[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 16, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1860-H1896]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NSP TERMINATION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 170 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 861.
{time} 1404
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 861) to rescind the third round of funding for the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program and to terminate the program, with Mr. Bass of
New Hampshire in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H1861]]
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 861, the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program Termination Act, and I commend my colleague Mr.
Miller for introducing this bill that would end NSP.
As I mentioned during the debate on the rule for this bill, in total,
Congress has appropriated $7 billion for NSP. This bill could save
taxpayers up to $1 billion. Instead of stabilizing neighborhoods, NSP
allows lenders and servicers to off-load their bad investments onto
taxpayers, and some critics point to the hazard of NSP, which actually
may speed up foreclosures for families.
If the lenders and servicers know that they can quickly sell a
property to a nonprofit or local government with NSP funds, why
wouldn't they do this? Why wouldn't they simply evict the homeowner
instead of doing a proprietary, private sector-funded modification of
the mortgage that would allow the homeowner to keep his home?
This program does not help homeowners facing foreclosure; and the
bottom line is that, if the lenders and servicers own a home due to
foreclosure--not the taxpayers but these same lenders and servicers--
they are responsible for the upkeep, security and eventual sale of that
home. Why should the taxpayers pay for this responsibility which
rightly belongs to the lender or servicer? They shouldn't.
The GAO, the HUD Inspector General and other auditors have noted that
the program is plagued with problems, including lax reporting
requirements and poor accountability. There is no evidence to suggest
that funds spent through NSP have produced cost-effective results.
Finally, upon the sale of a property, NSP does not require these
groups to return the profit to the taxpayer. Instead, the money is
treated like a slush fund. This money is never returned to the taxpayer
but will stay with the local governments and nonprofit entities that
received it. Of course, any group would support keeping the profits of
homes sold instead of returning it to the taxpayer. Who wouldn't?
We need to break down barriers that have delayed recovery in the
housing market, including expensive and ineffective government programs
like NSP. We need to stop funding programs that don't work with money
we don't have. NSP doesn't stabilize neighborhoods. It simply spends
billions of taxpayer dollars to allow a few homes, scattered here and
there, to be purchased, rehabilitated and resold. Again, upon the sale,
the money is never returned to the taxpayer. We are facing a $14.1
trillion national debt. This debt is damaging our economic recovery and
is stifling job growth.
We have been warned. Economists say, if we don't address our debt, in
a couple of years we could end up bankrupt like Greece. Economists also
agree that we must reduce our out-of-control government spending to
create a more favorable environment for private-sector job growth.
Unemployed Americans and homeowners need a job and a paycheck, not a
handout or another failed, taxpayer-funded program.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a
member of the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out that the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program that we're talking about here today isn't just
dealing with foreclosures. As we all know in this country, there have
been pockets where the foreclosure phenomenon and the wave of
foreclosures and property abandonment have been concentrated. I have an
area like that in my district, in the area of Brockton, Massachusetts,
but I can point to other areas all across this country.
What the Neighborhood Stabilization Program allows is for cooperation
between communities, banks, lenders, homeowners, and servicers to
either preserve homeownership; or in areas across this country such as
in Illinois, Nevada, California, and Florida, where thousands and
thousands of units have been abandoned in one concentrated area, it
allows us to address those abandoned properties where the lender has
taken a walk, where the homeowner has taken a walk, where the servicer
has taken a walk.
The surrounding communities of homeowners who are trying to stay in
their homes are having, first of all, their property values lowered
because of the density of abandoned properties in their neighborhoods.
This Neighborhood Stabilization Program provides the only opportunity
for us to address that crisis. We are trying to put a floor under the
housing market in this country--some of us are--and this is one program
that allows us to do that.
So I rise in opposition to this bill. I ask that we rethink this idea
about eliminating the four voluntary programs that we've got to support
housing and to support families who are in a tough spot right now. I
would just urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill and to try
to preserve the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Grimm), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. GRIMM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this bill because it doesn't do
what it's supposed to do.
This is exactly why I came to Congress.
This bill hurts struggling homeowners. It doesn't help them, because
it gives some type of perverse incentive for the banks to foreclose.
That's what this program actually does. It purchases these homes from
the lenders, from those who are already foreclosed. That is not helping
struggling homeowners. I don't deny that the intent was very good, but
it is not following through on that intent. It's reckless; it's being
misused; and it's wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. It really ends
up being nothing more than another bailout. That's the last thing that
we need is another bailout.
It's a double hit to the taxpayer. Why? Very simple. Because when the
city or municipality purchases this home, that means there are no taxes
paid. The argument is, ``well, there are no taxes being paid now
because it's abandoned,'' but that's not true. There is something
called a ``tax lien,'' and the private sector at some point will buy
that tax lien, and that municipality will get its incentive.
{time} 1410
So for many, many reasons this bill is failing. It does not follow
through on the intent. And we must stop the out-of-control reckless
spending. And this is exactly where we need to start, this type of
program, $1 billion of hardworking taxpayer dollars. Let's end the
bailouts. Let's stop and remember that the answer to everything is not
the government. Often, it is the government that is the problem.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds
to say that the gentleman has just explained why this is bad for the
cities.
Every organization representing cities and counties and local
governments and local economic development agencies disagree with him.
They have written to us and asked us to support this program because he
is simply wrong about the tax implications.
H.R. __
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Mortgage Relief
and Neighborhood Stabilization Programs Cost Recoupment Act
of 2011''.
SEC. 2. COST RECOUPMENT.
Subtitle H of title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203; 124
Stat. 2205 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 1499. FUNDING OFFSET FOR EMERGENCY MORTGAGE RELIEF AND
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAMS.
``The Secretary of the Treasury shall, for the purpose of
offsetting the costs of assistance under sections 1496 and
1497 of this Act and not later than the expiration of the 6-
month period beginning on the date of the enactment of the
Emergency Mortgage Relief and Neighborhood Stabilization
Programs Cost Recoupment Act of 2011, make risk-based
assessments in the total amount of $2,500,000,000 on
financial companies that manage hedge funds with
$10,000,000,000 or more in assets under management on a
consolidated basis and on other financial companies with
$50,000,000,000 or more in total consolidated assets, subject
to such terms and conditions as the Treasury Secretary may
establish with the concurrence of the Board
[[Page H1862]]
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Board of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Any such
assessments collected shall be covered into the General Fund
of the Treasury.''.
____
Provisions and Policies To Ensure That NSP Funds Used Effectively
Statutory Provisions
All purchases of foreclosed properties must be below
current market appraised value, taking condition into
account.
Rehabilitation of foreclosed properties can only be to
extent necessary to comply with housing safety, quality and
habitability codes, laws, regulations in order to sell, rent
or redevelop.
No profit can be earned on the sale of an abandoned or
foreclosed upon home or residential property to an individual
as a primary residence--the sale must be in an amount equal
to or less than the cost to acquire and redevelop or
rehabilitate the home or property up to a decent, safe and
habitable condition.
All funds must be used to assist individuals and families
with incomes at or below 120% AMI.
At least 25% of funds must be used to purchase/redevelop
abandoned or foreclosed residential properties that will be
used to house individuals or families with incomes at or
below 50% of AMI.
Requires HUD to ensure by rule ``to the maximum extent
practicable and for the longest feasible term'' that
properties assisted under program remain affordable to
households at/below 120% AMI.
HUD
Current fair market appraisals are required for all NSF-
funded acquisition of foreclosed property except where
property value is below $25,000.
Requires grantees to establish minimum rehabilitation
requirements and affordable rent policy pursuant to HERA.
Weekly tracking of performance against the requirement that
25% of funds be used to benefit households at or below 50% of
AMI.
Requires that program income to be used in accordance with
NSP rules. Program income is gross income received by a
grantee or a subrecipient directly generated by use of
program funds.
Establishment of grantee internal audit requirement as an
NSP2 award condition.
Monitors NSP grantees for compliance with program
requirements.
Conducts a risk assessment process to identify grantees
having potential issues.
Can impose sanctions on the grantee by HUD for programmatic
violations.
OIG audits the NSF program and grantees.
Organizations Supporting the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Given the impact the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
(NSP) has had throughout the country, over 50 national, state
and local organizations have expressed their strong support
for continued funding of the program and their strong
opposition to H.R. 861.
National Association of Counties, National League of
Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Community
Development Association, National Association for County
Community and Economic Development, Council of State
Community Development Agencies, Enterprise Community
Partners, Inc., Association for Neighborhood and Housing
Development, Arizona Foreclosure Prevention Task Force,
Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership, Inc., Center
for Community Progress, Center for New York City
Neighborhoods, Citizens' Housing and Planning Association,
City of Chicago Department of Housing and Economic
Development, City of Newark, Columbus Housing Partnership,
Council of State Community Development Agencies, Cypress
Hills Local Development Corporation, Detroit Office of
Foreclosure Prevention and Response, Diamond State Community
Land Trust.
Enterprise Community Partners, Habitat for Humanity
International, Healthy Neighborhoods, Inc., HousingWorks RI,
Greater Rochester Housing Partnership, Local Initiatives
Support Corporation, Louisiana Housing Alliance,
Massachusetts Housing Partnership, Mercy Housing, National
Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, National
Community Land Trust Network, National Community Reinvestment
Coalition, National Community Stabilization Trust, National
Council of State Housing Agencies, National Housing
Conference, National Housing Institute, National Law Center
on Homelessness & Poverty, National NeighborWorks
Association, Neighborhood Housing Services of Phoenix, Inc.,
Neighborhood Housing Services of South Florida.
New York Mortgage Coalition, Northfield Community LDC of
Staten Island, Inc., Omni New York, LLC, PolicyLink,
Rebuilding Together, Restoring Urban Neighborhoods, LLC,
RISE, America!, Smart Growth America, St. Ambrose Housing Aid
Center, Stewards for Affordable Housing for the Future, The
Community Builders, Inc., The Housing Partnership Network,
The Wisconsin Partnership for Housing Development, Inc.,
Urban Housing Solutions, Inc.
I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
Mr. BACA. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
Today we are here again not to discuss any piece of legislation that
will create jobs, but to eliminate a program that helps communities
across the country--and I state, communities that are helped across the
country.
The Neighborhood Stabilizing Program allows local governments to
purchase, rehab, and sell foreclosure properties. Without these
programs, houses would stay empty--and I say, would stay empty--so we
would have to look at our neighborhoods and other areas, causing the
value of property to plummet. Local neighborhoods would be forced to
use their own funds for maintenance measures and legal fees.
Additionally, any empty properties also force communities to adjust and
deal with the missing tax revenue--and I say, missing tax revenue--at a
time that we need the additional revenue within our communities.
A lot has been made by my colleagues on the other side about one
particular group that receives NSP funds, Chicanos por la Causa. What
if it was another name? It doesn't matter. But because it has the name
of ``Chicanos,'' the stereotypes and the images are there. It is about
programs that are doing good, not because of the name that is there.
Chicanos por la Causa has unmatched records of providing affordable
housing, stabilizing neighborhoods, and serving the needs of low-income
communities. They offer a broad range of programs and services and
serve over 1,000 clients each year, many of whom live below the Federal
poverty, which in a family of four is only $22,000.
In 2009, the Chicanos led the application for a group of 13 members
of the National Association of Latino Community Asset Builders.
Together, this group received over $130 million in NSP funds and put
this money to use in projects like in California, where we have a high
deficit, Arizona, and 16 other States.
Instead of looking out for Wall Street, instead of looking out for
Wall Street and protecting the banks that caused the crisis--and I say,
that caused the crisis--NSP awards this funding to invest in Main
Street.
This award represents one of the largest single Federal investments
ever made that target Latinos and low-income communities, the same
communities that have seen a higher rate of foreclosure and
unemployment than the national average.
I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go to the
communities where Chicanos or Hispanics or Latinos and their parents
spend their money. Instead of using this tunnel vision--I say, this
tunnel vision--solely looking at the numbers, I would ask my friends to
look at the actual work that is done in the communities and how those
communities have improved and have gotten a lot better.
It is time to stop letting partisan talking points set the agenda for
our government. It is time that we start focusing on programs--I say,
it is time that we start focusing on programs like NSP and the Chicanos
por la Causa that help the Americans get back on their feet.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the
sponsor of this bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial
Services on International Monetary Policy and Trade, Mr. Miller.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I enjoyed the comments of my good
friend, Mr. Baca, from San Bernardino County. I have some
correspondence from San Bernardino County that might interest him.
According to the county offices, there is no one at the county that
would support current NSP programs, period. The letters of support did
not come from San Bernardino County, which is one of the hardest hit in
the Nation. In fact, the county might have supported the current NSP,
but this is before they fell victim to complete lack of direction from
HUD, mixed messages from HUD, and gross misallocation of awards that
were released.
As it applies to my bill, the county says, ``We believe it is a means
for Congress to get its financial house in order, just like the
challenges we are facing at the local level.''
Mr. Baca made a very nice written speech, but his own county that he
represents does not support the program. And I was disappointed that a
group called Chicanos por la Causa was mentioned. Well, let me just
talk about the numbers that I have a problem with.
[[Page H1863]]
This NSP allocation program was meant to be a one-time program. It
ended up three times. Now, the allocations applied, the problems I had
when you look at a county the size of Los Angeles County, they got
$26.3 million; San Bernardino County, Mr. Baca's county, got $33.2
million; Orange County got $4.3 million; and San Diego County got $5.1
million.
Now, all of these counties had to apply Davis-Bacon rules and wage
standards to rehab these houses, which meant it cost 25 percent more to
do it than the private sector could have done it on a competitive
bidding nature.
Now, my good friend Mr. Baca mentioned one group, as if I had
something against Chicanos. The problem I have is that nongovernment
agencies, such as Neighborhood Lending Partners, got $50 million--$50
million; the Community Builders, Inc. got $78.6 million; Los Angeles
Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. got $60 million; Neighborhood
Lending Partners of West Florida, Incorporated got $50 million;
Chicanos por la Causa got $137 million.
Understand, L.A. County got $26.3 million; San Bernardino County got
$33.2 million; Orange County got $4.3 million; San Diego County got
$4.5 million. The largest population base in California got less money
than Chicanos por la Causa. Does that make anybody in America happy?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Does the gentleman not want to mention
that Chicanos por la Causa----
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I reclaim my time.
If it had been Germans for Affordable Housing, I would have opposed
it. If it had been Italians for Affordable Housing, I would have
opposed it. Had it been Irish Germans for Affordable Housing at $137
million, I would have opposed it.
Understand, these are taxpayer dollars from people who lost their
houses, people who are behind in their payments, people who are facing
foreclosure, and none of this money does one thing to help you. It was
not an equitable application based on who got money and how they got
it. In fact, a lot of these private groups write off 17 percent off the
top for overhead and costs--17 percent.
Now, we talked about banks. When we lent banks the money in TARP 1,
they paid us interest. We paid money because we got our money back.
Freddie and Fannie, the money we allocated to them, we are charging
them 10 percent interest and they have to pay us back, and the American
public is furious at that.
We just gave away $50 million to one private group, gave $78 million
to another, $60 million to another, $50 million to another. And as my
good friend Joe Baca says, Chicanos por la Causa, the poor group, got
$137 million given to you. We are not charging you interest. We gave
you the money.
Now, are we helping housing this country? No. Housing starts fell 22
percent in February, the lowest levels since 1959. It has done nothing
for housing: 11.8 percent fall in single-family, 47 percent fall in
multifamily. Tell me one thing this has done. It has not kept one
person in their house.
Now, let's assume this is supposed to be helping poor people buy
houses. You just lost your house. In Hawaii, a person making $73,825
can buy a house through these organizations. A person in California
making over $68,000 can buy a house through these organizations. A
group in Virginia, $74,000; New Jersey, $78,000; Massachusetts,
$72,000; Utah, $75,000; Alaska, $76,000; Colorado, $73,000; New
Hampshire, $79,000.
So a group, an entity, a State, a county, a city can buy a house.
They have to sell it for less than they have in it, and they can sell
it to people making more than the person who may have lost the house.
{time} 1420
Now, how in the world does that do one thing for poor people? It does
not do one thing for poor people.
Now let's talk about jobs. If we had invested $1 billion in the
construction industry to build houses, you would have got $2.8 billion
in economic activities.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. If you would have invested $1
billion, you would have generated $2.8 billion in economic activities:
$5.5 million in wages, $138 million in income for small businesses,
$156 million in corporate profits, $1.98 billion in spending on goods
and services from the above three line items. It is huge. So if we are
talking about jobs, let's create jobs.
Now, they say we have had no alternative to what they did. In 2008, I
endorsed a bill and introduced it called the Public-Private Partnership
Community Stabilization Act. It took government dollars and invested
them with private groups to do the same thing, to buy houses that were
foreclosed upon and rehab them in communities. And when the houses were
sold, guess what? The money would have been paid back to the Federal
Government. We would have probably made a profit. We wouldn't have
given a dime away. We would have made money on doing the same thing.
Now, the other side talks about abandoned houses. Not a dime of this
money can be used for eminent domain, so either the house is for sale
or it can't be bought. It can't be foreclosed upon by the government
through eminent domain. So to say that some private group could not
have bought this house and rehabbed it themselves is ludicrous, because
the house has to be for sale.
