[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 16, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1852-H1860]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 839, HAMP TERMINATION ACT OF 2011;
AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 861, NSP TERMINATION ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 170 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 170
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. 839) to amend the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008 to terminate the authority of the
Secretary of the Treasury to provide new assistance under the
Home Affordable Modification Program, while preserving
assistance to homeowners who were already extended an offer
to participate in the Program, either on a trial or permanent
basis. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair 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. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in part A of 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. 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. 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. 861) to rescind the third round of funding for the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program and to terminate the
program. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair 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. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report (except that amendment number 9 and amendment number
10 may be offered only en bloc), 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. 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.
{time} 1230
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 170 provides for a
structured rule designed and designated by the Rules Committee for
consideration of H.R. 861 and H.R. 839. This rule allows the amendments
submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order as long as they
were not subject to a point of order and were germane to the underlying
text of H.R. 861 and H.R. 839.
This rule provides for debate and amendment opportunities for members
of the minority and the majority to change the legislative text of the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the two
underlying bills. The first piece of legislation, the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program Termination Act, was introduced by my friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller) on March 1, 2011, and went
through committee
[[Page H1853]]
markup in the Financial Services Committee last week on March 9. The
second bill, H.R. 839, the Home Affordable Modification Program
Termination Act, was introduced by my dear friend, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) on February 28 and marked up last week as
well.
Both of these bills went through regular order, which allowed Members
from both sides of the aisle the opportunity to offer amendments in the
Financial Services Committee and in the Rules Committee yesterday.
The chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier, has once again
provided Members of this body a transparent and accountable structure
under the rule that we are discussing today, allowing Members from both
sides of this body to offer amendments and both sides to join in debate
of the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, last fall, Republicans pledged to the American people
that we would stop the wasteful spending and put Americans back to
work. These two bills that we're discussing today continue to roll back
the abuse of taxpayer funds, the diminishment of jobs, and the creation
of a proper government responsibility with any balance in the housing
sector.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, we also said that we would make sure that we
went through regular order and would allow Members time to read the
bills. That is what Republicans bring forth to the floor today as we
debate these two important aspects that have gone through regular order
through the Financial Services Committee.
H.R. 861, the NSP Termination Act, terminates the Neighborhood
Stability Program and rescinds $1 billion in unobligated funds that was
authorized in the Dodd-Frank bill last year.
Congress has appropriated approximately $7 billion in three rounds of
funding for this program. Eligible users for the funds include
emergency assistance to State and local governments to acquire,
develop, redevelop, or demolish foreclosed homes. So this doesn't stop
or assist folks in getting through foreclosures. It gives money to
lenders to fix up the houses to sell, while returning not one cent of
the $7 billion back to the American taxpayer.
The NSP has done little to resolve the root causes of the increase in
foreclosures. In fact, the NSP continues to extend and further
exacerbate the current housing downturn. This program represents a
costly bailout for lenders, servicers, and real estate speculators who
made risky bets on the housing market, all at the expense of the
American taxpayer and our debt.
While putting billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, we should
understand that this is a program, two programs that must be halted.
There should be an appropriate accountability and reporting, and this
program lacks both. This is just another two examples, following up
what we did last week with two other examples, of the Democrats'
solution of throwing money at a problem rather than something that
would work and be cost effective.
Taxpayers from all over this Nation are struggling with their
mortgage payments, keeping their jobs, and providing for their
families. Allowing for a stable economy, a future, and reining in
government spending by eliminating wasteful government spending will
provide for more transparency and government accountability across
economic markets. That is why we are eliminating these two programs
today on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Let's be honest about this. Republicans are here to try and save jobs
that are on the chopping block from what wasteful government spending
has done for us the last 4 years of Democrat control. Today,
Republicans are on the floor to stop wasteful Washington government
spending, which says directly to the taxpayers we don't want 40 cents
out of every dollar that we spend to be put on a credit card, a future
debt that our children and our future will be put at risk by mortgaging
our future. Republicans are not going to allow that. That is why we're
on the floor of the House of Representatives. That is why we will
encourage every Member of this body, Republican or Democrat, to make
tough decisions today about not just today, but about our future.
The second bill under this rule today, H.R. 839, rescinds the Home
Affordable Modification Program known as HAMP. This is another
unnecessarily and poorly managed housing program that wastes tens of
billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars. Terminating this program would
prevent the use of $29 billion of TARP funds, $29 billion of TARP funds
we do not think should be spent.
HAMP was established in February of 2009 with the goal of assisting
with loan modifications for up to 4 million homeowners. Over the life
of this program, only 521,306 loans have been permanently modified, and
the redefault rate for these loans is very high.
{time} 1240
So what we started with is trying to help 4 million people. Thus far,
we have only helped 521,000, but it comes at a high cost to the
taxpayer. Only $840 million of the $29 billion earmarked for this
purpose has been used--only $800 million of the $29 billion.
We need the money back, Mr. Speaker. We need the money back because
this is another case in which the program actually made matters worse
for many of the homeowners who were seeking to participate. The
government is pushing a program which harms these homeowners. It
creates a perverse incentive for borrowers to deliberately and
willfully stop making their mortgage payments in the hopes that they
can get government loans to reduce their payments.
