higher rates in
the near future.
To make matters worse, Forbes magazine ranks Sacramento among the
highest in homeowner debt. Twenty-eight percent of homeowners in my
district hold second mortgages and/or home equity lines of credit,
making it much more difficult for them to save their homes.
This crisis is affecting everyone; homeowners who are in danger of
foreclosure, renters who are being forced to move, and even families
who are secure in their mortgages are seeing their home values fall,
and increased neighborhood blight.
Mr. Speaker, this year I have met with many Sacramento families that
are struggling with their mortgages in today's volatile economy. I have
seen the sadness in their eyes and the emotional toll this crisis has
taken on them. It is truly devastating. I met Susan at a foreclosure
workshop. She had a traditional mortgage that was in good standing.
Then, after repeated calls, she was steered by a lender to refinance
her traditional loan into an adjustable rate loan so she could do home
improvements. Now the loan is scheduled to reset soon, and she will
have a difficult time making ends meet.
Another constituent, Jeanie, e-mailed me just last week. She has been
forced to move twice already this year because the homes she was
renting were foreclosed on. Without some stability in the housing
market, Jeanie and her family, including their young daughter, will be
forced to move again.
Mr. Speaker, we need to help these honest, hardworking homeowners
immediately. This legislation is a step in the right direction. I urge
support of this rule and this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that brings
this bill to the floor and to this $15 billion bailout bill, and I
thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I think up here we lose sight of how much $15 billion
really is. Fifteen billion dollars would operate the entire State
government of Tennessee for almost 1 year, our education, our medical
care, our prisons, our roads, our parks. And Tennessee is almost dead
on average, statistics-wise, in regard to all the States.
Over 95 percent of the people are paying their mortgages on time.
Consistent with that, about 95 percent of the people who have contacted
my office or spoken to me about this bill, they don't want us to bail
out people who have taken out loans that they couldn't afford. But even
worse than that, the $15 billion that's in this bill, even worse, we're
going to pass later today a $300 billion housing bill that we really
can't afford. Tomorrow we're probably going to pass a $250 billion
supplemental appropriations bill. That's $565 billion in 2 days. And
all three of these bills are outside the regular or don't even count
the regular appropriations bills that we'll be taking up.
Next week, we're going to pass an almost $300 billion farm bill. A
couple of weeks ago it came out that the Pentagon has had $295 billion
in cost overruns on just their 72 largest weapons systems, not counting
the cost overruns that would be in all the thousands of other large and
medium size and small contracts.
Last week, we rejected an effort by the administration to save $50
billion over the next 10 years on the Medicaid rules even though
payments to hospitals under the Medicaid program have gone up two to
three times the rate of inflation every year for the last 15 or 20
years.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional
minute.
Mr. DUNCAN. What I'm getting at, Mr. Speaker, is this: This Congress
is going to go down as the most fiscally irresponsible Congress in the
history of this Nation if we keep spending at this rate. No one can
legitimately call themselves a fiscal conservative if they vote for all
these bills.
David Walker, who just retired as the head of the GAO, respected by
both sides, said that even worse than the $9 trillion national debt
that we have is the 53 to $54 trillion in unfunded future pension
liabilities. It's not going to be many years, Mr. Speaker, before we're
not going to be able to pay all our Social Security and veterans
pensions and all the other things we promised our people if we keep
spending in the reckless manner that we're doing so today and in the
days ahead.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to an
outspoken advocate for the hardworking families of Ohio and all
Americans, Ms. Kaptur of Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I rise
today in reluctant opposition to the rules on both housing bills that
are before us because they are not coming up before us in regular
order. Neither one is an open rule on such an important subject.
I truly want to thank Chairman Frank and Congresswoman Waters for
their efforts to improve these bills as they move forward. But on a
matter so serious, the membership should be afforded the respect our
offices bestow to represent their people and be allowed to amend and be
heard in this body.
{time} 1245
Every day, between 7,000 and 8,000 American households lose their
homes to foreclosure. Meanwhile, the banks responsible are being
rescued by the Federal Reserve, an instrument of our government. Today,
the major bills before us to assist with foreclosures will unleash the
power of the taxpayer-insured Federal Housing Administration to catch
some of the homeowners in its rescue net. But these bills do nothing to
hold the lenders and servicers responsible.