Now, this group can go out and buy the house, demolish it and end up
with a vacant lot. They can go out and buy a house, rehab it and sell
it for a dollar, 10, any amount they want to sell it for, to anybody
they want to sell it to, as long as it is less than they have in it.
I had a bill passed out of this House that Mr. Frank cosponsored--he
thought it was a good bill--that allowed banks to take foreclosed
properties and lease them for 5 years. If you want to get rid of
foreclosed properties, allow banks to take the property, rehab it, put
it on the marketplace, or lease it out for 5 years. It would have done
the same thing, and perhaps banks would not have driven the marketplace
down on resales because they were glutted with foreclosures.
We could have taken these houses, leased them, and in 5 years when
the market turned around, they could have sold them. And guess what.
They could have given a lease option to the person losing the house to
stay in the house for 5 years and buy it back at the end of 5 years. It
would have at least helped foreclosure projects.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself the 30 seconds the
gentleman wouldn't allow me to mention--Chicanos Por la Causa, which he
keeps invoking, in what I must say is an inflammatory way, yes, it has
$137 million in eight States. It is a consortium of several groups.
Comparing it to one county is quite misleading. It is $137 million to
an organization that has eight States in which it works and which has
produced affordable housing units. And as to his argument that it is
not for the poor people, almost all of the groups in this country that
advocate for housing for low-income groups have sent us a letter urging
that this go forward, Habitat for Humanity and others. I take them as
more credible on this than my friend.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Thank you, Ranking Member Frank.
As our Nation's economy moves forward, we must not forget about our
neighborhoods, and we must continue to help those areas that are still
struggling to come back. That is why I am appalled at the efforts to
terminate the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
In my own district of Indianapolis, the neighborhood of Mapleton Fall
Creek has been revitalized with NSP funds. What were once eyesores and
magnets for crime, they have been renovated, and they are now for
resale. These improvements have encouraged low- and middle-income
residents to settle into areas known for abandonment and blight. New
businesses have opened, and an area once in decline is actually
blossoming again. This was all possible because of NSP funding.
We must continue this program for the neighborhoods in Indianapolis
and across this great Nation.
I would like to express my support for the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program (NSP)
[[Page H1864]]
and to oppose the majority's plans to terminate the program.
All three rounds of NSP are critical because they provide emergency
assistance to states, local governments, and nonprofits to acquire and
redevelop foreclosed, vacant, and abandoned properties. Many of these
properties have become blights on the community and are driving down
neighboring property values. The first two rounds of the NSP program
impacted an estimated 80,000 foreclosed, abandoned, or vacant
properties, and it is estimated that NSP3 will impact tens of thousands
more. Terminating the program in the middle of the worst foreclosure
crisis since the Great Depression would further harm neighborhoods and
many struggling American families. This would most certainly slow the
recovery of the housing market.
Specifically in the 7th district of Indiana, the district I
represent, I would like to highlight the work of Mapleton Fall Creek
Development Corporation which has used NSP funds effectively. On March
14, 2011, Mapleton Fall Creek Development Corporation reported they are
halfway through their NSP work. They have completed renovations on 50
units of rental housing and 47 of them are rented. Many of these
properties sat empty and boarded up for 5 years and 25 of them were
foreclosure properties. They have also acquired 32 houses and 28 lots
that will be renovated for new homes. The rebuilt homes will vary from
low income apartments to market rate homes for purchase. Lastly, they
have demolished 12 vacant and blighted structures, leveraged funds from
local banks and other not for profits to increase cash flow and stretch
their NSP dollars further, and provided work for four construction
managers and numerous contractors.
Mr. Chair, in the 7th district of Indiana, nearly $3 million of NSP
funds were used to obtain and rehab 32 residences as part of the 2012
Super Bowl Housing Legacy Project on Indianapolis' near eastside. NSP 3
funds will also be used to demolish blighted structures in key
neighborhoods that have high foreclosure rates, including the old
Winona Hospital and Keystone Towers--two enormous blighted structures
that have been plagued with crime and environmental concerns for years.
I strongly urge the majority to permit the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program to continue. As our nation's economy moves forward we must not
forget about our neighborhoods and middle class families. We must help
those families and communities that are still struggling to come back.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Gary G. Miller).
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I seem to have hit a nerve with my
good friends on the other side of the aisle when I said Chicanos Por la
Causa. It is not who it went to if it is not a government agency, if it
was Germans for Affordable Housing. It is $137 million that I object to
going to a group that is a non-government entity that has the money
that we will not get back.
And we keep talking about letters of support. Now, if you are a city,
a county, or if you are one of these nonprofit groups that received the
money, you would be an absolute hypocrite to take the money and then
not send a letter saying, thank you for the money. I think the money
was well spent because you gave it to me to spend. Nobody would take
money that they didn't want to take.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 861, the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act. The program has
been ill-fated from the start. It has been plagued with problems. We
have given almost $7 billion into a program that has yet to work. HUD
was slow in getting the money out the door. Poor reporting has hampered
our ability to even measure what has been happening on the program.
Further, the NSP simply acts as a taxpayer bailout for risky lenders,
servicers and real estate speculators who bet on the housing market and
now can't sell their properties. It has become an even bigger example
of those people who believe that the government is the solution to the
problems. Government is not the solution to the problem; government is
the problem.
We are spending $3.5 trillion in our annual government spending, and
we are bringing in $2.2 trillion. Next year we are going to have a
deficit of $1.6 trillion; and it is composed of programs exactly like
this, programs that do no good, that don't really cause the market to
cure itself, and instead taxpayers pay the bill for people who have
been speculating and people who just want out.
I had a friend in the office today who talked about his situation
with a house in Tucson where he got in at a higher price than it should
have been. He was willing to settle for a lesser amount. He was willing
to pay. But because the bank could go to the government and make up the
difference, they did not have to negotiate with this individual
homeowner. Instead, this program causes lenders to say, the taxpayer
will make us whole and we are not going to take our losses.
The market will cure the problems we face if we allow the markets to
work, but this government program does not allow the market to work.
This Nation is dying for jobs, and it is government spending,
government regulation and government taxation that are causing the jobs
to be killed and to be sent out of this country.
If we will get our focus correct on lowering taxes, lowering the
regulatory environment, especially to lenders who would be out lending
now except they are afraid to because of the regulatory environment, we
would begin to create jobs for the first time in a long time.
With 9 percent unemployment, it is time for us to cure the problems
of the economy, to quit spending on wasteful programs, and to give this
country a leg up on prosperity. That is the thing we are missing right
now.
The hope of prosperity for the middle class is gone, and it is
because of programs like this soaking the taxpayer and giving money to
people who probably could do something different. It is not fixing up
any neighborhood. I don't see the reports in any magazine or newspaper
telling us of the flock of people moving to these rehabilitated
neighborhoods.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I rise to express support for H.R. 861.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 15 seconds.
The gentleman from California says he is not singling out Chicanos
Por la Causa, that there are other private organizations, but he never
mentions them. And he says, well, they are not a government entity.
That is right. We don't think it all has to go through the government.
We think places like Habitat for Humanity and others have a role to
play.
I yield 3 minutes to the former mayor of the city of Somerville,
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
Mr. CAPUANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the most legitimate argument I have heard is we have a
deficit and we have to deal with it. That is a fair and reasonable
point to make. However, it is not a fair and reasonable approach
towards the problem to begin with programs like this. We can't even
talk about what we are spending on the Iraq war. We can't talk about
any money in the Defense Department or anyplace else. The first
programs we start with are these types of programs.
Let me be clear about what this program is. I am a former mayor in a
strong mayor form of government.
{time} 1430
We get a fair amount of Federal and State money, and we use some of
our own money on occasion to buy and rehabilitate property. Sometimes
it meant knocking it down, sometimes it meant making a recreational
area, sometimes it meant building a school, whatever it might be, to
improve a neighborhood. And to say this money is not improving
neighborhoods is just to be blind. There are stories all over the
country where improvements are being made.
I'm not going to argue that every single penny of this program or any
other program has been perfectly well spent. That would be crazy. I
have no problem at all looking at this program or any program to come
up with things we don't like; to change the rules as to who might be
eligible tomorrow. And on and on and on. Those are fine and fair things
to say. I'm not going to defend one group or any formula. Those are
legitimate things to argue about. But to say that the program doesn't
work and this is where we should start addressing our deficit, I think,
is to be shortsighted.
It also says to me, if you don't like the program, that's fine. Then
I would strongly suggest that anybody who
[[Page H1865]]
doesn't like the program pick up the phone to their mayor, to their
county administrator, to their Governor, and say, Send the money back.
Every State in the country has gotten money. California has gotten over
$886 million. If you don't want it, send it back. Massachusetts only
got $106 million. Now, we think it's doing pretty well, so we're going
to keep it. But if you don't want it, send it back. Nevada, a much
smaller State than Massachusetts, got almost as much money because they
got hit harder than we did in this economy.
To argue that a few problems that you have--and I'm not even going to
suggest that I agree or don't agree. The points are well made. If you
don't want one entity, any entity to get $137 million, fine. Let's talk
about it. Let's say they don't do it. That's not a problem. If you want
to say that we have to change about how this money is being used, fine.
Let's limit it. No problem.
But to pretend that a neighborhood, any neighborhood, is well served
by ignoring boarded-up properties, by saying, Walk away from your home,
walk away from your business, and the neighborhood will recover without
you, is shortsighted and wrong. And to pretend that somehow because
we're giving this money away, that that is an inherent evil in and of
itself, ignores all the grants that this government gives away, that
other governments give away, not just in housing, but in research, in
any number of fields. Again, if you want to cut out all grants, fine.
That is a reasonable and consistent argument. But you also then have to
cut out tax credits, because we give out billions of dollars in Federal
tax credit dollars that do the same thing in housing.
All I'm saying is if you want to fix the program, fix it. If you want
to turn your back on neighborhoods, go ahead and do that. But not with
my help.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my good
friend admitting that we're giving the money away, because we are. I
struck a nerve for some reason when everybody keeps bringing up
Chicanos Por La Causa for $137 million. The reason I think it's
egregious is we gave $1.3 billion away to nongovernment entities. And
this one entity got 10 percent of all the nongovernment funding that
went out. Nobody has mentioned that I mentioned other groups that got
$50 million, $70 million, $60 million, $50 million each. I mentioned
those groups. But what did HUD say about the money? When I quizzed
Mercedes Marquez of HUD, her quote was ``The money is going to
homeowners and to American citizens.''
The problem I have with this, how do you feel about the people who
lost the home? You've got a family, they put money into the home. The
last couple of years have been tough. They couldn't repair the
plumbing, they couldn't replace the appliances, they couldn't afford to
replace the broken window, they couldn't paint the house because their
house was in foreclosure. They lost that house. Now, we're spending $7
billion, and we have not helped one person in this country remain a
homeowner.
If your house is going into foreclosure, you're going to lose it. And
these dollars are going to be spent to rehab your house and sell it to
somebody else.
Wake up, America.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, it's amazing to me that we're here at this
time when we've seen 4 million foreclosures across America, perhaps 7
million. We've seen neighborhoods devastated. And instead of the
majority conference offering solutions to this foreclosure crisis,
instead of them coming forth and saying, You know what, here's what we
think we need to do for the American people to stay in their homes, all
they want to do is destroy what Democrats have done. It's amazing. It's
really something that I hope the American people pay very close
attention to.
The gentleman on the other end says that, Look, somebody's going to
buy the house that you lost in foreclosure. If we can be successful
with programs like the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, we will
create an environment where people will not lose their homes because
the value of their homes will not plummet. They will not end up
underwater. And people will have somewhere that they can live and a
neighborhood that they can be proud of.
But because the Republican conference is making itself abundantly
clear, I think it needs to be clear to the American people whose side
we're on. The Democrats are on the side of the American people staying
in their homes. The Republican conference is on the side of throwing
people out and foreclosing on Americans. And it's a sad, sad day in our
Congress. We are in the middle of an enormous debate on the proper role
of government. We believe the proper role of government is to have fair
rules, to have real enforcement of our financial regulations, to have
real consumer protection, and to intervene when people's neighborhoods
are being destroyed by foreclosure.
The Republicans say, You're on your own. The market has all the
answers. The market answers every question. Well, it doesn't answer
every question, especially when the market doesn't have any cops on the
beat, and when you let the people engage in all sorts of nefarious
practices that caused the economic conditions that we're in today.
The Republican conference was in power when the regulations that led
to this destruction were in place--and they did nothing. When the
Democrats got in charge, we solved it. And now they're trying to
disassemble it.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the
Financial Services Committee.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address two things that the
minority has raised. One is they've talked about fairness. And I will
tell you that there's nothing fair about this program. In fact, it's an
unfair program. It's unfair for most Americans. The second thing
they've talked about is foreclosures. This program causes foreclosures.
This program encourages foreclosures. This program promotes
foreclosures.
Now let's talk about the foreclosures first and then we'll talk about
fair. What does this program do? Does it prevent foreclosures? No. It
encourages foreclosures. It allows nonprofits, community organizations,
and cities and counties to buy foreclosed properties. In other words,
to create a market for foreclosed properties. The minority supplied us
with pictures of two of these properties. This is the one in Baltimore,
Maryland. This was one of two. I think the other one was in Los
Angeles, as I recall. This is the property.
Now, just like all these properties, it's not owned by a homeowner.
There's no homeowner there. It's owned by a bank or a real estate
speculator. It might have been somebody that put someone in this house
with what we call an exploding loan. Put someone in that house that
couldn't afford it.
So, what do we do? We construct a program that says to this bank that
owns this property, that's paying taxes to the government on this
property--we don't say to tear this down, or we don't say we're going
to condemn it and convert it, and we're going to get it with no charge.
No. We buy it. Now, is that right?
You said the banks caused this, the lenders. We ought to penalize
those that are at fault. Well, how does penalizing a lender who made a
loan on this property, how is writing them a check fair? No, it's not.
This is a bailout for lenders and speculators. Now, is it fair? Well,
is it fair to our grandchildren and our children, $4 billion every day
that goes out of our Treasury, more than we bring in. Four billion
dollars a day. In fact, the deficit for February was 230-something
billion dollars.
Now, every day they talk about fairness, and I have quoted this with
every one of these failed programs. I have quoted Mike Mullen, chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who says our debt is the biggest threat
to our national security, the existence of our country. Well, let's
just talk about one thing we do every day. We owe China 9\1/2\ percent
of our debt; 9 to 9\1/2\ percent is owed to China. Every day we write a
check to China because we won't face up to this exploding spending of
$120 million a day.
[[Page H1866]]
{time} 1440
They could buy a Joint Strike Force Fighter every day and still put
$20 million in their pocket. Every day. They could build an Air Force
bigger than our Air Force in 5 years on money they earn from us and
that our taxpayers pay because we won't confront programs like this.
Because ``fair'' to us is saying yes to everyone except the taxpayers.
And, oh, there are 4 million foreclosures in this country this year.
That's a terrible figure. But I tell you, this program will do nothing
but increase that number. And to think that it's fair to our children
and grandchildren to devise a program but not have the money to pay it
and stick it on our children and grandchildren, it ought to infuriate
any of us who are grandparents. It does me.
It's time now to end this foolishness which threatens the very
existence of our country.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes to say I am
struck by the incongruity of Members who have voted for the war in
Iraq, a trillion-dollar huge mistake, ongoing, who vote to continue
what seems to me a futile effort now in Afghanistan.
The gentleman from Alabama, and we've talked about this before, he
said that because the Obama administration told him he had to, he voted
to send $150 million a year last year, next year, for the next 2 years
to the cotton farmers of Brazil. The gentleman opposed a $250,000 limit
on subsidies to any individual farmer. In the budget, the gentleman
voted, as did most on his side, to send $1.2 billion to beef up Iraqi
security forces. What about American security forces? What about giving
some money to the cities so when they have to deal with abandoned
property, they don't have to take that out of the hides of their police
departments and fire departments?
Yes, we should reduce the deficit. But to be for the enormous waste
in the Pentagon--and, by the way, Members cite Mike Mullen. I wish, in
addition to citing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they
would make a simple commitment not to vote for the Pentagon money he
doesn't want. Because Members on that side cite his warning about the
defense budget, about the deficit, and then force money on him that he
thinks is useless.
So let's talk about the disparity between people who vote enormous
amounts of money; $400 million goes to Afghan infrastructure, we're
told. Well, let's have it be done efficiently. I cannot think that in
any program in America we are going to be spending the money less
efficiently than the $400 million my friends over there have voted to
send to Afghanistan.
So let's look at this in a reasonable way. And we also believe that
this billion dollars, in fact, helps our cities. And there's one
fundamental error they make: the assumption is that for every piece of
property--by the way, it is not simply foreclosed property; it is
abandoned property--for every piece of property that's out there, there
is a responsible financial institution whom you can sue and get the
money from. That simply isn't true.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 30 more seconds.