This program that the government has actually encourages people to
quit making payments, which still add up, including the interest on
what they owe. It harms their credit ratings and adds, what I think, is
a further unfair circumstance in which the government is pushing
``we're here to help you'' when, in fact, it doesn't know the rules of
the game or whether a homeowner will even be able to qualify, making
the homeowner wait months to then find out, ``Whoops. Sorry. You didn't
qualify. Now you need to continue what you're doing.''
A false hope, Mr. Speaker.
The Washington Times, which is a great newspaper here in Washington,
published an article on this program on March 1 of this year. It stated
that in, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of cases, homeowners are far
worse off after HAMP than they were before being talked into and
getting involved with the program. Borrowers are typically not told all
the potential consequences of falling behind on their mortgages.
They're simply told that there's a government plan out there to help
you when, in fact, they do fall behind on their mortgages.
Services have repeatedly lost documentation and have provided false
information to home borrowers who were in need of assistance and good
discussion about how to pay their bills--instead, trying to talk them
into participating in a government program and, in some instances, even
pushing individuals into default, individuals who could have continued
making their payments.
In a report from the Inspector General of TARP to Secretary of the
Treasury Geithner on March 25, 2010--that is 1 year ago--he notes:
``Several aspects of the HAMP design make it particularly vulnerable to
redefaults.''
It is time to pull the plug. That is why Republicans are on the floor
today to say straight up: We need to look at what is not working. We
need to look at the $29 billion that has been spent on this program,
and we need to be honest with ourselves, as has been noted in
newspapers across the country, as to what the Democrats have done. What
this administration and this House have done has been adversarial in
helping people who needed assistance. Today, we can save the taxpayers
$28 billion that has not been spent on this program.
Continued government intervention and the questionable use of
taxpayer dollars only prolong our current economic crisis and ensure
that the housing market will simply continue to struggle. The market
needs to find its own footing free of government intervention and
manipulation by this government so that we can get on with a full
recovery. The deficit is expected to reach a record under President
Obama: using his numbers, $1.65 trillion this year while our national
debt is well over $14 trillion. The U.S. and its citizens cannot afford
to spend billions of taxpayer dollars that will not be repaid, and it
ends up, in many instances,
[[Page H1854]]
harming the people it was intended to help.
Job creation is the most effective foreclosure prevention tool. Job
losses rather than unsustainable mortgage terms are now the driving
force behind foreclosures and mortgage defaults. Eliminating these
programs will not only save taxpayer dollars; it will encourage more
responsible government spending by the Federal Government.
So, Mr. Speaker, as no surprise to you, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on
the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Here we are again. At a time when Americans are calling for more jobs
to improve the economy, my Republican colleagues want to pass
legislation that won't create a single job and that will hurt the
middle class by further destabilizing our housing markets.
Mr. Speaker, this week, we take up two more bills to continue
weakening our housing markets and abandoning families who are working
hard, struggling to stay in their homes, both of which show that my
friends on the other side of the aisle continue to put partisan
politics ahead of creating jobs and growing the economy.
Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, when we had several Members there
from both sides who were testifying, the question was asked: Are we in
a housing crisis? Everybody there agreed--and I think most of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on my side of the aisle
agreed as well--that we are in a housing crisis. So the answer is: What
is and what should be the response?
Now, this response is what we have.
My colleague from Dallas said that the current program, HAMP, lacks
accountability. Well, it seems like the logical answer to that would be
to create accountability for the program, not to eliminate the program.
We are talking about repeal without replace. We are talking about
ending rather than mending. If there is truly a housing crisis, as I
believe Members across both sides of the aisle agree there is, it calls
for a public policy response. Rather than talking about what we
shouldn't do, I think it would be more constructive to talk about what
we should do.
We are leaving nothing in the wake if this proposed repeal moves
forward. At a time when our economy is finally beginning to show signs
of strong, sustained growth, we need to do everything we can to put
people back to work and create jobs. Instead, here we have legislation
after legislation that will increase burdens on already struggling
middle class families. Rather than improving and building upon or even
replacing programs that keep families in their homes, the Republicans
have chosen to eliminate these four programs that keep families in
their homes, and they have no plan to strengthen the housing market or
to help the families who will, quite literally, be left on the street
as a result.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 839 will eliminate one of the last lifelines
available to many homeowners. According to Treasury Secretary Geithner,
ending the HAMP program would cause a huge amount of damage to a very
fragile housing market and would leave hundreds and hundreds of
thousands, if not millions of Americans, without the chance to take
advantage of mortgage modifications that would allow them to stay in
homes that they can afford.
Now, we could go into how we got into this mess in the first place,
and we all know, Mr. Speaker, that there is plenty of blame to go
around. Yes, people who got in over their heads with mortgages they
couldn't afford deserve some of the blame. So do the brokers who
shouldn't have sold them on those mortgages. So do the banks that
underwrote those mortgages. So does Wall Street for packaging those
mortgages and creating derivative products--and yes, so does the
government for being asleep at the regulatory switch. There is plenty
of blame to go around.
When the bankers needed help, they came to the government, and the
government helped them. When the regulators needed help, they came to
the government, and we passed financial regulatory reform last year.
Well, the people who are most affected, the people who literally risk
being tossed out on the street, rely on these programs to help them.
How in good conscience can this Congress even consider bailing out Wall
Street and bankers and not help mainstream America stay in their homes?
Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around. Believe me, many of these
people facing this situation, who are barely able to make their
mortgages, are not being rewarded for their bad decisions. They would
much rather spend half as much on homes and not be under water,
suffering as they are today. Yet the least we can do as a country to
help them is to acknowledge that, yes, personal responsibility and
blame don't just fall on their shoulders.
My Republican colleagues will argue that this is a failed government
program and that this program hasn't helped the 3 million to 4 million
homeowners it was originally projected to help. What they fail to
mention is that HAMP, A, has helped to stabilize the housing market and
that, B, it has helped over half a million families. Yes, that's not
the 3 million or 4 million, and yes, our side of the aisle would be
very open to suggestions about improving this program, whether it's the
accountability of this program, the scale of this program, how it's
delivered, or whether it's replacing it with another program to help
those who are barely able to make their mortgage payments.
{time} 1250
But what we are talking about today is to eliminate the tool that has
kept one-half million American families in their homes, Mr. Speaker.
There is no doubt that many folks on the other side of the aisle are
also calling this program a waste of taxpayer money. According to the
CBO, the average cost per assisted homeowner in HAMP is $13,000. Now,
that is a small price and actually a sound investment. It is far
smaller than the $60,000 that it has been estimated to cost Freddie,
Fannie, and large banks to foreclose on a home. So $13,000 to prevent
the banks from foreclosing on a home, keeping that family in a home,
allowing them to go to work and make their payments and pay back what
is due; or, $60,000 to foreclose on that home and leave that family on
the streets. The money for this program is well spent.
If an individual shows they can't stay current on their programs,
they are removed from HAMP at no cost to taxpayers. In fact, of the
homeowners that have had their trial modifications cancelled through
the end of 2010, only 5.1 percent have been foreclosed on, and only
14.9 percent are at all in the foreclosure process.
Mr. Speaker, the program keeps families in their homes. Mortgages
that have been modified under HAMP have a sustainability rate of 85
percent. Yes, we can do better. Yes, we would love to bring this
program or others to keep 3 million to 4 million families in their home
and stabilize housing prices. But what the bill before us does is
repeal one of the only tools we have to help keep American families in
their homes.
I understand the program hasn't reached the initial projections that
the Obama administration put forward. But there is no question, talking
to some of the families that this program has benefited, that it does
work for them. With our help, the Treasury can continue to take steps
to improve the effectiveness of this program and increase compliance
from banks and borrowers.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 861 would rightly be titled the ``Illegal Trade
Commercial Real Estate Act.'' The majority seeks to undermine the
efforts of our Nation's mayors, city councils, and real estate
developers and ensure that areas which have suffered due to economic
downturn remain safely in control of those who do damage to
communities. This is a critical program to help reform our communities.
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which I remind my colleagues
was established and signed into law by President Bush, was designed to
turn a crisis into an opportunity. In 2008, almost $4 billion was
appropriated and helped 307 State and local agencies acquire,
rehabilitate, and sell abandoned and foreclosed properties, exactly
what is most needed now not only to revitalize our blighted areas but
to help prevent the housing crisis and commercial real estate crisis
from getting
[[Page H1855]]
worse. I remind my colleagues that every dime of this program that is
not spent by the sunset of this program will already, under statute, be
returned to the Treasury.
By creating a mechanism for communities to acquire, rehabilitate, and
sell back to the private market abandoned and blighted properties, we
give local governments a very powerful tool for economic growth and
fighting crime and keeping our communities safe.
In the midst of our ongoing liquidity crisis, where many developers
are having a tough time finding financing for many of their prime
projects, it is a matter of public safety and critical economic
importance that we continue this vehicle by which blighted properties
are returned to being productive economic engines, particularly in our
Nation's most troubled neighborhoods.
I also want to point out that this program isn't limited to
commercial property. In my district in Adams County, Colorado, which
like other areas of the country was devastated by the wave of
foreclosures, we have used this program to revitalize residential
neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program allows local
governments to build communities with home rehabilitation, down payment
and closing cost assistance for low- and middle-income families. By
using these Federal dollars to leverage local efforts, many struggling
families have been able to find and keep a home, and a modest Federal
investment has been magnified severalfold by private investment, city
investment, and county investment.
Mr. Speaker, I think most people in this country agree, yes, there is
a housing crisis and, yes, there is plenty of blame to go around and,
yes, we need a public policy response. These programs aren't perfect.
We hope to work in a bipartisan way with our colleagues across the
aisle on improving these programs, coming up with new market-oriented
programs to help end the crisis in real estate. But the answer is not
to simply repeal one of the only instruments that we have to keep
families in their homes with only the vaguest of assurances that
someday, somehow Congress might think up a better plan.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments
about our being here today on the floor in a bipartisan way with a bill
that went through regular order with an opportunity for any Member that
would choose that has any ideas that are germane to the issue and that
fall within the rules to be included. And you are going to see where
there are a bunch of amendments today.
Mr. Speaker, the conversation that the gentleman and I were having
should further extend, and that is the common sense that is related to
why we are on the floor today, the discussion about whether we should
make it better or simply repeal it. And I would quote from the IG of
the TARP fund in his report to Secretary Geithner:
``Although in the final analysis it is up to the policymakers in the
administration and the Congress to determine whether it is worth
spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on a program that is
assumed at its outset to fail ultimately for 40 percent of the
participants, several aspects of HAMP's design make it particularly
vulnerable to redefaults.''