Despite the promise of rescue hotlines and Federal and State
government compacts, Federal action to help homeowners being foreclosed
lacks bite. It is voluntary. It pushes to the FHA what the private
sector should be making whole.
The two plans to be considered today, again, ask mortgage servicers
to voluntarily, and I underline that word voluntarily, enter into an
agreement with the FHA to insure these troubled loans if servicers
offer modest loan concessions. The problem: The voluntary aspect of the
program leaves homeowners yet again at the mercy of the mortgage loan
holder.
Take Countrywide. The CEO of that company had his compensation
approach over $200 million, with salaries, bonuses, options, and
everything over the last 5 years. Yet the Federal Reserve still rewards
Countrywide as one of its privileged primary dealers trading in U.S.
Government securities. The FHA rescue plan promises to save maybe
500,000 homeowners, or half a million Americans. That equals maybe 25
percent of the more than 2 million additional homeowners still at risk
of foreclosure. Let me ask, is helping 25 percent, perhaps, of
homeowners at risk the best America can do? Because the bills are not
being considered under an open rule with the ability to amend, we
cannot perfect this legislation.
So it's fair to ask, where have these voluntary rescue plans gotten
us so far? Housing counselors in my area tell me dozens of servicers
refuse even to come to the table and return phone calls, for heaven's
sake. Not restructuring the loan is one thing but not picking up the
phone is another. When servicers refuse to answer the phone, no degree
of local government effort or foreclosure prevention counseling can be
effective.
Who is not picking up the phone? Some of these characters:
[[Page H3123]]
CitiFinancial, HSBC/Beneficial, Chase Mortgage, Countrywide, Sovereign
Bank, Indymac Bank, Popular Mortgage, GMAC, NovaStar, EMC Mortgage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio has
expired.
Ms. KAPTUR. May I have an additional minute?
Ms. CASTOR. We have a list of additional speakers, so at this time I
cannot yield additional time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman 1
minute of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
To continue . . . ASC Servicing, HomeEq, Wilshire, Nationalstar,
EquiFirst, Litton Loan, Flagstar, and Saxon Mortgage Services.
In fact, the Federal Reserve still has among its privileged list of
primary Treasury security dealers Countrywide, HSBC, and Citigroup,
some of the very companies that aren't answering the telephone.
Banks and mortgage servicers should be mandated to disclose contact
information, phone numbers, and lay services for their loss mitigation
departments. Citizens attempting to do workouts on loans must have
these recalcitrant institutions at the table.
In addition, as I've said for months, forthcoming improvements to the
bill should include a short-term foreclosure moratorium, perhaps 3
months, to help hundreds of thousands of Americans avoid foreclosure.
And, most importantly, Congress should vote again on allowing judges
the flexibility to modify the terms of mortgage loans in bankruptcy
court proceedings. Frankly, the Senate should filibuster on this issue.
In other words, do for the homeowner what the Federal Reserve has done
for the big banks.
Without enacting tougher legislation, a ``no'' vote on this rule and
the one to follow will allow for a more effective set of bills to come
before us that will really address the comprehensive foreclosure needs
of the American people. I'm glad to see the progress we've made, but we
could go so much further.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the ranking member a
question on what's really going on in Florida.
One of the reasons we are objecting to this is because of the
previous question. Can you mention the previous question?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will yield, I am going
to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we
can address another issue of tremendous import in this country that has
hit every family, and that's the high prices of gasoline. So I will ask
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can address
issues, allow Members on the floor to be able to debate the issue of
lower gas prices.
Mr. SHIMKUS. So a ``no'' vote on the previous question allows us to
debate lowering energy costs in this country; is that correct?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. It would give us the opportunity to do
that because there are some ideas here. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SHIMKUS. And that would be in conjunction and probably would meet
with the Speaker's promise in 2006 that Democrats have a commonsense
plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. She made that quote.