For many of these pieces of property, the cities are left with no
recourse. There is no one to do it. One of the Members said the other
day in committee, Well, they can send out their bulldozer. Yeah, they
can pull a firefighter off and hire a bulldozer operator.
The fact is that it is not simply for foreclosed property. It's for
foreclosed and abandoned property, and the notion that there are no
buildings out there in the cities where there is no responsible
financial entity is nonsense. And so what we're telling the cities is,
It's tough. You've had these foreclosure problems. You've had this
abandonment problem. You could sell it to the private sector, and the
private sector will buy some, but they won't buy it all.
I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman and Members, I think that my colleague from
Minnesota said it all: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of
the American taxpayers who trusted us to regulate this industry that
had responsibility for these mortgages? Are you on the side of
taxpayers who simply wanted to live the American Dream, who simply
wanted to get into a mortgage so that they could own a home and do what
it is the American Dream says we can do and we can accomplish?
They trusted us to make sure that our regulators did their job. We
all let them down. We allowed these mortgage firms, these loan
initiators, these big banks to create these exotic products, products
we had never heard of before.
Nobody questioned what was a no doc loan. Nobody asked what is this
teaser loan. Nobody talked about what happens when these loans reset.
And the American taxpayer was confronted with a mortgage with 30, 40
pieces of paper and they signed on the dotted line, because they wanted
to live the American Dream. Little did they know that they would not be
able to meet the reset amount, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years from now; and
so they got caught up in the scheme. It was a huge, fraudulent scheme
perpetrated on the American people by major financial institutions.
Americans didn't decide all of a sudden that they didn't want to pay
their bills, that they didn't want to pay their mortgage. Something big
happened. And what happened was this big fraud that was perpetrated on
the American people came to reality and the devil came due, and now it
was time to pay, and they couldn't afford it.
Added to that, the recession that was caused by the subprime meltdown
caused people to be in situations where they lost their jobs, or they
were now in jobs that paid less than the jobs that they had when the
economy was good. And so now we have people who have lost all these
homes. They're foreclosed on, they're boarded up, they're abandoned.
And, guess what, they're bringing down the neighborhoods. Those people
who stay in the neighborhoods and keep up their homes, they're losing
value because of these boarded-up properties and because of these
abandoned properties.
So the government said, and I said and Barney Frank said, those of us
who created this program said, we have a responsibility to help the
American people, because, through no fault of their own, now their
homes are underwater, their homes have lost value, and so we have the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The Neighborhood Stabilization
Program does give money to counties and cities and nonprofits and all
to go in and rehab these properties, put them back on the market,
upgrade the neighborhood, reduce the cost to fire and police and all of
those city agencies that now have got to look after these boarded-up
properties, where the animals are coming in and the weeds are growing
up and neighbors are saying, My government, please help me.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional
minute.
Ms. WATERS. That's what the Neighborhood Stabilization Program is all
about. And it creates jobs. It creates jobs, because now we've got the
contractors, the subcontractors, the painters, the Realtors all
involved in helping to rehab this neighborhood, helping to stabilize
these communities, creating jobs, assisting the American taxpayers who
got into these situations through no fault of their own.
Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of those who rip off our
taxpayers? Or are you on the side of the taxpayers who sent you here to
look after them and to be responsible?
Mrs. BIGGERT. May I inquire of the Chair how much time each side has
remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois has 9\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. BIGGERT. At this time I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. BACHUS. Well, there you go again. Instead of talking about this
program, you want to talk about the Brazil cotton deal, or you want to
talk about Afghanistan. And I'll talk about those.
But before I do, I have a question for you, for my colleagues on the
Democratic side who talk about investing in this property. I want you
to get a good look at this.
Are you willing to put your money up to buy that?
[[Page H1867]]
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, I don't think any private entity
would--I'm sorry. May I answer the question?
That's why we want to give money to the cities so they can tear it
down, because otherwise they'll be stuck with it. I don't think any
private investor would put money in that. There's no other way to deal
with it, and the way to deal with it is to give them the money so they
can tear it down.
{time} 1450
Mr. BACHUS. Let's tear it down. I agree with you. And let's make the
person who owns it tear it down. And this idea that this person can't
be found, that this person----
I would ask for order.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. The Chair will remind Members to address their comments to
the Chair.
Mr. BACHUS. And I would say to the Chair--and I appreciate that--that
if any of my colleagues want to buy this property and think it's a good
investment, they can hire painters and Realtors and put all these
people to work, but the taxpayers, they're having trouble paying their
own mortgages. They're having trouble financing their own children's
education. And whose side are we on?
Listen, this program has benefited less than 2,000 pieces of
property--banks--but we've got 12 million American families who are
underwater on their mortgage. And do you think it's even fair to pay
off, as y'all proposed, a half a million of those mortgages? How about
the other 21 out of 22? You know, you can't pay off all 12 million. You
will break the country. So you say, well, we're going to do the best we
can. You're going to pick winners and losers.
Let me tell you something. The taxpayers that are paying their
mortgages or own their own homes or didn't get into this problem--don't
you get the message from November? The American people don't want us
paying--they don't want to pay for someone else's obligations.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. BACHUS. Now, let's talk about this Brazilian cotton, and let me
tell you, if I were you--I'd say to the Chair, if I were the ranking
member, I would talk about anything but buying this property and fixing
it up. I'd do anything to avoid that conversation. I'd avoid anything
to talk about that we're paying the banks with taxpayer money.
But you mentioned Brazil and you said it was a stupid deal. You said
it took a Flip Wilson to do this. Well, it was Ron Kirk, trade
ambassador, that entered into the agreement. And who hired him?
President Obama. So you ought to take it up with the Democratic
administration who saddled us with this $150 million obligation.
I close with Afghanistan. I have a son who's in the U.S. Marines. He
was in there for 10 years and he's out now, but let me tell you
something. I will spend money to build up an Afghan force so we can
bring our young men and women home.
[From the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Executive
Office of the President]
U.S., Brazil Agree on Framework Regarding WTO Cotton Dispute
Washington, DC.--Today Brazil's Ministers reached a
decision in support of a Framework regarding the Cotton
dispute, which would avert the imposition of countermeasures
of more than $800 million this year. This includes more than
$560 million in countermeasures against U.S. exports which
were scheduled to go into effect on Monday, June 21, 2010, as
well as possible countermeasures on intellectual property
rights that could have taken effect later. We are pleased
with this decision, and look forward to signing the Framework
soon.
The findings in the Cotton dispute concern U.S. cotton
support under the marketing loan and countercyclical payment
programs, and the GSM-102 Export Credit Guarantee Program. In
line with these findings, the Framework has two major
elements.
First, it would provide, as a basis for a discussion toward
reaching a mutually agreed solution to the dispute, a limit
on trade-distorting cotton subsidies. Second, the Framework
would provide benchmarks for changes to certain elements of
the current GSM-102 program. In the Framework, the United
States and Brazil would agree to meet quarterly to discuss
the successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill as it relates
to trade-distorting cotton subsidies and the operation of
GSM-102. The Framework would not serve as a permanent
solution to the Cotton dispute. However, it would provide
specific interim steps and a process for continued
discussions on the programs at issue with a view to reaching
a solution to the dispute.
``I am pleased that we have been able to negotiate a
Framework regarding the WTO Cotton dispute that would avoid
the imposition of countermeasures against U.S. trade,
including goods and intellectual property,'' said Ambassador
Kirk. ``While respecting the role of the United States
Congress in developing the next Farm Bill, this Framework
would now allow us to continue to work toward a final
resolution of the Cotton dispute. I believe this Framework
will go a long way in alleviating the uncertainty in our
business communities and enhance the ability of the United
States and Brazil to build upon our dynamic trading
relationship.''
``This framework agreement provides a way forward as we
work with Congress toward a new farm bill in 2012,'' said
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. ``Although it is not a
permanent solution, I am pleased that it allows us to
maintain our programs while considering adjustments and
avoiding the immediate imposition of countermeasures against
U.S. exports as a result of the WTO cotton decision.''
Background
The Cotton dispute is a long-running dispute brought by
Brazil against the United States. In 2005 and again in 2008,
the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that certain U.S.
agricultural support payments and guarantees are inconsistent
with WTO commitments: (1) payments to cotton producers under
the marketing loan and countercyclical programs; and (2)
export credit guarantees under the GSM-102 program, a USDA
program used to provide guarantees for credit extended by
U.S. banks or exporters to approved foreign banks for
purchases of U.S. agricultural exports.
On August 31, 2009, WTO arbitrators issued arbitration
awards in this dispute. These awards provided the level of
countermeasures that Brazil could impose against U.S. trade.
The annual amount of countermeasures has two parts: 1) a
fixed amount of $147.3 million for the cotton payments and 2)
an amount for the GSM-102 program that varies based upon
program usage. Using the data that we have given Brazil (in
accordance with the arbitrators' award), the current total of
authorized countermeasures is more than $800 million.
The arbitrators also provided that Brazil could impose
cross-sectoral countermeasures (i.e. countermeasures in
sectors outside of trade in goods, specifically intellectual
property and services). It may impose cross-sectoral
countermeasures to the extent that it applies total
countermeasures in excess of a threshold. The threshold
varies annually, but is currently approximately $560 million.
Therefore, of the approximately $820 million in
countermeasures Brazil could impose now, about $260 million
of that could be cross-sectoral.
On March 8, 2010 Brazil announced a final list of products
that would face higher tariffs beginning on April 7, 2010.
Goods on the list include autos, pharmaceuticals, medical
equipment, electronics, textiles, wheat, fruit and nuts, and
cotton. Brazil had not made a final decision on which U.S.
intellectual property rights might be affected by cross-
sectoral countermeasures, but it had begun the process to
make this determination.
On April 1, Deputy USTR Miriam Sapiro and USDA
Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Jim
Miller met with Ambassador Antonio Patriota, Secretary
General of Brazil's Ministry of External Relations to discuss
possible resolution of the dispute. As a result of that
dialogue, the Government of Brazil agreed not to impose any
countermeasures on U.S. trade at that time. In exchange, the.
United States agreed to work with Brazil to establish a fund
of approximately $147.3 million per year on a pro rata basis
to provide technical assistance and capacity building to the
cotton sector in Brazil, and for international cooperation
related to the same sector in certain other countries. Under
the Memorandum of Understanding that the United States and
Brazil signed on April 20, 2010, the fund would continue
until passage of the next Farm Bill or a mutually agreed
solution to the Cotton dispute is reached, whichever is
sooner. The fund is subject to transparency and auditing
requirements.
The United States also agreed to make certain near term
modifications to the operation of the GSM-102 Export Credit
Guarantee Program, and to engage with the Government of
Brazil in technical discussions regarding further operation
of the program. In addition, the United States published a
proposed rule on April 16, 2010, to recognize the State of
Santa Catarina as free of foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest,
classical swine fever, African swine fever, and swine
vesicular disease, based on World Organization for Animal
Health Guidelines, and to complete a risk evaluation and
identify appropriate risk mitigation measures to determine
whether fresh beef can be imported from Brazil while
preventing the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease in the
United States.
The parties further agreed on April 1 that they would work
to develop a Framework regarding the Cotton dispute by June
21, which
[[Page H1868]]
would provide a path forward for a negotiated solution to the
Cotton dispute and allow both countries to avoid the impact
of countermeasures. Negotiators from Brazil and the United
States have been engaged intensively over the past several
months, and successfully concluded this Framework.
Brazil is the United States' 10th largest trading partner
with a total two-way goods trade of approximately $60 billion
in 2009.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 3 minutes.
First of all, the gentleman says why are you talking about other
programs, why don't you just talk about this program, but he talks
about hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit, and this is a billion
dollar program. So he hardly, Mr. Chairman, follows his own rules. He
talks about hundreds of billions of dollars about a billion dollar
program. I am joining him in saying, yes, we have a large deficit, of
which this program is an infinitesimal part.
Secondly, I am puzzled that my Republican friends, who generally tell
us that the President is not very good at his job, hide behind him when
it's politically convenient. Yes, this is an Obama deal. The President
was wrong. And unlike the gentleman from Alabama, if I think the
President has made a foolish decision, I'm going to vote against it,
not to send the money to Brazil. It wasn't the President who told you
to vote not to limit the subsidies to $250,000 per person.
And as to bringing people home from Afghanistan, we will have a
chance tomorrow to bring people home from Afghanistan. I will vote for
that. Sending $400 million for corrupt infrastructure expenditures
isn't bringing anybody home. So let's bring them home. The gentleman
will have a chance to do that tomorrow.
But then I want to go back to his thing about do you want to invest?
No. He just ignored the facts. This is not just about foreclosed
properties. It's about abandoned properties. He says do I want to
invest? He said do I want to buy it? Does he know who owns that? Could
he give me the address? And what the gentleman said, he said of course
you can find out who owns it; it's not hard.
We believe that there are properties where you can't find the owner.
Now, the gentleman got the picture. He must know about the property.
Would you give us the address and the name of the responsible owner
so we can tell the city not to use public money?
I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Well, let me ask you this----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No. I will yield for the purpose of
asking the gentleman a question.
He said it's possible to find the address and the owner. I am asking
him to live up to what he said. Can he tell us who the owner is? He's
got the picture of the property. He says, no, you don't have to spend
public money to tear it down. Go after the responsible owner.
I ask the gentleman, can he tell us who is the responsible owner?
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BACHUS. It was the person that you wrote the check to. You have
to buy it, and you wrote the check out. So you know who the owner is.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman is wrong.
I reclaim my time.
Mr. BACHUS. You wrote the check to somebody.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Please instruct the gentleman as to the
rules. He is blatantly wrong. It is not simply purchasing property.
This gives the city money, and maybe that's why they are so wrong on
this. They don't understand the program. It includes giving the city
money to go in----
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself another minute, because
these people take a lot of work to get them to explain it.
The fact is that it isn't simply to buy it from a responsible owner.
It includes money, as we have tried to explain to them, to demolish
property. In fact, in the cities of Detroit and Cleveland, they
specifically asked us--the gentlewoman from Los Angeles amended it--you
can use city money to demolish property when there is no owner. So, no,
there is no--you don't write a check to someone who has abandoned the
property.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BACHUS. Well, let me ask you this: The IG said they couldn't
trace some of this money, and I think we've all figured that out. If we
don't know whom we're paying----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reclaim my time to point out the
evasion.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself another 30 seconds.
The gentleman made a big point of saying, buy the property from this
person. He doesn't know who owns the property. No one knows who owns
the property because no one owns the property. They walked away from
it.
And what we're saying is part of this is not to pay off the bank. And
I will say, last point, and as you know, the taxpayers shouldn't do it.
In the bill that passed the conference committee which authorized this
billion dollars, we said that the money should come not from the
taxpayers but from large financial institutions that have more than $50
billion in assets and hedge funds with more than $10 billion.
Republican opposition killed it. I'm going to refile that bill today.
So I invite my Republican colleagues to join me and we will sponsor
this bill, and it's in the committee that the gentleman chairs. Let's
pass a bill that says the money that will go to cities to knock down
property where they can't find the owner will get it from the large
banks and from the large hedge funds. And if the gentleman will agree
with that, then this whole argument about the deficit will disappear.
But I will predict, Mr. Chairman, that they will find that that's not
so persuasive, and they will put up with the deficit when it means
saving money for the large banks.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Gary G. Miller).
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Well, my good friend Mr. Frank
knows you can go to any land title company and they'll tell you who
owns the property: either the person lost it to a bank that had a loan
on it or the bank owns it now; and if they didn't have a loan on it,
they still own the property. And if the property's been abandoned,
under rules of public safety, the city can go and demolish a property
for public safety measures.
But the difference is--I'm glad that Mr. Frank said he disagrees with
the Obama administration because I think they're wrong, too, but in
this case I think you're wrong.
This proposal does not make any sense. We believe we're on the side
of the people who are paying taxes in this country. Many are going
through foreclosure. Many are out of work. We've taken your tax dollars
and we've decided to give it to somebody else to buy property from the
very banks that they take and say are so awful.
Now, there's been a lot of predatory loans made in this country.
Lenders should not have made loans to people. They took advantage of
people, no doubt. But then they foreclosed on those very people and we
give private groups and government entities the ability to go buy the
property from those banks, take and refurbish it, and sell it to
people.
{time} 1500
Now I will state again, in California, you can earn over $68,000 and
buy one of these homes. You can earn between $73,000 and $80,000 and
live in Hawaii, Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Utah, Alaska,
Colorado, New Hampshire, and qualify to pick up a very good deal.
Sometimes it might be based on who you know that has the house
currently. Are you affiliated with somebody at the city at a good level
or the county? Or do you know one of these people at the nongovernment
agencies on the board of directors, and you say, Hey, my cousin would
like to buy one of these houses. And by the way, he'd like a good deal.
There is nothing in the bill that precludes that. The bill says clearly
that you have to sell it for less than you paid and reinvested in it.
It does not say how much less you have to sell it for or how much you
sell it for.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
First of all, this program has been going on for some time. If there
were any of the horror stories to match those hypotheticals, we would
have
[[Page H1869]]
heard from them. But I will say this to the gentleman from California.