I think the IG has said it best. When any objective person looked at
what the Democrat Congress passed, they would have to question whether
it was worth spending tens of billions of dollars on a program at the
outset we should have known would fail for 40 percent of the
participants. I think that is good reason to say, common sense should
say, let's stop the plan, not continue it.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the chairwoman of the
Financial Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs.
Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of House Resolution 170, the rule
for consideration of H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program,
NSP, Termination Act, and H.R. 839, the Home Affordable Program (HAMP)
Termination Act. H.R. 861 would end NSP and rescind 1 billion taxpayer
dollars that would otherwise be spent to continue this troubled
program.
In total, Congress has already spent $7 billion for NSP. And instead
of stabilizing neighborhoods or helping people whose mortgages are
underwater, the program allows lenders and servicers to offload their
bad investments onto taxpayers and delay market recovery. Even more
disturbing is that critics warn that NSP creates incentives for banks
and other lenders to foreclose on troubled borrowers, worsening the
crisis and kicking families out of their homes.
This program is not about helping homeowners. They have already lost
their house to foreclosure. They are not involved in this. This is help
for lenders and bankers to take the money and build more homes through
the counties, through the States, through not-for-profits, and then to
sell these homes and reap the benefits of the money. There is no place
in this bill to tell us where that money goes. It probably is in a
slush fund.
The GAO, the inspector general for HUD, and other auditors have noted
the program is plagued with problems, including lax reporting
requirements and poor accountability. There is little evidence to
suggest that the funds spent through NSP are producing cost-effective
results.
Finally, the program lacks any requirement that remaining NSP funds
are returned to taxpayers when a sponsored property is sold. Instead,
the money is treated like a fund, somewhere, never to be returned.
The other bill approved by our committee is H.R. 839. This bill would
terminate HAMP, which has become the poster child for failed
foreclosure mitigation programs. According to the CBO, this bill would
save $1.4 billion over 10 years.
Announced by the Obama administration in February of 2009, the HAMP
program to date has spent $840 million out of the $30 billion in TARP
funds that were set aside for the program. For this extraordinary
investment, the administration predicted that up to 4 million
homeowners would receive help. Instead, only 580,000 homeowners have
received mortgage modifications.
Sadly, a failure to meet expectations is the least of the program's
troubles. Of those who were promised help, 740,000 homeowners have had
their modifications cancelled. In many cases, these homeowners were
strung along on a false hope, only to end up in worse financial straits
than if they had never heard of HAMP.
{time} 1300
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a statement from a March 2
subcommittee hearing during which Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector
General for the TARP program, or SIGTARP, exposed the most hazardous
failings of the program. He said that there had been countless
published reports on HAMP participants who wound up worse off, having
engaged in a false attempt. Failed modifications often leave borrowers
with more principal outstanding on their loans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to yield the gentlewoman an additional
minute.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Numerous oversight bodies, including the GAO, have
cited the Treasury for failing to respond to recommendations to
increase the transparency, accountability, and consistency of the
program. Americans for Tax Reform called the program ``a costly
failure.''
Out-of-control spending has left us with a $14.1 trillion national
debt that is damaging our recovery and harming job growth. Economists
agree that reducing government spending will create a more favorable
environment for private sector jobs; and that is what Americans need, a
job and a paycheck, not more failed experiments and taxpayer-funded
housing.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today really troubled because I am opposed to
terminating the HAMP program and the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program. But I am troubled because these programs have actually been
very troubled. They are not perfect. They haven't helped every
homeowner that we want, but we shouldn't be in a position of just
destroying the programs.
[[Page H1856]]
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program in particular was established
to help communities acquire, rehabilitate, and resell abandoned and
foreclosed properties as a result of the growing foreclosure crisis.
There are so many economists across this country who tell us every
single day that until we get the housing market straight, we will not
get this economy straight. So I believe in theory in these programs.
Declining home values in my community have led to lower tax revenues
for our local jurisdictions that are already suffering from the impacts
of the economic downturn. The statewide foreclosure crisis has hit
particularly hard in my district and the counties that I represent, in
Prince George's and Montgomery Counties, in Maryland. They have the
first and third highest number of foreclosures in our State and account
for 40 percent of the foreclosures statewide.
Through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Montgomery County
received $2 million and Prince George's County nearly $12 million in
funding. This has helped in these communities. I would urge the
majority to look at the benefits, and let's try to fix the programs.
At the beginning of this crisis, sure, there were bad loans. There
were bad actors all over the place. But we also know that people have
lost their jobs and that has contributed to foreclosures, and these
families should not be punished because we can't seem to get it
straight. Neighborhood stabilization does stabilize communities. It
doesn't do any good to have homes that are empty and in decline and
neighborhoods that will never bring the market back.
So while I am concerned about some of the programs and would like to
work to try to fix these, it is not right for us to simply throw them
out and minimize the impact of helping 521,000 families to stay in
their homes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr.
McHenry), the author of one of the pieces of underlying legislation.
Mr. McHENRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the bill that I am sponsoring is the HAMP Termination
Act, and it is a bill that will protect at-risk homeowners across the
country from a government program that has proven to be an abysmal
failure.
The Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, was originally
supposed to help as many as 3 million to 4 million struggling
homeowners avoid foreclosure by modifying loans to a level that is
affordable to borrowers now and sustainable over the long term. That
was the intention. However, nearly 800,000 of the 1.4 million
homeowners who enrolled in this program have subsequently been rejected
or terminated.
In his most recent testimony to Congress, the Special Inspector
General for TARP, Neil Barofsky, stated: ``It is just not working. The
Home Affordable Modification Program has to date been a failure.'' ``A
failure,'' in the words of the independent individual to oversee this
program. A failure.
Now, there is no doubt that people of good will created this program.
There is no doubt about that. The intention was to help those that are
facing foreclosure. That was the intention.
Unfortunately, the design of this program has led to more people
being harmed than actually helped. Understand that. We have a
government program that harms more people than it was designed to help
because it strings them along with a so-called verbally modified change
to their payments, and so it drains their savings. At the end of the
day, the majority of the people enrolled in this program are kicked
out, and they are left not only with their savings depleted, which is
bad enough that a government program strings people along for that, but
it also ruins their credit rating, because this government program only
verbally modifies their loan terms.
In the end, you have folks that have depleted their savings, ruined
their credit, and lost their house. And this is a Federal Government
program paid for by the American people's tax dollars. It is an abject
failure. Worse than that, it is destroying people's lives.
I would ask my colleagues to vote for this rule. It allows for a
number of amendments, some of which are wise, others that I think are
very flawed from my colleagues across the aisle.
But this HAMP program, we have to come to a consensus on it. All the
folks that oversee this, nonpartisan, bipartisan, have all looked at
this and described it as a failure.
So if we can't eliminate this government program, then I ask my
colleagues, What government programs can we eliminate? Vote for the
rule; and, please, I ask my colleagues to vote for the HAMP Termination
Act as well.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. You are right, it is all about debt. Debt.
Our homeowners, they are very concerned about debt. It may not be the
Federal debt that their grandchildren may have to pay decades from now,
but it is definitely that mortgage payment that is due next month. That
is the debt that our homeowners cannot afford to pay.
So here is what I am asking this Congress to do: hold off on cutting
back on these foreclosure initiatives before we directly help our
homeowners. And we can help them in a way that won't cost much more
money.
As a matter of fact, let's give homeowners something that they
typically don't have when they are facing foreclosure, and that is
time. Time. Time to find a home buyer to pay off their mortgage; time
to get more income to pay off their bills; and, most importantly, the
time and the leverage to voluntarily negotiate with a mortgage servicer
that typically will keep losing their loan modification papers until
the homeowner runs out of time. Time.
I am asking this Congress to first do this: freeze all foreclosures
to those homeowners who deserve the help and who can afford to stay in
their homes and maintain their homes. That is the best way to stop our
property values from dropping, from providing the revenue that our
police officers and firefighters and emergency medical providers
definitely need; and, finally, that is the best way to help save family
homes, by providing time to our homeowners.
{time} 1310
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
Ms. HIRONO. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for the time.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program Termination Act, NSP.
We keep hearing from the other side about wasteful government
spending. Nothing represents wasteful government spending more than the
continuing billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money that we
give to Big Oil, which is making record profits. This bill continues
the Republican assault on the middle class and the working people.
For the sake of our communities, we cannot afford to terminate NSP.
By redeveloping foreclosed and abandoned properties, this program is
stabilizing neighborhoods nationwide. This not only increases property
values but also reduces the number of foreclosures. NSP provides a
lifeline to struggling families who are trying to secure affordable
housing or simply stay in their homes.
Like the rest of the country, Hawaii has a foreclosure crisis. We
rank 10th in the Nation in the rate of foreclosures. The $19.6 million
in NSP funding that Hawaii received is helping our communities in the
greatest need throughout my State. The City and County of Honolulu will
use these funds to redevelop vacant properties and build two affordable
rental housing projects in Ewa and Waianae. In Hawaii County, an
affordable rental housing project will be built on vacant property in
Kailua-Kona. In the counties of Maui and Kauai, NSP funds will be used
to buy and rehabilitate abandoned or foreclosed homes and residential
properties throughout both counties.
So you can see that this is money that is not represented as wasteful
spending. Our communities need our help. Vote against this bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Andrews).
[[Page H1857]]
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as we began this week, there were 15 million unemployed
Americans looking for this Congress to work together to try to get
something done for entrepreneurs and small businesses to create jobs.
What has the Congress done? Yesterday, the majority managed, only with
the help of a few dozen Democrats, to keep the government running for
the next 3 weeks because they couldn't agree among themselves as to
what to do with the budget. Today, they're taking up this bill that,
rather than fixing a flawed program, they rip it up from the roots and
throw it out. Tomorrow, they're going to pull the plug on National
Public Radio.
Now, I would suggest if you're like some of those 15 million
Americans who are spending the day at the public library in front of
Monster.com or looking at the want ads in the newspapers, wearing out
your shoe leather to figure out where your next job is going to come
from, this has not been a great week. Eleven weeks the majority has
been in control--no jobs bill, no jobs plan, no jobs idea. Not one
word, not one bill, not one minute.
The priorities of this majority are wrong.
Republicans and Democrats should come together, work together to
create an environment where small businesses and entrepreneurs can
create jobs for the American people. Eleven weeks--no jobs, no sense of
priorities. That's the record of this majority.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I was just reminded by the gentleman, Mr.