That would allow us to bring that plan to the floor, would it not?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will yield, the
gentleman is correct.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Likewise, Jim Clyburn said, ``House Democrats have a
plan to help curb rising gas prices.'' That would allow us to find out
what that plan is; am I correct?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will yield, the
gentleman is correct.
Mr. SHIMKUS. And when Steny Hoyer said, ``Democrats believe we can do
more for the American people who are struggling to deal with high gas
prices,'' that would allow us to address the majority leader's plan to
help bring down energy prices; is that correct?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will yield, the
gentleman is correct.
Mr. SHIMKUS. And it's tied to this debate, and I know my colleague
who just spoke, it would probably be important for her to vote ``no''
on the previous question so that some of her concerns would be aired;
would that be correct?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will yield, I think
every Member should allow every Member the opportunity to address these
issues.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, Mr. Speaker, high energy costs really affect this
debate because high energy costs are causing people to make tough
decisions where they can't meet their bill payments.
Just last year the cost for natural gas for an individual homeowner
went up 5.9 percent. Just last year the price for home heating
increased 37.2 percent. The cost for propane increased 22.2 percent.
The cost for electricity increased 4.3 percent. Why? We have no plan.
The Democrat plan to lower energy costs was no plan.
There was a plan. It did this: Crude oil was at $58.31 when the
Democrats came into the majority. Today, $121. Yesterday it hit $122.
I've been doing this for 4 weeks. It hasn't gone down; it keeps going
up.
What has that done at the pump? When Democrats came into control,
$2.33. What is it today? On average, $3.60. That's no plan. That's a
plan to fail. That's higher costs.
If you want people to be able to meet their mortgage payments, let's
lower energy costs. Let's lower the price of a gallon of gasoline.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1
additional minute.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Now bring in climate change. On average, climate change
is going to add 50 cents to a gallon of gas. That would raise the price
to $4.16. Nobody wants to pay that.
How can we solve this problem, Mr. Speaker? Let's go after our
natural resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. Billions of barrels
of oil, billions of cubic feet of natural gas right on the OCS.
Democrats keep blocking the ability to get that. Let's do coal-to-
liquid technologies. Go after our coal reserves, 250 years' worth in
Southern Illinois alone, and turn that into liquid fuel.
Let's lower the cost for homeowners so that we don't have to rely on
bailouts, we don't have to rely on government. My individuals want
independence from government. They want independence on fuel costs.
They want to pay lower costs.
Democrats can bring a bill to the floor. They promised it in 2006. We
have yet to see it.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in strong
support of H.R. 5818, as well as H.R. 5830 and H.R. 5720, which
together constitute a comprehensive package of legislation that will
help us address our Nation's housing crisis by providing assistance to
those who are suffering the most.
The numbers characterizing this crisis are truly staggering. The
National Association of Realtors reports that median home prices fell
in 2007 by nearly 2 percent. RealtyTrac reported last week that in the
first quarter of 2008, 1 in every 194 homeowners faced a foreclosure
notice.
The loss of a home, or value in a home, is a loss of an asset which
many Americans often work their entire lives to own, and it is a loss
of a dream that many may never again have the chance to achieve for the
rest of their lives.
Further, the decline of the housing market has pulled our economy to
the brink of recession. Our Nation has lost some 260,000 jobs since
January of this year, and economic growth slowed in the first quarter
of 2008 to less than 1 percent.
The reality is that many Americans long ago entered their own
personal recessions. And the legislation before us today finally begins
to provide the aid that our Nation's families so urgently need to get
back on their feet.
[[Page H3124]]
Together, these pieces of legislation will do the following:
Provide mortgage refinancing assistance to keep families from losing
their homes and protect the values of neighboring homes; expand FHA
assistance so that borrowers in danger of losing their homes can
refinance into lower-cost, government-insured mortgages they can afford
to repay; and provide States $10 billion in additional tax-exempt bond
authority in 2008 to refinance subprime loans and refinance the
building of affordable and rental housing.
I applaud Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Waters for their determined
leadership and for these great pieces of legislation, and I urge the
adoption of each of these measures.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from Washington
has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Florida has
12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
____________________