He admits under public safety, the city might have to go in and tear it
down with no recompense. Here is my proposal, and I invite my
Republican colleagues again to do this. Come back with us to when we
had a bill that said, This program will be paid for not by the
taxpayers but by an assessment on financial institutions with more than
$50 billion in assets and hedge funds with more than $10 billion in
assets. I will introduce this bill tomorrow. They can give us a hearing
on it, mark it up, and it won't cost the taxpayers a cent. And it will
save the cities money.
I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez).
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
As the ranking member stated before, this is not only about
foreclosed properties, this is about abandoned properties. The
Neighborhood Stabilization Program will help rehabilitate over 600
properties in New York City alone, but this is not just an issue for
New York. This is a national problem. It was created by a decade of
overheated mortgage lending and excess on Wall Street. It makes sense
that our cities should have a national response. But contrary to common
sense, the bill we consider today would abandon our cities and towns
and force them to deal with this issue on their own.
The foreclosure crisis has a ripple effect on our whole economy.
Foreclosed and abandoned homes consume limited city resources. At the
same time, these homes lower property values for everyone in the
neighborhood. Assistance from the NSP can not only rehabilitate empty
homes, it can also reverse the downward spiral in property values. This
bill eliminates the only housing mitigation program committed to
stemming these ripple effects. Foreclosures are costly to everyone.
Without the NSP, Main Street will bear the costs of the problem created
on Wall Street.
Nationwide, nearly 100,000 projects will be undertaken with NSP
funds. Property values will be restored in these neighborhoods, and
working families will once again have access to affordable housing. Yet
if this legislation is enacted, 200 projects in New York City will go
unfinished. Withdrawing support for the NSP at this stage will slow the
budding recovery in our housing sector not just for New York City but
also for cities and towns across America. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no''
vote on this ill-conceived and, I have to say, mean-spirited
legislation.
Mrs. BIGGERT. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority
leader.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Chairman from day one, the majority of this Congress promised the
American people that we would focus like a laser on producing results.
And over the past 2 months, we have already begun to deliver on that
promise by upending the culture of spending that prevailed in
Washington and replace it with a culture of savings. The most important
thing government can do right now is to create an environment that
fosters opportunity for people. But if you talk to the small businesses
and entrepreneurs who create jobs, they will tell you that the
explosion of government debt is threatening their ability to innovate
and compete. Unless we move swiftly to change course, our economy will
be consumed by fears of future tax increases, inflation, and higher
borrowing costs. That's why our majority is dedicated to our cut-and-
grow agenda, cutting spending and job-destroying regulations and
growing private sector jobs in the economy.
Yesterday we took another significant step toward returning spending
to 2008 levels. Today we offer Members a chance through the YouCut
program to cut an additional $1 billion in waste. This legislation,
endorsed by millions of voters in the YouCut program, would terminate
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, a pot of money, as the other
side will tell you, that enables State and local governments to buy and
rehabilitate foreclosed homes. Instead of benefiting at-risk homeowners
facing foreclosure, however, this program may instead create perverse
incentives for banks and other lenders to foreclose on troubled
borrowers. The people's House is drawing a firm line in the sand
against wasteful spending and inefficient government programs, and I
urge my colleague the to support this legislation.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time remains on both sides, Mr.
Chairman?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4 minutes remaining.
The gentlewoman from Illinois has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Gary G. Miller).
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. My good friend Mr. Frank brought up
a good point. He said, Well, show me where any of these egregious
things and illegal things have occurred where somebody has cut somebody
a deal. Well, I can't show you any because there are no requirements.
You could take one of these nonprofit, nongovernment entities out here
that bought a house. They have $180,000 in the house. One of the board
members' cousins could buy that house for $100,000, and it does not
violate the requirements within the bill because it says you have to
sell that house for less than the acquisition and rehabilitation
prices. It does not say how much less. It says that you must not exceed
an amount.
So my good friend is absolutely correct. I cannot show you an
egregious act because there is no egregious act defined within the
legislation. And that's the problem with the bill. I believe we are
trying to say that the Republicans are on the side of the taxpayers. We
believe that we need to do everything we can in this country to create
jobs. And if we leave $7 billion in the economy based on the basic
money multiplier of 10 percent, it creates $70 billion worth of economy
and generation. We believe in that. We do believe in fair rules. And we
believe that if a person has to watch their home go into foreclosure,
and they live in California, and they watch a county, a city, or a
nonprofit group buy that home, that they can sell that home to someone
for $68,000 and all that person can do that lost their home is wipe the
tears away.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I appreciate the gentleman's acknowledgement. With all of their
efforts, they are out finding pictures of abandoned houses, they
couldn't find one example of where that abuse took place. In fact,
there are a set of rules and restrictions that HUD has that I will
submit under general leave. But again, let's review some of their
errors. The fundamental error is the argument that this is a program
which buys money from banks that have foreclosed and own the property.
In fact, it is foreclosed and abandoned property. There are also
entities that foreclose that weren't banks, that are not in existence
anymore. Yes, it does not deal with all the properties. Where there is
a responsible bank that you can go after, the cities go after them. But
the suggestion that in Detroit, in Cleveland, in Boston, in Chicago, in
all of our cities and in our rural areas there are no abandoned
properties that lack someone you can sue is unreality. This is a
triumph of ideological reflex over empirical observation. What this
says to cities is, where you cannot find a responsible owner to go
after, and the property is festering, if it's too far gone, you can
tear it down. If it's not too far gone, you can take it and resell it
for an affordable unit. Yes, it's got to be a limited income situation.
{time} 1510
So that just disputes the whole notion that there's always somebody
else you can get. But I still believe it's true that we shouldn't let
this come from the taxpayer.
But I want to reiterate, and I'll make this offer. In the conference
committee on Financial Reform, when this bill was passed--that's true
also, by the way, of the emergency homeowners' relief--we said, let's
not have it come from the taxpayer. Let's have it come from financial
institutions with $50 billion or more in assets, except for hedge
funds, where it's $10 billion or more in assets.
If that had passed, it would have cost the taxpayers, the general
revenue nothing. It would not have added to the deficit. And to the
extent that some financial institutions were benefiting,
[[Page H1870]]
they would have had to contribute. In fact, it would have had the
larger financial institutions help the smaller financial institutions.
The Republicans killed that before, but I believe in repentance, Mr.
Chairman. I believe in second chances for miscreants. I'm going to
give, Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues a second chance. So for
all their rhetoric about the deficit, here's the response. Here are the
choices:
You can tell Detroit and Cleveland and other cities, you tear down
that property when there's nobody else to go to and you pay for it and
lay off some teachers and cops and firefighters, or you leave the
property up there to fester. Or you do it our way. You join in
assessing the large financial institutions. And I don't mean to
demonize Citicorp or Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Blackstone. These
are decent people. They are trying to make a profit. I don't always
agree with them. Why don't we let them pay the billion dollars?
So if there is a genuine concern about the deficit--I'm skeptical
when people want to send the money to Afghanistan and Iraq and to
Brazilian cotton farmers. Obama made them do that. Whenever they have a
tough political decision, Mr. Chairman, Obama did it. Why can't they
solve the problems of Fannie and Freddie? Well, Obama won't tell them
how to do it. So they always hide behind the President when it's
convenient.
But here's the deal. It is undeniable. Let's go back to the gentleman
from Alabama. He found a building that was so decrepit he had a
picture, and he said to us, You can go to the owner of that building
and get the money. Well, he could find the building to take a picture,
but he couldn't find the owner. Because I asked him, If that's the
case, if we can go to the owner, tell me who the owner is and let's try
and go after him. And he left the floor because he doesn't know who the
owner is because in some cases nobody knows who the owner is because
the property has been abandoned or it was foreclosed upon by an entity
that's no longer in existence.
So join with us, make the large financial institutions and the hedge
funds pay for this, and save the cities money that they do not have.
March 3, 2011.
Oppose Bills That Shut Out Homeowners and Abandon Communities
House Financial Services Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The following civil rights and
consumer organizations are writing to urge you to vote
AGAINST the four bills coming before the House Financial
Services Committee tomorrow that would eliminate the primary
foreclosure prevention lifelines available to homeowners and
communities struggling to make it out of our economic
recession. For the reasons stated below, now is precisely the
wrong time to end these programs.
It is in the nation's interest to prevent foreclosures.
Everyone benefits when we can help families stay in their
homes. Preventable foreclosures cripple the overall economy
by adding vacant houses to the already flooded housing
market, further depressing housing prices and adding harmful
uncertainty to this critical market sector. An estimated
11.57 million borrowers--1 in 5--are currently in danger of
losing their homes. And unemployment and foreclosure now go
hand-in-hand. Despite the average length of unemployment now
at eight months, so many families who have lost their jobs or
seen a drop in income as a result of the recession are now
also losing their homes. We need to do more, not less, to
help these families and stabilize the economy.
It is in the nation's interest to bring communities back.
When families fail, communities fail. Families who have
suffered foreclosure will feel the impact of foreclosure for
years to come. Among many destabilizing consequences, they
must confront their lives' disruption, the loss of their
credit standing, and the higher cost and limited availability
of future credit. But the impact of the foreclosure crisis is
being felt far beyond the immediate home and neighborhood.
This crisis has devastated entire communities, which suffer
from a loss of community members, the disruption of community
institutions, a decline in property values, and an increase
in vacant and abandoned properties. Virtually every community
across the country is feeling the fallout in the form of
falling tax revenues and growing budget crises. Now is not
the time to cut the programs created to prevent the
foreclosures that fuel these broader problems.
Foreclosures continue to proceed at record levels, with
disproportionately heavy impacts on communities and families
of color, who are facing foreclosure at twice the rate of
other families because of discrimination. Foreclosure
prevention is a civil rights issue, and communities of color
are suffering a disproportionate loss of wealth. Several
studies have documented pervasive racial discrimination in
the distribution of subprime loans. One such study found that
borrowers of color are more than 30 percent more likely to
receive a higher-rate loan than white borrowers even after
accounting for differences in creditworthiness.\1\ Another
study found that high-income African Americans in
predominantly Black neighborhoods were three times more
likely to receive a subprime purchase loan than low-income
white borrowers.\2\ An analysis of loan, credit, and census
data has shown that even after controlling for percent
minority, low credit scores, poverty, and median home value,
``racial segregation is clearly linked with the proportion of
subprime loans originated at the metropolitan level.'' \3\
This research supports the conclusion that racial segregation
is itself an important determinant of subprime lending. The
resulting flood of high cost loans in communities of color
has artificially elevated the costs of homeownership for
residents of those neighborhoods.\4\
Homeowners need more help, not less, and the mortgage and
servicing industry has proven to be particularly ill-equipped
in providing it. A massive body of recent evidence exists
which shows pervasive lender foreclosure processing problems
and problems with mortgage transfers and assignments within
the securitization process. These shortcomings show a deep
disregard for legal requirements among lenders and servicers,
and also demonstrate that they are badly understaffed,
perform poorly, and lack accountability. Problems uncovered
in the foreclosure process mirror the problems that
homeowners seeking loan modifications have experienced:
borrowers frequently report an inability to reach bank staff,
loss of paperwork that they have sent in, and little
oversight or enforcement.
We cannot leave the important job of foreclosure mitigation
solely to an industry that has repeatedly refused to do the
job correctly. Just two days ago, HSBC suspended all
foreclosures after an investigation by federal regulators
uncovered ``problems in the company's processing,
preparation, and signing off of affidavits and other
documents supporting foreclosures, and in HSBC's management
of third-party law firms retained to carry out
foreclosures.'' \5\ Rather than eliminating the only
lifelines that help people from losing their homes, we should
be increasing that help. It is irresponsible to eliminate
these programs at a time when our nation needs them most.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
AFL-CIO,
Americans for Financial Reform,
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,
Center for NYC Neighborhoods,
Center for Responsible Lending,
Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina,
Consumer Action,
Consumer Federation of America,
Empire Justice Center,
Family Equality Council,
HomeFree-USA,
The Leadership Conference,
NAACP,
National Association of Consumer Advocates,
National Community Reinvestment Coalition,
National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income
clients),
National Fair Housing Alliance,
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund,
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty,
National Urban League,
Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project,
PICO National Network,
SEIU,
Woodstock Institute.
END NOTES
\1\ See Bocian, D., K. Ernst, and W. Li, Unfair Lending:
The Effect of Race and Ethnicity on the Price of Subprime
Mortgages, Center for Responsible Lending, May 2006, p. 3.
Available at www.responsiblelending.org.
\2\ Center for Responsible Lending's Fact Sheet on
Predatory Mortgage Lending, op. cit. See also HUD, Unequal
Burden: Income and Racial Disparities in Subprime Lending in
America (Washington, D.C.: HUD, 2000), and The Impending Rate
Shock.
\3\ Squires, Gregory D., Derek S. Hyra, Robert N. Renner,
``Segregation and the Subprime Lending Crisis,'' Paper
presented at the 2009 Federal Reserve System Community
Affairs Research Conference, Washington, DC (April 16, 2009)
p.l.
\4\ For a comprehensive analysis of the relationship
between race and access to prime, near prime, and subprime
loans in a representative metropolitan area, see Institute on
Race and Poverty, Communities in Crisis: Race and Mortgage
Lending in the Twin Cities (February 2009). Available online
at http://www.irpumn.org/uls/resources/proiects/
IRP_mortgage_study_Feb._11th.pdf
\5\ Bay, Carrie. ``HSBC Suspends All U.S. Foreclosures,''
DSNews.com, March 1, 2011. http://www.dsnews.com/articles/
hsbc-suspends-all-us-foreclosures-2011-03-01
____
March 7, 2011.
Hon. Spencer Bachus,
Chairman, Financial Services Committee, House of
Representatives, 2129 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bachus: I am writing to express my strong
opposition to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program (NSP)
[[Page H1871]]
Termination Act. NSP has helped cities across the country
address and mitigate the deleterious effects that vacant and
blighted properties have on neighborhoods and property
values. As a result of the foreclosure crisis, communities
throughout the country, including Los Angeles, face
significant challenges as foreclosed homes create a vicious
cycle of blight, neighborhood decay, and lower property
values. NSP has been instrumental in helping to stem this
downward spiral by addressing the negative effects of
abandoned and foreclosed properties.
In the City of Los Angeles, where, over the past four
years, we have an estimated 39,000 foreclosed properties, NSP
has played a critical role stabilizing our fragile housing
market and helping to construct and rehabilitate a total of
1,200 housing units. Furthermore, at a time when unemployment
in our construction industry is at an all-time high, NSP has
created more than 900 jobs spurring Los Angeles' economic
recovery.
Given the economic challenges facing cities today, I urge
the committee to continue funding for the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program.
Very truly yours,
Antonio R. Villaraigosa,
Mayor.
____
New York City Department of Housing Preservation &
Development,
New York City, March 9, 2011.
Rep. Spencer Backus, Chairman,
Rep. Barney Frank, Ranking Member,
House Financial Services Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Re H.R. 839--``The HAMP Termination Act of 2011;'' H.R. 861--
``NSP Termination Act''
Dear Representatives: I am writing this letter to express
the City of New York's opposition to the above-referenced
bills coming before the House Financial Services Committee.
These measures would eliminate crucial foreclosure prevention
and neighborhood stabilization support available to
homeowners and communities grappling with the devastating
effects of the foreclosure crisis here in New York City.
The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has been an
invaluable tool for homeowners throughout the city who have
unsustainable mortgages.
Data shows us that permanent HAMP modifications have on
average saved homeowners almost $400 more in monthly payments
than the savings achieved by non-HAMP modifications ($1200
vs. $828).
Of the permanent modifications reported by the Center for
New York City Neighborhood's extensive network of service
providers, 46% are HAMP modifications (479 out of 1036),
which is on par with the national average of 41%, as reported
by the OCC (http://tinyurl.com/4qajkkt).
HAMP has had a tremendous impact in New York. In the NYC
MSA, there have been 41,785 HAMP modifications (32,785
permanent and 9,000 active trials), which represents 6% of
all HAMP activity nationwide.
Without HAMP foreclosure prevention efforts would be
greatly diminished. HAMP has been critically important in
moving the mortgage industry to make more affordable,
sustainable modifications for homeowners who have the ability
to stay in their homes. We know from counselors on the ground
that the banks' own proprietary modifications have become
more affordable and ``HAMP-like'' since the full roll-out of
the program, further illustrating HAMP's impact. However,
HAMP must be preserved because even as the quality of non-
HAMP modifications improves, they are not nearly as
beneficial as HAMP modifications.
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) provides
states and municipalities with much-needed funds to stabilize
neighborhoods hardest-hit by the foreclosure crisis. In NYC,
we have used NSP funds to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed
homes for resale as affordable housing.
NSP funds are reducing the city's stock of vacant,
foreclosed homes that are a blight on communities. To date,
we have acquired 65 homes that are in various stages of
rehab, and on track to buy and restore 25 more. We are poised
to launch a program that will offer NSP funds as downpayment
assistance to encourage homeowners to buy foreclosed homes.
These programs accomplish dual goals of incentivizing
homeownership while also improving the housing stock in
neighborhoods devastated by foreclosure.