Mica, the favorite son of Florida, who's the chairman of our
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) had referred that we've done nothing about
jobs. But the gentleman, Mr. Mica, as chairman of the committee
reminded me that this House passed just 2 weeks ago a transportation
bill that had been lagging, waiting since 2009, that will add a
substantial number of jobs. And that was a good jobs bill.
So I wouldn't expect to get credit for anything, necessarily, on the
floor, but at least we need to be honest about this. The Republicans
did pass a bill that was adding jobs as opposed to this massive
undertaking that we are trying to save jobs that are at risk as a
result of the outlandish spending and wasteful government spending
taking place here.
Secondly, the gentleman said, Why are Republicans now trying to get
rid of this? Why didn't we do something to fix the program? But I would
remind the American people that this is a report that went to the
Secretary of the Treasury over a year ago. And I would ask the
question: Why did the Democrats, why did this administration continue a
failed program? Why did they continue it? That's because they were
happy with it. In fact, as we've already read, a 40 percent failure
rate and thousands of more people harmed. That's why Republicans are
trying to fix this--because we have tried to work.
Today, we're going to pass this on the floor. It's a great bill. And
we're going to ask every single person to be able to vote for this
opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.
I want to agree with my friend from Texas that investing in
transportation construction creates jobs. We agree with him. And I
would ask the gentleman if he would support our Build America bill that
offsets the deficit by cutting job outsources and creates more
transportation construction jobs. Would he agree to put that on the
floor?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SESSIONS. As soon as it's on the floor, I'll consider that.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, we'll give the gentleman a chance on
the previous question motion, perhaps tomorrow.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I would point out that the one bill that the gentleman from Texas has
pointed to as a jobs bill is one bill that contained many, many
earmarks from previous sessions. Also included is continuing funding
for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. So if this is the best jobs bill
that a Republican Congress can bring forward, I think the American
people deserve better.
It is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 861, which
would terminate all funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
The program has really helped families and communities in Alabama's
Seventh Congressional District tremendously.
Our Nation is recovering from one of the worst recessions experienced
in our lifetime, and in my district, the economic downturn happened
long before the rest of the Nation began to experience it. The
foreclosure rate in my district has reached 8 percent. These
foreclosures have devastated homeowners. The foreclosures have had a
debilitating effect on the neighborhoods, leading to blight, decay, and
reduced property values.
The NSP program provides States and hard-hit cities with program
funding to help them recover from the effects of foreclosures,
abandoned properties, and declining property values. The City of
Birmingham, the City of Bessemer, Jefferson County, and the State of
Alabama have received funding from this program. In my district, the
NSP program has revitalized 259 homes, relocated 69 families, and has
saved at least nine distressed neighborhoods.
In speaking recently with the mayor of the City of Birmingham, Mayor
Bell, about the effectiveness of this program, he informed me that the
program has benefited greatly distressed neighborhoods in Birmingham.
I've also heard from families whose neighborhoods have been improved
because of this funding.
My colleagues across the aisle want to terminate NSP, but I
respectfully disagree. There's still much work to be done for our
families and our communities. Without a doubt, we must reduce our
national budget and Congress must work together to make the tough cuts.
However, such cuts cannot be made on the backs of our communities,
families, and seniors.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker and my friends on both sides of the aisle,
we could very easily come up with money to save this program if we
would just put a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.
I'm here today to point out the critical importance of the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program and to urge my fellow Members to
vote against cancelling it.
Over the past decade, the people of my State in Ohio, and my district
in particular, have weathered a terrible storm of foreclosures,
devastating entire communities. While some neighborhoods in my district
have been hollowed out by the effects of this storm, the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program funds have made neighborhoods and communities
safer. Those communities faced the constant risk of crime and vandals
taking advantage of empty structures, and Neighborhood Stabilization
funds have been used to demolish hundreds of abandoned homes in the
neighborhood, to help protect existing home values, and prevented
neighborhoods from falling apart.
But the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has not just financed
demolition of abandoned structures. In Cuyahoga County alone, this
program funded the creation of 237 units of affordable rental housing
and 25 single-family home renovations and neighborhood green space
improvements.
{time} 1320
It has also been used to leverage non-Federal money to fund the
innovative Land Bank, a public entity that buys vacant and abandoned
land and puts ownership of that land back in the hands of the public so
that it can be used again, often in conjunction with private
development, to renew and revitalize communities. Anyone who has ever
spent any time in blighted communities knows that they cry out for
[[Page H1858]]
innovative solutions like the Land Bank.
When NSP was first being developed, I held hearings to find out how
specifically HUD planned to allocate the funds. I convinced them of the
wisdom of using U.S. Postal Service and census tract data on
residential home vacancies. Because of that, they adopted a need-based
formula for allocating the money to neighborhoods and communities that
needed it most.
Vote against this bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are facing a CR of $61
billion in cuts causing the loss of 800,000 jobs. What is more precious
to America than the opportunity to own a home?
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program has gone into inner city and
urban areas and recaptured neighborhoods, giving them a boost of energy
that they needed. There is always the opportunity for reform, Mr.
Speaker, but I would simply raise the question: Let's mend it, don't
end it. Let's not leave cities abandoned with broken down, ramshackle
homes that would in fact create more blight, more gang opportunities,
more dangerous conditions.