NSP funding has also been used to assist multifamily,
rental buildings in distress, providing long-term
affordability for income-eligible families. As a result of
the economic downturn, New York City is witnessing an
increase in the number of rental buildings with deteriorating
physical conditions, with many of these buildings in default
on their mortgages. Addressing the needs of these properties
is putting a strain on our typical funding sources, making
NSP a particularly valuable tool. We have expended over $3M
of NSP funds on the acquisition of foreclosed multi-family
buildings, creating over 200 affordable rental units in The
Bronx and Brooklyn. At least $10 million in future NSP funds
will be targeted towards stabilizing some of the most
distressed multi-family rental housing in the City.
As outlined here, the aforementioned programs offer
critical assistance to New York City families and
neighborhoods suffering from the harmful effects of the
foreclosure crisis. These programs' positive impacts are
extensive and they are compelling. To eliminate them now
would be unwise. For these reasons, The City of New York
opposes their termination.
Sincerely,
Rafael E. Cestero,
Commissioner.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The gentleman might be interested to know that there was a HOPE VI
bill that was an amendment to that, to H.R. 3524, made by
Representative Sessions. The amendment sought to maintain HUD's
authority to issue demolition only grants, and that failed by a
recorded vote of 186-221. Voting ``no'' on that was the gentleman, Mr.
Frank and Ms. Waters, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Velazquez.
I have been listening to all of this, and I think that everybody
knows, we all want to get the housing market back on track. We all want
to be able to help those that are in trouble.
But many of my colleagues on the other side have said that if you end
these programs there will be nothing, and that's just not true. Of the
4.1 million mortgage modifications that were completed, 3.5 million
were done by the private sector with no government program and not a
dime from the taxpayers. So there is a market out there.
There is also the Home Affordable Refinance Program, HARP, for
homeowners. And don't forget the Hardest Hit Fund, which President
Obama established. And in 2008, $300 million in guarantees were
committed for homeowners, a voluntary FHA program. $475 million had
been appropriated to Neighbor Works for foreclosure counseling. And
finally, there are countless local, State and private sector
initiatives.
So let us not forget that this is being taken care of. And rather
than have a program that really doesn't affect those that have been
foreclosed on, it really is a program for counties, not-for-profits,
for States, and it can cause incentives for banks and other lenders to
foreclose on troubled borrowers, worsening and prolonging the housing
credit crisis.
So let's get back to what this bill really does, and it doesn't help
taxpayers.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no
on H.R. 861 the ``Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act''.
Mr. Chair, the termination of a program designed and dedicated to the
stabilization of neighborhoods suffering through the foreclosure crisis
is simply the wrong approach.
NSP was created to help stabilize communities that have suffered from
foreclosures and abandonment. The program will continue to work towards
accomplishing these goals by purchasing and redeveloping foreclosed and
abandoned homes in communities that were distressed by the economic
downturn. NSP grants provide much needed assistance to state and local
governments to acquire, demolish and rehabilitate blighted properties.
NSP funds also help to redevelop hard-hit communities, create jobs
and grow local economies. HUD estimates that NSP alone will support
93,000 jobs nationwide once fully implemented. Mr. Chair, with
unemployment at 9 percent and many communities still seriously
suffering from slow job growth, it is imperative that we support
programs like NSP that create jobs.
Mr. Chair, vacant and blighted properties have a serious effect on
neighborhoods and property values. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and
the National Community Development Association and many others have
spoke out in favor of NSP. I urge this body to listen to the voices
from the people on the ground in these communities. H.R. 861 does not
address the urgent needs of these distressed communities. I urge a no
vote on H.R. 861.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 861, the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act. The depth of our
foreclosure crisis is astounding. According to Realty Trac we witnessed
over one million foreclosures last year and they predict we are on
track to break that unfortunate record once again this year.
Furthermore, the same group found that foreclosure proceedings were
initiated against 2.9 million of our nation's households in 2010. They
predict this number to increase by 20 percent this year.
With no apparent slowing of this trend, the Miami Valley region of
Ohio has averaged roughly 7,000 foreclosures each of the last three
years; there were more than 1100 foreclosures in just the first two
months of this year. This is a three-fold increase from a decade ago.
This crisis hurts individuals, families, neighborhoods, and
communities. In my area of
[[Page H1872]]
Ohio, the foreclosures were not due to an irresponsible home buying
``boom and bust'' cycle with dramatic increases and falling home
values--but rather due to high unemployment caused by the deep
recession; sharp declines in population, along with families who were
victimized by predatory lenders and the lack of loan modification
standards.
The result has been an almost doubling of the vacancy rate made up
mostly of abandon foreclosed properties. The City of Dayton currently
has 15,000 vacant excess units with some neighborhoods seeing half of
their units vacant.
Foreclosed properties sit vacant for long periods of time, and not
only become an eyesore, but a threat to public health and safety. In
response, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program was created to help
address this crisis with which our communities struggle.
The resources that this program has brought to bear are continuing to
make a considerable difference. Not only have hundreds of vacant units
have been demolished, but the structures with value were rehabilitated
and sold. In addition, the program has allowed localities to partner
with local builders, trade schools for at-risk youth, universities and
non-profits, to further leverage these funds.
I have stood on this floor and voted time and again to cut wasteful
spending and terminate ineffective government programs, but I cannot
vote to end the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. In Southeast Ohio
NSP has proven its value and demonstrated its effectiveness at
addressing one of the biggest problems to confront my communities.
In Southeast Ohio this program has removed long standing blight. It
is positively affecting real estate values, training at risk youth and
also creating jobs. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to
join me in voting against H.R. 861, The Neighborhood Stabilization
Program Termination Act.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose this spurious
legislation to eliminate a program that has helped our towns and cities
recover from the horrible housing crisis that has taken hold of these
communities.
The intent of this program which I voted for was to stabilize
neighborhoods. The legislation allowed hard-working American families
in danger of losing their homes to refinance into lower-cost
government-insured mortgages they can afford to repay.
I was able to hold foreclosure workshops in cities and towns
throughout my district to help these families at risk of losing their
homes. With my community's help, many families were able to stay in
their homes, keeping neighborhoods intact.
I believe that more money should be used to keep people in their
homes. To the administration's credit, they attempted to create other
programs that would do that. The Republican majority has spent the last
weeks attempting to eliminate those programs also.
The intent of the NSP legislation, begun more than three years ago,
was to quickly and efficiently distribute funds to neighborhoods and
communities that have a large number of foreclosed, vacant, or bank-
owned properties. The local government's goal should be to utilize the
funds to secure communities and neighborhoods that have unique needs as
a result of the foreclosure crisis.
The use of non-governmental agencies in the NSP program was
innovative. HUD could have further been innovative and used rent to own
to keep people in their homes.
NSP also seeks to prevent future foreclosures by requiring housing
counseling for families receiving homebuyer assistance. HUD seeks to
protect future homebuyers by requiring States and local grantees to
ensure that new homebuyers under NSP receive homeownership counseling
and obtain a mortgage loan from a lender who agrees to comply with
sound lending practices.
Defeat this legislation and vote to keep people in their homes and
our communities living and vibrant.
I would like to submit this article from the Florida Times-Union into
the Record about the amount of Jacksonville homes underwater.
[From the Florida Times-Union, March 8, 2011]
Nearly Half of Jacksonville Home Mortgages Underwater at End of 2010
(By Kevin Turner)
March 8.--Nearly half of mortgages residences in
Jacksonville were underwater at the end of 2010--47 percent--
primarily because their values have sunk below the amount
their owners owe on their mortgages.
The phenomenon is also known as ``negative equity.''
According to real estate data aggregator CoreLogic, another
4.8 percent of all mortgaged Jacksonville mortgages were in
``near negative equity'' status, or owed the same or nearly
the same as much as their homes were worth.
Combined, 51.8 percent of Jacksonville homes are underwater
or nearly so, according to a report released today by real
estate data aggregator CoreLogic.
Although sinking values are thought to be the chief cause,
increases in mortgage debt are also a factor, CoreLogic
noted.
The local combined underwater percentage is significantly
higher than the national average of 27.9 percent of mortgaged
homes nationwide that are underwater or near underwater. Some
23.1 percent were fully underwater.
The difference in the statistic locally and nationally
underscores the lingering effects of bursting of the real
estate value bubble in hardest-hit Florida, Nevada, Arizona
and California.
The Associated Press also reported:
Nationally, the number of Americans who owe more on their
mortgages than their homes are worth rose at the end of last
year, preventing many people from selling their homes in an
already weak housing market.
The percentage of homes underwater at the end of the fourth
quarter, at 23.1 percent, was up from 22.5 percent, or 10.8
million households, in the third quarter.
The number of underwater mortgages nationally had fallen in
the previous three quarters, mostly because more homes had
fallen into foreclosure.
Underwater mortgages typically rise when home prices fall.
Home prices in December hit their lowest point since the
housing bust in 11 of 20 major U.S. metro areas. In a healthy
housing market, about 5 percent of homeowners are underwater.
About 2.4 million people have only 5 percent equity or less
in their homes, putting them near the tipping point if prices
in their area fall.
Roughly two-thirds of homeowners in Nevada with a mortgage
had negative home equity, the worst in the country. Arizona,
Florida, Michigan and California were next, with nearly 50
percent of homeowners with mortgages in those states
underwater.
Oklahoma had the smallest percentage of underwater
homeowners in the October-December quarter, at 5.8 percent.
Only nine states recorded percentages less than 10 percent.
When a mortgage is underwater, the homeowner often can't
qualify for mortgage refinancing and has little recourse but
to continue making payments in hopes the property eventually
regains its value.
The slide in home prices began stabilizing last year. But
prices are expected to continue falling in many markets due
to still-high levels of foreclosure and unemployment.
That means homes purchased at the height of the real estate
boom are unlikely to recover lost value for years.
Underwater mortgages also dampen home sales. Homeowners who
might otherwise sell their home refuse to take a loss or
can't get the bank to agree to a short sale--when a lender
lets a borrower sell their property for less than the amount
owed on the mortgage.
Home sales have been weaker in areas where there are a
large number of homeowners with negative equity.
The total amount of negative equity increased to $751
billion nationwide, up from $744 billion in the previous
quarter.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the
Neighborhood Stabilization Termination Act, or H.R. 861, a bill to
eliminate the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). I would like to
shed light on the positive impact the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program has had on neighborhoods and communities across the country and
particularly in Chicago, Illinois, as well as dispel myths my
Republican colleagues have been passing off as the truth.
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program is one of several programs
targeted for elimination by House Republicans. These are programs that
are helping middle-class and working-class Americans avoid losing their
homes through the calamity of foreclosure. While imperfect, these
programs are literally keeping a roof over people's heads, keeping
families together, and preserving the fabric of American neighborhoods.
Let's not forget, Congress bailed out financial institutions when
they hit rock bottom and Congress acted to shore up the economy when it
was on the brink of a deeper crisis.
But now Republicans are saying we can't afford programs that lend a
hand to American homeowners in their hour of greatest need? That's not
the America I know, that's not the America that families need, and that
is not the America we were sent to Washington to protect. Let's help
our neighbors and our neighborhoods and not leave them to fend for
themselves during these tough times.
Recently, several worthy and notable organizations, such as Chicanos
Por la Causa (CPLC), have been specifically targeted by my Republican
colleagues for the funds they've received under the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program. Let me make this clear, Chicanos Por La Causa is
the lead applicant for a national consortium of non-profit affordable
housing developers that have received federal funding to revitalize
neighborhoods in eight states and the District of Colombia that have
been negatively impacted by foreclosures and abandoned properties.
CPLC, which was awarded $137 million to address foreclosed and vacant
properties, submitted one of the highest scoring grants. The grant to
CPLC increased the equitable allocation of NSP funds by providing the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with important
[[Page H1873]]
tools to help American communities. Specifically, it provided HUD with
a method for investing through 13 consortium members in a mix of urban
and rural communities that have been hardest hit by the foreclosure
crisis, and in predominately Latino communities through organizations
that provide culturally and linguistically competent services.
Currently, there are approximately 1.3 million Latinos who are in the
process of foreclosure or have already lost their homes. There is no
doubt the Latino community has been disproportionately affected by the
foreclosure crisis. For this reason, Chicanos Por La Causa, together
with the National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders, have
helped blighted communities repair the devastation and distress that
comes with abandoned properties. The Resurrection Project is one of the
organizations under this consortium that is in my own backyard in
Chicago. The Resurrection Project has served the Back of the Yards
community in my district by investing $12 million in NSP funds to help
stabilize the community. Back of the Yards is one the poorest and most
blighted communities in my district and one of the hardest hit by the
foreclosure crisis. These funds will certainly assist with the recovery
efforts and revitalize this historic neighborhood in the city of
Chicago.
Mr. Chair, our nation is facing extraordinarily dire economic times.
American homeowners, our neighborhoods, and our communities do not
deserve to have Congress turn our backs on them in the hour of greatest
need. I believe the Neighborhood Stabilization Program is vital to our
states, to our cities, and to our communities that have been hardest
hit by the largest housing crisis of our generation. This is why I am
opposing the Neighborhood Stabilization Termination Act. Two weeks ago
I submitted a letter for the record during the Insurance, Housing and
Community Opportunity Subcommittee hearing on foreclosure mitigation
programs targeted for elimination. The letter was submitted on behalf
of the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities,
U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Community Development Association,
National Association for County Community and Economic Development,
Council of State Community Development Agencies, and the Enterprise
Community Partners, Inc., all of whom support this very valuable
neighborhood revitalization program. I ask my colleagues to stand with
our neighborhoods and our communities and vote no on this bill.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition
to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act.
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program was established in 2008 to
help stabilize communities across American that has suffered from
foreclosures and abandonment.
Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds give states and local
governments the tools needed to purchase and redevelop foreclosed and
abandoned homes.
Without this funding whole neighborhoods suffer sliding real estate
values, increases in crime, and decreases in the overall morale of its
citizens.
From the total Neighborhood Stabilization Program appropriations of
$7 billion, HUD estimates that 100,000 properties in the hardest- hit
areas will be impacted.
In my district, Dallas, Texas, a little over 7.9 million dollars was
awarded through Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding.
At the beginning of the foreclosure crisis Dallas' housing market
suffered from an average of 300 foreclosures a month.
The City of Dallas has identified 13 areas in the city that can
benefit from this funding.
Without programs like the Neighborhood Stabilization Program,
neighborhoods in my area would have nowhere else to turn.
Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds help to redevelop hard-hit
communities, creates jobs, and grows local economies.
With nearly 14 million Americans out of a job, Americans need a
Republican Congress that works to create jobs and strengthen the
economy.
In the last 11 weeks, the House Republicans have passed reckless
spending proposals estimated to destroy 700,000 jobs and stall our
economic growth.
I encourage my colleague to stand by struggling neighborhoods and
vote no on this measure.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 861, the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Termination Act. This bill
stops in its tracks the successful efforts to rebuild neighborhoods
hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. The Neighborhood Stabilization
Program has provided resources to allow cities and states to
rehabilitate foreclosed and abandoned homes that are driving down home
prices and destabilizing neighborhoods.
In Rhode Island, we were hit early and hard by the housing crisis. We
currently have the fourth highest unemployment rate, and Rhode
Islanders are struggling with mortgage payments due to the loss of jobs
through no fault of their own. This program has provided the state with
much needed resources to stabilize our housing market and create new
low-income housing. Rhode Island housing agencies have warned me that
ending this program would be detrimental to their efforts to build
homes, save buildings, stabilize blighted neighborhoods, and most
importantly, put Rhode Islanders to work.
In my district, $800,000 out of Rhode Island's NSP funds went to
creating a new building that houses 12 homeless veterans, a police
station, and commercial space. This funding also helped create two
additional apartments for homeless veterans in a nearby building that
also includes a social services office for the residents. This
legislation would stop projects that are already planned to create jobs
that would support 90 affordable homes and apartments in the most at-
risk neighborhoods.
Mr. Chair, without the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Rhode
Island would not have been able to undertake this remarkable
partnership, as well as numerous other successful examples around the
State that have brought together Federal, State, business and community
organization efforts.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 861, which will
terminate an important Federal response to the mortgage crisis that
continues to threaten American economic growth.
Last week, House Republicans voted to terminate the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) Refinance Program, a promising foreclosure
prevention program directed toward responsible homeowners. Today, we
are considering terminating a program that helps stabilize communities
rocked by massive foreclosure and home abandonment. With about 13.7
million Americans struggling with unemployment, I urge the Republican
leadership to focus on creating jobs, not on terminating programs. It
is time to be constructive, not destructive.
Mr. Speaker, I am starkly opposed to H.R. 861, which would terminate
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). This important program
provides grants to State and local governments and eligible entities to
buy and restore abandoned and foreclosed properties. This funding
allows the hardest hit communities, like those in my home state of
Michigan, to start tearing down dilapidated properties with an eye
toward shrinking struggling cities and rehabilitating healthy
neighborhoods. This funding helps increase nearby property values and
decrease the risk of foreclosure for remaining residents. It also
enables communities to cut down on havens for criminal activity,
reducing law enforcement costs. Several communities in my Congressional
District, like Dearborn, Taylor, and Inkster have benefited from this
program, and its continued funding is crucial for local governments to
respond to the mortgage crisis. If my Republican colleagues refuse to
believe NSP is a wise public investment, I extend an invitation for
them to visit my home state and witness the critical impact this
program has on hard-hit communities.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 861
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``NSP Termination Act''.
SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF $1 BILLION FUNDING FOR 3RD ROUND OF
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM.
Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, there
are rescinded and permanently canceled all unobligated
balances remaining available as of such date of enactment of
the amounts made available by section 1497(a) of the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public
Law 111-203; 124 Stat. 2209; 42 U.S.C. 5301 note).
SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Sections 2301 through 2303 of the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-289; 122 Stat.
2850; 42 U.S.C. 5301 note) are hereby repealed.
(b) Treatment of Remaining Funds.--
(1) Savings clause.--Notwithstanding the repeal under
subsection (a), any amounts made available under the
provisions specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection
shall continue to be governed by any provisions of
[[Page H1874]]
law applicable to such amounts as in effect immediately
before such repeal.
(2) Remaining funds.--The provisions specified in this
paragraph are as follows:
(A) Section 2301(a) of the Housing and Economic Recovery
Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-289; 122 Stat. 2850; 42 U.S.C.
5301 note).
(B) The second undesignated paragraph under the heading
``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community
Planning and Development, Community Development Fund'' in
title XII of division A of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 217).
(c) Termination.--Upon the obligation of all amounts made
available under the provisions specified in subsection
(b)(2), and outlays to liquidate all such amounts, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall terminate
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program authorized under the
provisions specified in subsections (a) and (b)(2).
SEC. 4. PUBLICATION OF MEMBER AVAILABILITY FOR ASSISTANCE.
Not later than 5 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall publish to its Website on the World Wide Web in a
prominent location, large point font, and boldface type the
following statement: ``The Neighborhood Stabilization Program
(NSP) has been terminated. If you are concerned about the
impact of foreclosed properties on your community, please
contact your Member of Congress, State, county, and local
officials for assistance in mitigating the impacts of
foreclosed properties on your community.''.
The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order except
those printed in part B of House Report 112-34. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report (except that
amendment No. 9 and amendment No. 10 may be offered only en bloc), may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered 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.
Motion to Rise
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential motion at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. ELLISON moves that the Committee do now rise and report the bill
to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes
in support of his motion.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I rise to make this motion today because I'm
opposed to the underlying bill, the NSP Termination Act.
Mr. Chair, in the course of this debate on the termination of
foreclosure mitigation programs, including this bill, we've been
enmeshed in a huge debate around what the proper role of government is.
The Republican Caucus clearly thinks that government has no role,
that citizens are on their own, and that no matter how much devastation
a particular phenomenon like the foreclosure crisis has caused, that
citizens just have no help in the government. The government can't be
there for them.
And, on the other hand, the Democratic Caucus, we believe that, in
the proper circumstances, the government has an important role and does
need to be there for the American people, and when we see property
values dropping, whole neighborhoods destroyed, that we should do
something about it.
This motion to strike the enacting clause, according to Rule XVIII,
clause 9, ``if carried in the House, shall constitute a rejection of
the bill.''
And, Mr. Chair, I urge that we do reject this bill. This bill is an
affront and an insult at a time when Americans have seen over 4 million
foreclosures across this Nation, devastating whole communities,
devastating communities and wiping out city and municipal budgets, so
that cities, when they have abandoned properties in their
neighborhoods, are left with tearing them down and demolishing them on
the nickel of the taxpayer in that city when, in fact, this is a
community-wide problem.
There's no money in many cities to do the demolition. So what will
happen is that an old, burned-out hulk will sit there and sit there as
neighbors look on and see the property values in their homes plummet.
And what we'll see, Mr. Chair, is people leaving dogs there. Perhaps
the house will be an attractive nuisance. Perhaps some crime will be
committed there, drug dealing there, dead animals left there, and
neighborhoods will fall deeper and deeper in despair.
I grew up in the city of Detroit. I'm honored to represent the Fifth
District of Minneapolis today, but I grew up in the city of Detroit,
and I saw how the foreclosures in that city ripped that town apart. And
the good people of that city had to sit by and watch folks burn houses.
They would put them on fire, and years later, no money to demolish them
that the city had, and it just helped folks say that, You know what?
I'm going to leave this city because I can't stand to live here with
that big hulk right next to my home. Who's going to help out?
Well, according to the Republican Caucus, that's not the proper role
of government. And this is really what this is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I've heard our friends in the Republican Caucus talk
about jobs, yet they haven't introduced one single jobs bill, and we've
been here for 11 weeks.
They talk about the deficit and go on and on ad nauseam about putting
debt on our children and grandchildren. And yet, when they had the
chance to raise revenue so that we could, in fact, pay the bills of
this country, they were absolutely and adamantly opposed to it.
But now, when we see Americans have their neighborhoods slipping into
oblivion, slipping into a situation where people can't live in their
neighborhood and people can't sell their homes so they're just
suffering, the Republican Caucus said, There's nothing we can do for
you either.
{time} 1520
They don't really demonstrate a commitment to jobs. They don't really
demonstrate a commitment to even dealing with the deficit, at least not
through revenue raising. They have a commitment to set Americans
adrift, on their own.
I make this motion to correct the record on this Neighborhood
Stabilization Program. This isn't a broken or ineffective program that
should be eliminated. It is a vitally important program for local and
State governments that need all the resources they can get to address
neighborhoods that are overrun by foreclosures.
According to HUD, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has
supported close to 100,000 jobs nationwide. They will be eliminated if
we pass this bill. That's right. The Republicans, again, are cutting
another 100,000 jobs for working Americans.
So, Mr. Chair, what does the Neighborhood Stabilization Program do?
It helps local and State governments renovate abandoned and
foreclosed properties. It helps local governments revitalize
communities instead of watching these neighborhoods deteriorate. It
gives communities the ability to get back on their feet as quickly as
possible.
In my district, the city of Minneapolis has put NSP funding to good
use. Thomas Streitz is the director of Housing and Policy Development
for the city of Minneapolis, and he explains: ``The Neighborhood
Stabilization Program has enabled the city of Minneapolis to stabilize
neighborhoods throughout the city affected by foreclosure. Funding to
date has impacted more than 530 properties, and with the additional
funding sought, 56 more properties could be rehabilitated, bringing
even more homeowners back into neighborhoods.''
I believe the NSP is a good investment.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The question is on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 240, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 182]
AYES--183
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
[[Page H1875]]
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
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
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
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
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
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
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--240
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
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
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
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
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
McHenry
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
Rahall
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
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
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)
NOT VOTING--9
Berman
Burton (IN)
Cohen
Garrett
Giffords
Labrador
Nadler
Perlmutter
Smith (NJ)
{time} 1549
Messrs. BENISHEK, MANZULLO, ALTMIRE, HELLER and TERRY and Ms. HERRERA
BEUTLER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GENE GREEN of Texas and RUPPERSBERGER and Ms. LEE changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 112-34.
Mr. ELLISON. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, line 4, before ``Effective'' insert ``(a)
Rescission.--''.
Page 5, after line 10, insert the following new subsection:
(b) Identification of Amounts Subject to Possible
Rescission.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development has allocated funding to the States, including
city, county, and municipal governments, under the 3rd round
of funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, as set
forth in paragraph (2). Amounts from the allocations set
forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection will be subject to
possible rescission and cancellation, to the extent provided
in subsection (a).
(2) Allocation.--The allocations set forth in this
paragraph for the following States are the following amounts:
(A) Alaska: $5,000,000.
(B) Alabama: $7,576,151.
(C) Arizona: $45,377,073.
(D) Arkansas: $5,000,000.
(E) California: $149,308,651.
(F) Colorado: $17,349,270.
(G) Connecticut: $9,322,756.
(H) District of Columbia: $5,000,000.
(I) Delaware: $5,000,000.
(J) Florida: $208,437,144.
(K) Georgia: $50,421,988.
(L) Hawaii: $5,000,000.
(M) Iowa: $5,000,000.
(N) Idaho: $5,000,000.
(O) Illinois: $30,143,105.
(P) Indiana: $31,509,101.
(Q) Kansas: $6,137,796.
(R) Kentucky: $5,000,000.
(S) Louisiana: $5,000,000.
(T) Massachusetts: $7,387,994.
(U) Maryland: $6,802,242.
(V) Maine: $5,000,000.
(W) Michigan: $57,524,473.
(X) Minnesota: $12,427,113.
(Y) Missouri: $13,110,604.
(Z) Mississippi: $5,000,000.
(AA) Montana: $5,000,000.
(BB) North Carolina: $5,000,000.
(CC) North Dakota: $5,000,000.
(DD) Nebraska: $6,183,085.
(EE) New Hampshire: $5,000,000.
(FF) New Jersey: $11,641,549.
(GG) New Mexico: $5,000,000.
(HH) Nevada: $43,314,669.
(II) New York: $19,834,940.
(JJ) Ohio: $51,789,035.
(KK) Oklahoma: $5,000,000.
(LL) Oregon: $5,000,000.
(MM) Pennsylvania: $5,000,000.
(NN) Puerto Rico: $5,000,000.
(OO) Rhode Island: $6,309,231.
(PP) South Carolina: $5,615,020.
(QQ) South Dakota: $5,000,000.
(RR) Tennessee: $10,195,848.
(SS) Texas: $18,038,242.
(TT) Utah: $5,000,000.
(UU) Virginia: $6,254,970.
(VV) Vermont: $5,000,000;
(WW) Washington: $5,000,000.
(XX) Wisconsin: $7,687,949.
(YY) West Virginia: $5,000,000.
(ZZ) Wyoming: $5,000,000.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
{time} 1550
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The middle class is shrinking and deficits are rising because the
Republicans are giving a pass to special interests who cheated
homeowners and wrecked our economy. Instead of working to keep middle
class families in their homes, the Republican plan is to foreclose on
the American middle class. The American people sent us here to protect
the American Dream, not to perpetuate a Wall Street nightmare.
Democrats are standing with the American people to create good-paying
American jobs and to keep them in their homes. Democrats are working to
ensure that every American who wants a good job, can find one, and that
middle class Americans can afford to buy a home and live the American
Dream.
The legislation on the floor today proposes cutting funding for the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Republicans want to foreclose on
the middle class, and my amendment forces Members to look at how this
legislation will impact their State. So far, for each Member, if you
read my amendment, you will see how much funding may be
[[Page H1876]]
cut from your State. My feeling is that before Republicans vote to cut
funding for a successful housing program and a foreclosure mitigation
program, they should know how much funding is at risk for their State
and what the people back home are going to think about their vote.
This legislation to cut housing funding makes it clear that the
majority is not focused on creating jobs. The Neighborhood
Stabilization Program helps local communities redevelop abandoned and
foreclosed properties, and that funding helps to create jobs. It takes
workers to demolish an abandoned building.
Overall, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has created about
93,000 jobs. This legislation to cut NSP funding is just another bill
offered up by the majority that will actually cut jobs. The
unemployment rate is currently 8.9 percent. This rate is far too high.
It is wasting human capital. People's skills and talents are sitting on
the sidelines instead of being put to good use and earning a good
paycheck. Unemployed Americans are ready to get back to work, and we
must use every tool at our disposal to create new jobs.
Instead of creating jobs, the Republican majority is launching an
attack on American workers and foreclosing on the American Dream. The
Republican plan to cut funding and cut jobs won't help our economy.
It's going to do the opposite. It's going to hold back our economic
recovery. The continuing resolution passed last month by the majority
would cut $60 billion from programs and agencies that help the middle
class and working families.
Economist Mark Zandi has estimated these cuts would result in the
loss of 700,000 jobs. We can't afford to add to the already
unacceptably high level of unemployment in this country. Republicans in
Congress are pushing a reckless and irresponsible plan that protects
tax breaks for millionaires and giveaways for corporate special
interests at the expense of the middle class.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to vote against the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in
opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I'm not opposed to this amendment.
This amendment only deals with stage three of a project that should
have only been one phase. Now, I wish they would have talked about
phase two because I wish you would study where the money went on phase
two. Because in phase two alone, we give away $1.3 billion to
nongovernment entities, incorporated businesses that are nonprofit.
But you have to say we did not stop a foreclosure. We just gave away
in NSP2 $1.3 billion. Of that, Neighborhood Lending Partners received
$50 million. They do not have to pay it back. Now, they can take that
$50 million--I'm sure they're a very reputable company. I'm not
accusing anybody of anything. But they can sell those houses for any
amount to whomever they want as long as it's below the price they have
invested in business.
Community Builders, Inc., $78.6 million; Los Angeles Neighborhood
Housing, Services, Inc., $60 million; Neighborhood Lending Partners of
West Florida, Inc., $50 million; Chicanos Por la Causa, Inc., $137
million.
I wish we would have taken the time to review those and say how was
the money spent, but HUD did some work for us. So let's see what HUD
did.
HUG and OIG audited the State of Kansas Neighborhood Stabilization
Program, NSP1, and found that the State improperly obligated more than
$12 million of its NSP1 funds. HUD and OIG audited the Sacramento
Housing Redevelopment Agency of Sacramento, California, and found the
agency did not administer its NSP funds in accordance with HUD rules
and regulations. Specifically, it allowed ineligible properties to be
rehabilitated; did not adequately monitor projects, which resulted in
ineligible costs; permitted the developer to make unnecessary upgrades
and overinflated construction budgets; did not ensure that it met the
reporting requirements; and lacked management controls. I wish we would
have audited this one in this amendment, too.
HUD and OIG audited the city and county of Denver, Colorado, NSP1,
and found that the city improperly obligated more than $1.5 of its NSP
funds by recording its funds as obligated. HUD and OIG reviewed the
city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and found that the city generally
administered its program, however sometimes inconsistent with
identifying obligations and was not always accurate on reporting to
HUD. On Louisville, Kentucky, again, very similar to the previous.
Augusta, Georgia. Did not have internal controls in place to perform
continuous and routine monitoring of its obligation process to ensure
its obligations were processed as intended. HUD and OIG reviewed Clark
County, Nevada NSP and found that Clark County needs to revise its
written procedures and developer agreements to ensure that properties
to be sold to eligible home buyers will be sold at a price permitted by
NSP requirements, which means they probably were selling it at too much
money.
So although I do support the amendment at hand, I wish it would have
reviewed phase one and two.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Two particular points, Mr. Chair. One is that, first of all, there's
never been a program from any State, Federal, or local program that did
not need review. I can tell you that in the city of Minneapolis, and in
many other places, this program has been high quality and has been
well, well run.
Now, the question is interesting because if the gentleman wanted to
talk about inefficiencies in a program, we could talk about fixing
those programs. We're not talking about fixing the NSP program. We're
talking about eliminating it. So I think if this was a sincerely made
point, that we would be talking about how we can improve the program.
We should mend it, not end it.
Secondly, this amendment that I'm offering tries to inform Members as
to the losses that their communities will endure by cutting the
program. This program elimination will be felt across America in local
communities where foreclosures are happening, and in those particular
communities Members should know what is going to happen: that
expenditures for demolishing and rehabilitating abandoned homes are not
going to be there any more. And I think it's important the Members
should know. And I think it's important that the people who live in the
Members' communities should know.
And so I ask that the amendment be adopted.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I disagree. It's not time to amend and pretend. It's time to end.
The problem with this program is I highlighted you a few violations,
but it's really hard to violate the program requirements because there
are so few requirements. It says, We're going to give you money. You
can buy property, you can demolish houses. You can buy property, you
can rehabilitate those properties. You have vast guidelines on how you
rehabilitate them. In fact, an organization is not even required to
have competitive bids. I can say I need some framing done, I can lend a
sole source contract. Only one person applied--that's the person I
asked to apply--and I can pay them the moneys I deem appropriate.
It says you have to sell the house for less than you have in it. It
doesn't say you should attempt to try to sell at fair market value,
although I have given you a list previously of how much you can make,
which is quite a bit of money, and buy these houses. It just says you
cannot sell them for more. It does not restrict them on who you sell
them to; it does not restrict on whose affiliation you have that might
be buying them. In fact, it's almost impossible to have a conflict of
interest because there's conflict designed within the bill.
So we can say let's amend and pretend, but let's just end.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H1877]]
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota will be
postponed.
{time} 1600
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hurt
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 112-34.
Mr. HURT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order
under the rule.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, line 10, after the period add the following: ``All
such unobligated balances so rescinded and permanently
canceled should be retained in the General Fund of the
Treasury for reducing the budget deficit of the Federal
Government.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Hurt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. HURT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Miller, Chairman
Bachus and Chairman Biggert, for their leadership on this very
important issue.
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program is another misdirected,
multibillion-dollar bailout that hurts struggling homeowners by
incentivizing lenders to foreclose properties rather than continue to
work with those who are facing tough economic challenges.