And, yes, HAMP needs reform. But what does it mean to eliminate a
program? Of course the HAMP has a grandfather provision. But all
America wants is to get these programs to work. Neighborhood
stabilization works. HAMP can work. Now you're letting banks off the
hook, so that every day a homeowner calls, they can hear the sound
``foreclosed.'' At least the intervention allowed those hardworking
Americans to keep their home and to provide for their family and to
keep jobs will be lost if these bills are passed. Vote no.
Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong opposition to the bill to end the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program. It is time for Americans to seriously question
the Republican leadership's dedication to job creation. After 11 weeks
in Congress, they've offered no jobs plan, no jobs bill.
What's worse, by their own expert witness's testimony, the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program, or NSP, supports 93,000 jobs
nationally. In light of this estimate, I submitted an amendment to the
NSP Termination Act that would require the Congressional Budget Office
to study and report to Congress the impact of this legislation on job
creation or job loss. However, my friends on the other side of the
aisle prevented consideration of my amendment on the floor of the
House.
Last week, the Republicans waged an attack on American homeowners by
voting to eliminate foreclosure mitigation programs that help
underwater homeowners refinance their mortgage as well as assist
temporarily unemployed Americans to remain current on their mortgage;
all of this in the midst of one of the worst housing crises in the
history of America. And now the Republicans are putting our most
vulnerable communities at even greater risk. Terminating the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program will damage our neighborhoods,
devastate home values, and will slow our economic recovery.
Now is the time to protect our most vulnerable neighborhoods,
families who are struggling, and now is the time to invest in the
future of our communities and help to restore the American dream of
homeownership, recognizing that stabilization of our housing market is
key to our economic recovery.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the termination of this program.
I've seen it work in Rhode Island. It's worked well. It's making a
difference.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again, my friends and colleagues are
talking about a no jobs bill, nothing about jobs. But at least there's
a purist on the floor and, that is, there was one Democrat in the House
who voted against the Republican jobs bill, transportation bill. That
was the gentleman, Mr. Polis. So I would think that he would have great
standing on saying we've never had a bill that added jobs, but
everybody else I would have to question that because they voted for the
bill, because, in fact, it's a good jobs bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
With regard to the jobs bill, I acknowledge that that was the bill
that my colleague from Texas cited as the one jobs bill the Republicans
have brought before us. This was a bill that had dozens and dozens of
earmarks, which is why, in standing with President Obama, I opposed
that bill, including an indefensible earmark on which we proposed an
amendment on the floor, which was voted down, I might add, without a
single Republican vote, to eliminate funding for what I thought there
was broad consensus we should eliminate funding for; namely, a $300
million bridge in Alaska. There was a $70 million bridge to an island
with 50 people, and an additional project that is another bridge.
This is an example of earmarks at their worst, of pork barrel
politics at their worst. I'm beginning to think if the Republicans do
come up with a job bill, we need to ask at what price jobs? Is it going
to be so filled up with Republican pork that we have to either take it
or leave it? That's a choice the American people don't want to face.
Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit that we can improve HAMP.
We can improve the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. There's no doubt
about that. I would advance that we should be doing exactly that. My
colleague from Michigan (Mr. Clarke) had some excellent ideas about
improving these programs. I am a cosponsor of a bill to provide for a
capital gains tax exemption for investment in community banks to help
them shore up their balance sheets. Why not look at, for instance,
allowing investment properties to have the same mortgage deductibility
as primary residences? There's a number of great ideas that I'm sure
Members on both sides of the aisle could discuss and agree upon to
address our housing crisis. But what the answer isn't is to repeal one
of the only tools we have and to replace it with silence.
It is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman.
I just want to use an example here from a district in northeast Ohio,
an old industrial district. We've had chronic foreclosures for 30
years. The census just came out. The city of Youngstown went from
180,000 people down to about 65,000 people. The tax base has been
eroded. And in the last few years, Youngstown has been cited as one of
the top 10 best cities to start a business by Entrepreneur magazine.
Site Selection magazine says it's one of the top 10 places to start or
grow a business.
In part, the renaissance of Youngstown is because of Federal
investments like this that help us downsize and shrink our community.
And I find it ironic that our friends who are trying to reduce
government spending, we're trying to get rid of dilapidated housing
where it increases crime, prostitution, drug use. This all puts more
pressure on the safety services within a town like Youngstown.
This bill to repeal this money is actually going to cost cities and
rural areas more money because you're not allowing us to reinvest into
these places, downsize them, shrink them, make them more manageable
and, over time, reduce the tax burden on the local taxpayer. These are
critical investments that are needed in the United States of America.
This should have been $5 billion, not just $1 billion.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if it worked that way, we'd be for it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman to
respond.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would invite the gentleman to Youngstown, Ohio.
He can see it for himself.
Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado who serves on the Financial Services Committee, Mr.
Perlmutter.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank my friend from Colorado.
I would invite my friend from Texas to come to Aurora, Colorado,
where we've actually, with the Neighborhood
[[Page H1859]]
Stabilization Program, had tremendous successes. This country was on
its back financially 2 years ago, 2\1/2\ years ago. We're just now
getting back on our feet, and my friends from the Republican side of
the aisle want to just pull the rug right back out. You've got to get
strong before you can do away with some of these programs.
So let's talk about Aurora, Colorado. They got $4.7 million to go and
buy homes that were vacant because there had been foreclosures which
were causing blight and lots of property devaluation. They went in,
fixed the homes, and sold them to good families. The neighborhood
starts growing again. Aurora has taken that $4.7 million and turned it
into $7.8 million by the sales of these properties, so that the
neighborhoods get strengthened, families are helped, and we stop this
cycle of foreclosure in tough neighborhoods.
{time} 1330
My friends on the Republican side of the aisle are blaming all sorts
of things for the debt that have nothing to do with it and are taking
away things that are really helping middle America. I'd urge them to
rethink this whole bill, and I know my friend from Colorado has seen
these same things, the benefits of these programs.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will assure the gentleman I will be in
Aurora, Colorado, and I'll be pleased to be there this year and
probably next year, also.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some items on the
schedule for the gentleman from Dallas during his visit to Colorado as
well.
I'm the last speaker for my side, and I would like to inquire if the
gentleman has any further requests for time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman's asking. I have no further
requests for time, and I appreciate the collegiality the gentleman has
extended me.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you a few stories from constituents
in my district that the HAMP program has helped. My office has helped a
number of constituents with this program, and I'm not alone in doing
that.
Last year, I had a local artist who ran her own small business
contact my office asking for help with her mortgage. Her income had
declined significantly and unexpectedly due to the tough economy. She
tried to find a second job but it wasn't enough. With the help of a
HAMP loan modification, she's still in her home today.
We also helped a truckdriver who had become ill and needed dialysis.
Although he still receives Social Security, he couldn't afford his
mortgage payments without his old salary. He had nowhere else to turn,
but with the HAMP modification, he was able to lower his interest rate
by 2 percent and convert his loan from an adjustable rate to a 30-year
fixed and stay in his home.
Mr. Speaker, the stories don't end there. HAMP has proven that it can
save families on the brink of foreclosure and keep them there for the
long haul. It's not the ideal program. It hasn't reached the 3 million
families that were initially projected, but you ask any of those
500,000 families that HAMP has helped keep in their home and they will
agree that this program works for them.
Mr. Speaker, we should be focusing on jobs. Last month, I'm proud to
say, our economy added over 150,000 private sector jobs, and instead of
working to increase that number, we've been passing legislation that
threatens to reverse the progress that has been made by creating
additional uncertainty within the real estate sector and leaving more
families at risk of losing their homes.
Republicans promised to promote job creation and economic growth with
their new majority. Instead of delivering on these promises, they've
already used their majority to raise taxes on middle class Americans,
to attack the middle class, and promote their own social agenda. This
is not the change that the American people asked for.
It is time to get our fiscal house in order. I'd like to make it
clear that this is not the way to solve our budget problems, by
repealing a program that helps keep middle class families in their
home. Mr. Speaker, the best way to get our deficit under control is
through creating jobs, not through cutting the safety net of
hardworking Americans and preventing our cities and counties from
revitalizing their blighted neighborhoods.
Most distressing, however, is that through these bills the promise of
job creation is broken yet again. I ask my colleagues to join me and
vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation so we
can keep our promise to help all of our communities rebuild and
succeed, and work in a bipartisan fashion to get the very best ideas on
the table about what our proper public policy response should be with
regard to the housing crisis and the jobs crisis that this Nation
faces.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Colorado for not only engaging in a spirited debate here on floor but
also for his collegiality in that endeavor.
Mr. Speaker, this Nation is being overrun still by too high a
taxation, borrowing, and spending, and just last month, we hit a record
deficit, $223 billion in 1 month. That is simply unacceptable. With the
debt looming at over $14 trillion and unemployment hovering still
around 9 percent, Americans want solutions, not handouts. And that is
why we are here on the floor today, to protect the taxpayer and the
integrity, I think, of the government, rather than creating more
problems, at least trying to alleviate some of those and give the
taxpayer back some money. The American people asked Congress to rein in
spending and for efficiency, and that is what Republicans are here to
do today.
We did this in an open process where every single Member of this body
had a chance through regular order to prepare themselves and to come to
the floor today. Since Republicans have gained the majority in January
we have cut $1.2 trillion worth of spending, first of all, by repealing
ObamaCare; secondly, by cutting $61 billion in H.R. 1, $8 billion last
week in additional unnecessary government housing programs, and another
$30 billion with this rule today. We're getting our job done.
By gaining control of government spending and eliminating wasteful
government handouts, the private sector can, again, gain confidence in
our economy and the direction of the future of this country to begin
investing in jobs and our economic future. After all, we finally
decided last year that what we would do is extend tax cuts which will
help save jobs and grow our economy.
I applaud my colleagues for introducing the bills we are discussing
here today. In just a few minutes, you will see the chairman of the
Financial Services Committee or his designee lead that discussion
through lots of amendments, lots of ideas by Members.
I want to thank the young chairman of the Rules Committee, the
gentleman from California, David Dreier, for providing us such a great,
open, and transparent process. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule
and perhaps, more importantly, on the resolution before us today.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241,
nays 180, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 181]
YEAS--241
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
[[Page H1860]]
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--180
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Cardoza
Carnahan
Costa
Crowley
Giffords
Labrador
Langevin
Lee (CA)
McHenry
Nadler
Waters
{time} 1359
Messrs. FARR and DAVID SCOTT of Georgia changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ALTMIRE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________