At a time when our Nation faces over $14 trillion in debt, $1.6
trillion in deficit spending, and we are borrowing over 40 cents on
every dollar we spend, we cannot continue to have taxpayers foot the
bill for these unaccountable government programs that do nothing to
solve the problems for which they were originally intended and harm our
economic recovery. That is why I am offering an amendment to H.R. 861
which would direct all unobligated funds to be returned to the Treasury
to reduce the deficit of the Federal Government once the program is
terminated.
The people of Virginia's Fifth District called for serious and bold
change last November. By working to reduce the size and scope of the
Federal Government, save taxpayer dollars and rein in out-of-control
spending, we are listening to the people and taking the first steps to
change the culture in our Nation's Capitol so that we can grow the
economy and create jobs for all central and southside Virginians and
all Americans.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's
anybody exactly in opposition to the amendment because it doesn't do
anything, but there is some opposition to the rhetoric; so I will claim
the time in opposition to the gentleman's speech.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In the first place, there is a consistent
misunderstanding on the Republican side manifested by their talking
about this as a program that there was foreclosed property. That, of
course, allows them conveniently to pretend that, for every piece of
property that a city is stuck with, there is an entity that stood
behind it that foreclosed and can be sued. But that's not true.
This is not only about foreclosed property. It is about foreclosed
and abandoned property, and there is property that has been abandoned.
It has been abandoned by the owner who's walked away. It has been
abandoned by some financial institutions that did not have the
substance of banks. There is demonstrably property in the cities which
cannot be traced.
The chairman of the committee displayed a picture before of a beat-up
piece of property and said, Look at this piece of property. It's so far
gone, who would want to buy it?
We said, No one would. It should be demolished. Tell us who owns it.
He said, You can always find out who owns it--except for that piece
of property.
So it's not just about foreclosed property. Somebody has to demolish
property where there is no owner. Somebody has to demolish property
where there is no responsible party standing behind it. I just left the
Chamber to meet with three firefighters from the city of Fall River in
my district. They were appalled at the notion that they would be left
in the city of Fall River to deal with abandoned property, which is a
set of fire traps, and not have any help. So for that reason, I believe
that we ought to be clear that this is not about only foreclosed
property. And some property, by the way, has been foreclosed upon by
entities that are bankrupt, by entities that have no funds.
The other point I would make, though, is this. I do agree with my
colleagues that we should do something about the deficit. Now, I wish
that they listened to that when we subsidized agriculture or when we
sent money to Afghanistan and Iraq for their social purposes. But I
have an alternative. I will repeat again, and they'll ignore it all
day, I know. In the bill that originally authorized this billion
dollars, we required that it be funded not by the general revenues but
by a special assessment on financial institutions that have $50 billion
or more in assets and hedge funds at $10 billion.
Now let's be clear, Mr. Chairman. Members on the other side know this
bill is unlikely to become law. Indeed, some have even said they
understand the money will be spent before it can move. So the billion
dollars is almost certainly going to be spent. My colleagues now have a
choice. They can allow it to be spent by the taxpayers, or they can
reconsider their opposition to our proposal of last summer and assess
this on the large financial institutions and hedge funds. By the way,
some of it, it is true, was caused by banks and some of it will go to
banks.
But here's the answer. Instead of complaining that some of this will
go to banks, join us and have it all come from banks and from hedge
funds. But please, Mr. Chairman, let's not perpetuate the myth that,
for every piece of property with which our poorer cities and rural
areas are burdened, there is somebody they can go and sue and get it
down. In fact, the gentleman from California himself has said, well,
they can get a bulldozer and tear it down. Those bulldozers cost money.
The people driving the bulldozers cost money.
So we believe that the approach should be to take money from the
large financial institutions and from the hedge funds and take the
billion dollars from them and provide it to municipalities and groups
like Habitat for Humanity and others who will use it either to tear
down the property, in some cases, or rehabilitate the property and make
it affordable housing.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the choice between us. Again, I want to
stress, this notion that it is only foreclosed property is a
misstatement with a purpose, because it means that you ignore the fact
that much of the property existing in the cities is abandoned and will
only be dealt with by the city spending its own money or, by our
preferred mode, having the large financial institutions and the hedge
funds join us.
So I hope at some point today, one member of the majority will tell
us whether or not they agree, Mr. Chairman, that if this program
survives, we should get it not from the taxpayer and not from the
property taxpayers of our cities or rural areas but from the large
financial institutions. That's what I hope will happen.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HURT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Thank you for yielding.
I totally support the gentleman from Virginia's amendment. This is
doing the right thing. It is saying, we're going to take a billion
dollars back of your money, the taxpayers, and we're going to pay off
the deficit that we've created for you.
It's about time we start paying down the debt. We cannot continue to
spend dollars we don't have. Forty percent of every dollar we spend
today is financed through the Treasury because we don't have the money.
We're spending deficit dollars and it has to stop.
But I want to return to the argument that my good friend makes. And I
respect my good friend. He knows that.
[[Page H1878]]
Somebody owned a home sometime, someplace, somewhere. Now, the
individual who owned it, because it wasn't created by a miracle.
Somebody built the house, somebody sold it to somebody, the individual
might have gotten a loan on it from the bank. If the individual
defaulted on the loan, the bank might have taken the house back. But
the Federal Government and the local agencies look at taxes. We look at
income taxes. The local governments, the city, the county, looks at
property taxes. Somebody, some institution, is listed on the property
tax bill.
Now, at some point in time, they're going to continue to notice the
owner, whoever it might be. If it's an heir, you're going to get a
notice, and it's going to say you did not pay your property taxes. At
some point in time, that piece of property, home, vacated, abandoned,
whatever it may be, is going up for a sale for property taxes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. What if it is abandoned and it is of not
much value and has to be torn down, so people buy it and tear it down?
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I reclaim the balance of my time.
If it's a public safety issue, a local government has a right to
demolish property based on public safety. That assessment could be
placed against the tax bill. At some point in time, the local
government, if they so choose, if nobody wants to pay a dollar for that
property, can buy it based on the tax basis for a dollar. The problem
with that is, once the government entity buys the property, it's taken
off the tax rolls.
Some of my colleagues have talked about police and fire and the
benefit to them. The worst thing you can do is eliminate funding
through taxation to police and fire.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I would be happy to.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We were told, for instance, by Detroit
and Cleveland, they have abandoned property. There is no owner they can
find. Who's going to pay to knock it down?
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I reclaim the balance of my time.
If you go to any title company, it will list who the owner of record
is. Regardless, if you can find that entity or individual, it will list
it. Regardless of who it is, at some point in time, it goes to a tax
sale.
{time} 1610
At that point in time, the local government or an investor can buy it
at a much reduced price for just the tax lien against it, and if it's
abandoned and demolished and not worth anything, the tax bill is going
to be very low. So somebody can pick up a very good deal on a piece of
property by waiting for a tax sale. But if they choose not to and they
want to go out and just buy it as a city or a county, they can do that
and get a very good deal on it. So to assume that because nobody can
find an owner out there, somebody is listed, and the government has a
right to foreclose based on taxes.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ellison
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the voice vote by which amendment No. 1 was rejected be vacated to
the end that the Chair put the question de novo.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. The earlier voice vote is vacated.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part B of House Report 112-34.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, after line 25, insert the following new section:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has assisted
local governments across the United States in alleviating
many of the impacts of abandoned and foreclosed properties,
including the increased code enforcement, maintenance, and
demolition costs resulting from abandoned and/or foreclosed
properties;
(2) the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has assisted
local governments across the United States in alleviating
many of the impacts of abandoned and foreclosed properties,
including the decreased property tax revenues due to unpaid
property taxes on abandoned and/or foreclosed properties;
(3) the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has supported
93,000 jobs nationwide and impacted over 100,000 properties
across the country;
(4) the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, including the
third round of funding made available by section 1497(a) of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, provides funding for State and local governments to
redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes; and
(5) by voting to terminate the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program under this Act without a suggested replacement, the
Congress is eliminating an effective program that has been
used to provide affordable housing, create jobs, leverage
private investment, and improve communities.
Page 5, line 1, strike ``SEC. 2.'' and insert ``SEC. 3.''.
Page 5, line 11, strike ``SEC. 3.'' and insert ``SEC. 4.''.
Page 6, line 17, ``SEC. 3.'' and insert ``SEC. 5.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, the middle class is shrinking and deficits are rising
because the Republicans are giving a pass to special interests who
cheated some homeowners and wrecked our economy. Instead of working to
keep the middle class families in their homes, the Republican plan is
to foreclose on the American middle class.
The amendment I have right here in front of you describes findings
which talk about the positive benefits of the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program. This program is a good program, and no matter
what may happen here today, the record should reflect the benefits of
this program. This program was good, and the amendment offers language
which sets forth findings, and the findings state the positive impacts
of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, including assisting local
governments, supporting jobs, and impacting approximately 100,000
properties.
The highlights of this amendment about the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program talk about the positive benefits to the communities that the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program benefited--it helped local
governments, and the fact is, Mr. Chair, local governments really did
benefit from this program, and the record should reflect and the bill
should report language that talks about those benefits.
I'd like to just say this as well, Mr. Chair. The fact is that it is
true that once an abandoned property is sitting there on the tax rolls
after a certain amount of time somebody may at some point buy it, as
the gentleman on the other side says. But what happens in the meantime?
In the meantime, the grass grows, dead cats and dogs get left there. In
the meantime, the windows are broken. In the meantime, people's
property values plummet. In the meantime, we have an attractive
nuisance where young people might be pulled in and taken advantage of.
Horrible stories have happened, Mr. Chair.
So the gentleman has been right in his argument that sometime in the
future maybe somebody will buy this rundown, abandoned, stripped-out
property with no copper left in it, with neighbors who have just been
decimated in the value of their homes, but that would be a far cry from
what we could do. And if we're going to terminate this program, which
has helped so many local governments, we should at least put language
and findings in the record which reflect the positive aspects of this
program, including the 93,000 jobs that we're getting rid of and
[[Page H1879]]
the 100,000 properties that we've already helped, and the more that we
could help.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. If you want to talk about
attractive nuisances, let's talk about next April when people have to
pay their taxes. You're going to find out that government has become an
incredible attractive nuisance to most people.
We're talking about middle class is shrinking, yeah, we're taxing
them to death, and we're not only taxing them to death, but we're
spending money on programs like this that is not an investment but is
just a giveaway of tax dollars. Now we say we can't find the data to
support that we bought 100,000 properties, but let's say we bought
100,000 properties. Somebody has the money, the $6 billion going on $7
billion, that we've given them. That's about 20,000 homes per State.
Now you break that down to high-impact counties, compared to the
millions of homes out there that are in foreclosure, these 100,000
homes have already been abandoned or foreclosed. I will say abandoned
because the other side of the aisle wants to talk about abandoned
homes, but they're homes that somebody does not live in anymore, and
the people who lost them, yes, they lost them.
And how many jobs were created? Nobody can definitively give me a
number because nobody knows for sure how much money was spent on jobs.
Now, we can say we spent $6 billion, but understand clearly, we bought
properties with the bulk of that money. Now, how much money did we
spend after the local groups, the nonprofits took 17 percent off the
top for overhead and expenses, how much did we spend for jobs? Now, if
we had taken that $6 billion, going on $7 billion, and invested it in
residential construction, just $1 billion, as I said, in residential
construction creates $5.5 million in wages. It creates $1.98 billion in
spending on goods and services as a result of the new earnings and
profits that were created through that.
Now, those goods and services, those companies employ workers. The
wages are paid to workers. So you can definitively come up with a
number based on a $1 billion investment that we would generate in the
economy. Now, we spent $6 billion, and if we were able to create what
$1 billion would have created in private residential construction,
we're probably lucky, but the problem with that is investing in
residential construction is different than giving $6 billion away of
the taxpayers' money.
Now, the people listening to this debate understand, when you write
your check to the Federal Government next month, we just gave away $6
billion of it, we're going to give away another billion. Now, that
infuriates me. I would assume it infuriates you. You tell me, middle
class America, what this does to help you? I told you the amounts
earlier of how much you can earn to buy a house or how little you might
have to pay for the house, depending on whoever bought the house what
they want to charge and who they want to sell it to.
So the basis I would argue here is the amendment does nothing. I
oppose it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. May I inquire as to the remaining time?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me only add this: that this language,
which should be put in the bill and this amendment calls for, sets
forth in the record the positive impacts of the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program, which should be memorialized in the bill, things
like job creation, saving the neighborhood, saving local governments
exorbitant costs. The Republican caucus has not created a single job,
and now they're even eliminating jobs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1620
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. The facts speak for themselves.
When you can say $1.3 billion was given away to nongovernmental
agencies--and I have listed the groups, and I have told you how many
millions of your dollars were given to these groups that they get to
keep--they are not coming back to us right now. These people are going
to keep these moneys, and there is a wide array of things they can use
them for. This was a bad investment. In fact, it was not an investment.
It was a bad giveaway.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part B of House Report 112-34.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment
at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, after line 25, insert the following new section:
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that, if the amounts that are rescinded
and canceled under section 2 of this Act were instead made
available under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
authorized under the provisions of law specified in
subsections (a) and (b)(2) of section 3 of this Act, the
Congress could have helped to rebuild neighborhoods
throughout the United States where foreclosures on home
mortgage loans are common.
Page 5, line 1, strike ``SEC. 2.'' and insert ``SEC. 3.''.
Page 5, line 11, strike ``SEC. 3.'' and insert ``SEC. 4.''.
Page 6, line 17, ``SEC. 3.'' and insert ``SEC. 5.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
my amendment.
My amendment would state simply that the Congress acknowledges that
we could have helped to rebuild neighborhoods where foreclosures are
common through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, or as we know
it, NSP.
You see, my Republican colleagues are offering today a bill that
would terminate NSP. This program, I believe, has been particularly
successful in helping to rebuild neighborhoods in my district and
throughout Orange County, California. The city of Anaheim, which I
represent, acquired and rehabilitated 17 single-family homes and sold
them to low- to moderate-income families.
It also acquired and rehabilitated a four-unit multifamily complex
for lease to persons with developmental disabilities. This project was
crucial because it is very difficult to find properties for people who
have developmental disabilities.
In Anaheim, one in 303 homes is in foreclosure. Not only does this
have an emotional impact, as you can imagine, when you lose your home--
it is the instability, especially for your kids; parents are worried,
and children can see that--but it also has economic impacts on our
neighborhoods. With the help of this program, the city of Anaheim
improved neighborhoods and provided the families with homes.
And I know that my colleague on the Republican side also represents
Anaheim. And if he would have spoken to some of the staff from Anaheim,
he would have realized that they really believe that this program was
important to keep blight from happening in neighborhoods and to attempt
to keep the prices of the homes level for those families that were
struggling to make their payments and to stay in their homes and to
keep up their neighborhoods.
The city of Garden Grove, where one in 348 homes is in foreclosure,
also acquired and rehabilitated property. They acquired and
rehabilitated five
[[Page H1880]]
homes and sold them to first-time home buyers. And, of course, the city
of Santa Ana, where one in 252 homes is in foreclosure, they acquired
and rehabilitated 13 single-family homes and 27 condos, and they sold
them to first-time home buyers. They acquired and renovated a 13-unit
multifamily complex and have leased them now to low-income families.
They assisted five families with down payment assistance, and they are
also in the process of acquiring 16 single-family homes that will be
sold to first-time home buyers.
Now, I know that my colleague on the other side mentioned that some
of this money went to nongovernmental agencies, to private companies;
but I would like him to really take a look at the fact that cities
really stepped up to work very hard to keep families in their homes, to
keep neighborhoods afloat as we work through this very difficult time
of the financial meltdown and the housing crisis.
In Orange County, the Neighborhood Housing Services, with the
assistance of what we call NSP Round One moneys, acquired and
rehabilitated a total of 11 single-family homes and condos. And with
Round Two moneys, the Neighborhood Housing Services acquired and
rehabilitated 17 single-family homes/condos and sold them to first-time
home buyers.
This program has helped to rebuild our neighborhoods, to stabilize
our neighborhoods, and have given families the opportunity to become
homeowners. So it is my hope that my colleagues on the other side
reconsider eliminating what I believe has been a successful program in
Orange County, California, one that has benefited not just those who
got to buy their first home but those neighborhoods and those cities
that so desperately needed to keep up the neighborhood and get people
in their homes.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My good friend, she mentioned the Neighborhood Housing Services of
Orange County. They got $7.5 million for 17 houses. Orange County,
overall in the whole county, got $4.3 million for the whole county. You
have to say, is that a good investment? We have spent $6 billion on
this program, and we're saying, let's not spend the last billion. And
Congress could have rebuilt neighborhoods. There is only $1 billion
left.
Now I don't see that the U.S. neighborhoods have been rebuilt for $6
billion. I see $6 billion that has been given away of taxpayers'
moneys. And Orange County itself, which is a huge area, irrespective of
the few examples that were given by my good friend, only got $4.3
million. That's not equitable.
San Bernardino County, one of the hardest hit counties in this
country, got a mere $33.2 million. One of the hardest hit. That's the
county. That had to go to all these cities that did not receive any
distribution in NSP1 or NSP2, nothing. And they're having to take--and
in Orange County, with $4.3 million--take that and distribute it to all
these cities that did not receive a dime. That's not fair.
And to say that we spent $6 billion--and all the counties and cities
haven't been rehabilitated, it's obvious--and to say we're going to
spend $1 billion more, and that's going to solve the problem? No, it's
not. It's just going to take it and put us another $1 billion in debt
that our children and our grandchildren are going to have to pay for.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I would remind the
gentleman from California that some cities, it's true, did not receive
moneys and did not go through the process of buying up homes, et
cetera, and trying to get neighborhoods back. One of the reasons they
did not is it's really a competitive situation. You have to want to do
it, and some cities simply did not have the need or did not want to do
it. I mean, I would assume that in some places in Orange County, you
could probably do as the gentleman said, and that is to sell at a fire
sale some of those homes on Newport Beach or other places.
But with respect to the central portion of Orange County where you
really have households that are working families, this program was
very, very important; and the city stepped up. The city of Anaheim, the
city of Garden Grove, the city of Santa Ana stepped up to do the right
thing to work through and to ensure that their neighborhoods again were
stabilized and to get new people into those homes. Again, I do believe
that it worked for those cities, and I would encourage a ``yes'' vote
on this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The problem I have with the program--I have just mentioned San
Bernardino County; and according to the county, there is no one at the
county level that would support the current NSP program. And they state
very specifically the county might have supported the concept of NSP,
but this is before they fell victim to a complete lack of direction
from HUD, mixed messages from HUD, and gross misallocations of the
awards that were released. And the county, in support of my bill, said,
We believe it is a means for Congress to get its financial house in
order, just like the challenges we are facing at the local government
level.
{time} 1630
And not only is government facing challenges, the American people are
facing challenges. They're working hard. They're trying to support
their families. They're trying to make their house payments. Nothing in
this last billion dollars will stop one foreclosure from occurring.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Schweikert).
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, look, I've been a Member now of this
august body for 75-some days. And I'm starting to learn much of what we
do seems to be more based in theater than reality.
If I read this amendment correctly, what we're trying to do here is
add language that basically says, well, we could repair neighborhoods
with the last billion dollars. Of course it didn't happen with the
previous money.
But think about it, if we take a step back. What's the money been
used ultimately for? It's been used to bail out lenders. In many ways
this is another back-door bailout to the very folks that my
constituents are furious with, and handing them more government dollars
in the name that, well, this time we passed the cash to those lenders,
but this time we did it through local governments.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Richardson
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in
part B of House Report 112-34.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this Act
shall take effect on, and any reference in this Act to the
date of the enactment of this Act shall be construed to refer
to, the earlier of the following dates:
(1) The date of the expiration of the 5-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) The first date occurring after the date of the
enactment of this Act on which both of the following
conditions exist:
(A) The percentage of existing mortgages on 1- to 4-family
residential properties located in the United States and under
which the outstanding principal balance exceeds the value of
the property subject to the mortgage is 10 percent or less.
(B) In the case of the State that, on such date, has the
highest percentage, among all States, of existing mortgages
on 1- to 4-family residential properties located in the State
and under which the outstanding principal balance exceeds the
value of the property subject to the mortgage, such
percentage for such State is 15 percent or less.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Richardson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
[[Page H1881]]
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, the Richardson amendment to H.R. 861,
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act which we've been
talking about this afternoon, is a vehicle to discuss a program that
was really urgently needed when it was established, when it was funded
in the Recovery Act, and why it's still needed today.
The Richardson amendment is simple, it's straightforward, and it's
necessary. It takes the politics out of it. It says that the programs
should be terminated based upon whether they're needed or not, not
based upon using funny numbers.
Now, let's talk about this particular bill. I'm suggesting, with the
Richardson amendment, that we could consider two things: One, that it
would be based upon a termination of 5 years after the initial date of
enactment. Two, that the date would be triggered when the national
average of underwater mortgages would be at a point that it's 10
percent or less, or in the highest State that happens to have high
mortgages, that it would be at least 15 percent, and if it didn't meet
that test then it would be terminated.
Now, the most current data available in the third quarter of 2010
reported by CoreLogic, a leading provider of mortgage information,
indicates that of the Nation's 47.8 million residential mortgages,
approximately 10.8 million, that's 22.5 percent, are underwater.
In Nevada the percentage is 67 percent. In Arizona it's 48.6 percent.
In Florida it's 45.5 percent. And in Mr. Miller's and mine, our great
State, California, it's 31.6 percent.
I will insert into the Record a chart indicating the underwater
mortgage percentages for each State in the Nation.
Now, clearly the housing crisis is far from over, and anyone who
thinks that we've stabilized the neighborhoods in this country is not
really living in the real world; certainly, not with Americans like who
live in my district.
So now it's time to not terminate NSP. Instead, it should be phased
out gradually after it serves the purpose of what it was intended to
do.
I offered the Richardson amendment because the NSP grants provide
critical assistance to State and local governments and nonprofit
developers that collaborate. How do they collaborate? To demolish or
rehabilitate blighted properties, to establish financing mechanisms
such as down payment programs for low to middle-income home buyers, and
it also helps the grantees with at least 25 percent of the funds to be
appropriated to house individuals and families whose incomes do not
exceed 50 percent of the area's median income.
When I look at this--it's also important: NSP funds and is helping to
redevelop hard-hit communities and to create jobs. In fact, 9,700
blighted properties have been demolished or have been cleared.
HUD estimates that NSP will support 93,000 jobs nationwide. I think
we need those.
And then finally, when we look at some of the groups that are
supporting these programs, it's not about who's on this side of the
aisle and who's on the other one. It's the National Association of
Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
That's what the housing officials in my district are talking about--
having a way to be able to solve the problem.
March 7, 2011.
Hon. Spencer Bachus,
Chairman, Financial Services Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bachus: I am writing to express my strong
opposition to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program (NSP) Termination Act. NSP has helped cities across
the country address and mitigate the deleterious effects that
vacant and blighted properties have on neighborhoods and
property values. As a result of the foreclosure crisis,
communities throughout the country, including Los Angeles,
face significant challenges as foreclosed homes create a
vicious cycle of blight, neighborhood decay, and lower
property values. NSP has been instrumental in helping to stem
this downward spiral by addressing the negative effects of
abandoned and foreclosed properties.
In the City of Los Angeles, where, over the past four
years, we have an estimated 39,000 foreclosed properties, NSP
has played a critical role stabilizing our fragile housing
market and helping to construct and rehabilitate a total of
1,200 housing units. Furthermore, at a time when unemployment
in our construction industry is at an all-time high, NSP has
created more than 900 jobs spurring Los Angeles' economic
recovery.
Given the economic challenges facing cities today, I urge
the committee to continue funding for the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program.
Very truly yours,
Antonio R. Villaraigosa,
Mayor.
TABLE 1: NEGATIVE EQUITY BY STATE*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Properties With a Mortgage Outstanding $ Outstanding
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Negative Equity Equity Negative Equity Near** Negative Mortgage Debt Loan-to-
Mortgages Mortgages Mortgages Share Equity share Total Property Value Outstanding Net Homeowner Equity Value Ratio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... 340,665 35,610 19,188 10.5% 5.6% 65,482,055,550 43,970,078,384 21,511,977,166 67%
Alaska.......................... 87,286 7,801 5,160 8.9% 5.9% 23,773,756,773 15,920,518,570 7,853,238,203 67%
Arizona......................... 1,333,398 648,387 63,304 48.6% 4.7% 263,693,025,194 243,760,655,061 19,932,370,133 92%
Arkansas........................ 238,011 27,580 14,360 11.6% 6.0% 37,303,484,103 27,450,225,612 9,853,258,491 74%
California...................... 6,870,914 2,172,700 299,067 31.6% 4.4% 2,864,273,476,858 2,008,766,937,342 855,506,539,516 70%
Colorado........................ 1,125,434 221,097 91,187 19.6% 8.1% 301,289,945,528 217,120,459,818 84,169,485,710 72%
Connecticut..................... 816,560 97,244 29,957 11.9% 3.7% 294,814,146,661 171,517,175,208 123,296,971,453 58%
Delaware........................ 179,322 23,906 8,937 13.3% 5.0% 47,059,588,802 31,949,546,484 15,110,042,318 68%
Florida......................... 4,459,951 2,029,128 182,323 45.5% 4.1% 853,646,775,841 757,212,788,734 96,433,987,107 89%
Georgia......................... 1,605,825 449,971 120,854 28.0% 7.5% 319,934,838,691 255,319,644,351 64,615,194,340 80%
Hawaii.......................... 229,600 24,664 8,280 10.7% 3.6% 117,791,198,842 65,339,432,694 52,451,766,148 55%
Idaho........................... 243,589 61,566 12,927 25.3% 5.3% 48,204,517,879 35,737,930,659 12,466,587,220 74%
Illinois........................ 2,227,602 431,050 108,239 19.4% 4.9% 534,999,520,161 377,625,407,977 157,374,112,184 71%
Indiana......................... 603,484 68,196 28,936 11.3% 4.8% 91,672,823,585 64,195,877,062 27,476,946,523 70%
Iowa............................ 334,689 28,976 14,366 8.7% 4.3% 51,019,867,858 34,150,823,254 16,869,044,604 67%
Kansas.......................... 295,839 32,787 16,284 11.1% 5.5% 53,431,665,604 37,737,206,158 15,694,459,446 71%
Kentucky........................ 279,187 24,880 14,092 8.9% 5.0% 47,549,597,328 32,335,774,221 15,213,823,107 68%
Louisiana....................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Maine........................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Maryland........................ 1,358,672 298,554 67,580 22.0% 5.0% 433,409,001,574 298,109,259,531 135,299,742,043 69%
Massachusetts................... 1,494,099 222,599 51,704 14.9% 3.5% 546,053,917,907 329,062,834,394 216,991,083,513 60%
Michigan........................ 1,381,232 519,716 76,403 37.6% 5.5% 198,169,103,537 169,373,043,369 28,796,060,168 85%
Minnesota....................... 554,535 90,090 27,608 16.2% 5.0% 124,901,317,584 81,787,965,185 43,113,352,399 65%
Mississippi..................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Missouri........................ 779,328 122,543 44,131 15.7% 5.7% 137,735,363,892 98,445,466,785 39,289,897,107 71%
Montana......................... 112,444 8,650 3,939 7.7% 3.5% 28,244,797,730 16,968,913,610 11,275,884,120 60%
Nebraska........................ 221,686 21,388 13,072 9.6% 5.9% 35,462,342,354 25,920,022,837 9,542,319,517 73%
Nevada.......................... 586,515 390,192 23,037 66.5% 3.9% 103,720,996,430 123,072,698,809 -19,351,702,379 119%
New Hampshire................... 211,489 37,488 11,351 17.7% 5.4% 51,974,243,397 35,837,313,271 16,136,930,126 69%
New Jersey...................... 1,882,603 286,293 78,230 15.2% 4.2% 678,172,085,088 415,710,918,011 262,461,167,077 61%
New Mexico...................... 234,004 29,375 10,847 12.6% 4.6% 55,009,963,072 36,551,762,344 18,458,200,728 66%
New York........................ 1,838,917 129,633 40,013 7.0% 2.2% 835,125,621,032 415,765,632,474 419,359,988,558 50%
North Carolina.................. 1,521,406 160,007 101,945 10.5% 6.7% 317,535,658,347 223,145,876,102 94,389,782,245 70%
North Dakota.................... 48,415 3,582 1,478 7.4% 3.1% 8,291,290,055 4,967,349,459 3,323,940,596 60%
Ohio............................ 2,204,754 441,379 137,601 20.0% 6.2% 324,006,229,515 242,010,058,915 81,996,170,600 75%
Oklahoma........................ 408,155 24,411 14,962 6.0% 3.7% 60,039,397,170 42,451,471,333 17,587,925,837 71%
Oregon.......................... 693,304 108,335 38,849 15.6% 5.6% 179,130,635,748 122,988,902,147 56,141,733,601 69%
Pennsylvania.................... 1,794,563 132,805 58,312 7.4% 3.2% 401,020,775,572 248,939,681,403 152,081,094,169 62%
Rhode Island.................... 227,897 45,511 8,120 20.0% 3.6% 64,414,910,589 39,693,719,643 24,721,190,946 62%
South Carolina.................. 598,223 85,226 37,091 14.2% 6.2% 131,254,482,178 92,349,858,129 38,904,624,049 70%
South Dakota.................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Tennessee....................... 962,894 133,956 67,386 13.9% 7.0% 166,572,683,790 118,119,771,078 48,452,912,712 71%
Texas........................... 3,286,505 367,954 194,944 11.2% 5.9% 602,239,776,419 418,772,404,728 183,467,371,691 70%
Utah............................ 472,867 98,093 30,339 20.7% 6.4% 114,775,697,922 84,499,611,037 30,276,086,885 74%
Vermont......................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
[[Page H1882]]
Virginia........................ 1,252,705 276,910 73,763 22.1% 5.9% 419,006,811,369 295,429,338,477 123,577,472,892 71%
Washington...................... 1,407,416 209,577 75,920 14.9% 5.4% 441,789,933,181 292,406,352,738 149,383,580,443 66%
Washington, DC.................. 100,340 15,240 4,513 15.2% 4.5% 49,085,895,573 28,782,522,751 20,303,372,822 59%
West Virginia................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Wisconsin....................... 619,792 81,267 30,026 13.1% 4.8% 120,246,415,775 80,769,544,053 39,476,871,722 67%
Wyoming......................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nation...................... 47,871,838 10,780,236 2,376,159 22.5% 5.0% 12,711,358,863,378 8,850,515,659,256 3,860,843,204,122 70%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This data only includes properties with a mortgage. Non-mortgaged properties are by definition not included.
** Defined as properties within 5% of being in a negative equity position.
Source: CoreLogic. The data provided is for use only by the primary recipient or the primary recipient's publication. This data may not be re-sold, republished or licensed to any other source,
including publications and sources owned by the primary recipient's parent company without prior written permission from CoreLogic. Any Corelogic data used for publication or broadcast, in
whole or in part, must be sourced as coming from CoreLogic, a real estate data and analytics company. For questions, analysis or interpretation of the data contact Lori Guyton at
[email protected] or Bill Campbell at [email protected]. Data provided may not be modified without the prior written permission of CoreLogic. Do not use the data in any unlawful manner.
This data is compiled from public records, contributory databases and proprietary analytics, and its accuracy is dependent upon these sources.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I guess the question should be how long do we need to wait? How many
more billions of dollars needs to be given away? We've already spent $6
billion. I guess we could spend more if somebody wanted to.
And when we talk about phasing out a program, it speaks to the
argument that we need to spend more money on a program and continue the
program. I think we've already spent too much money.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from
California.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Miller, the question that was asked is how long
we should wait. In my amendment that's my exact point. It's not how
long we should wait; it's whether it's needed or not. So if we find
that the mortgages are above 10 or 15 percent, then the program should
exist.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I reclaim my time. On this issue,
how long we wait is predicated on how much we are going to spend. And
my colleagues on this side of the aisle believe the American people,
the taxpayers have given too much of their money away, and they are
saying we want it stopped, and we want you to be responsible for this
money.
If this were our dollars, and we're getting in her purse and my
wallet and handing the money out, that's a prerogative we have. That's
not what's occurring, other than we are taxpayers too.
We've just got our hands in your pocket and your purse and spent your
money on a giveaway program.
I ask for a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, in regards to the comments that have
been recently stated, for the largest city that's in our State of
California, from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, he states that the NSP has
helped cities across the country to address and mitigate the terrible
effects of what this crisis has done.
In closing, what I would also say is that my amendment is really
building upon what I hope both sides of the aisle would consider, and
that is, this program should be based upon if there is a need, then it
should assist. If there is no longer a need, then I would support
phasing it out.
And what I would also say is that the key point to keep in mind is,
when we're looking at this program, this program, people need--it's for
the counties and the cities to determine to be able to help improve
their programs. And that's the way the program is intended. And if
there's unintended consequences or things that can be done to support
the program, I would work with my colleague on the other side of the
aisle to fix those changes.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous
consent to reclaim my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I am happy to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for up to 3\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chairman, on this Richardson amendment, it's
interesting because I always like amendments that are trying to do
something technical. But where I'm finding actually sort of a problem
in the flow of logic is--think about this: We have a neighborhood
stabilization program down to its last billion dollars, we've already
spent what, 6 billion? And the concept written in this amendment is
saying that, well, it's going to keep acquiring one, two, three to four
units, fourplexes, properties, and it's going to keep acquiring them
until a certain number of mortgages are--only this percentage are
underwater, or the mortgage value is greater than the value of the
house. Does that seem like I'm going in the right direction?
Ms. RICHARDSON. Fairly.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But here's the classic problem in the design of that.
If the Neighborhood Stabilization Act does what I think it does, it's
either a municipality, a nonprofit, this and that, buying a property,
sometimes rehabbing it, sometimes removing the boarded-up windows,
sometimes just buying a property and competing with the private
investors and the first-time home buyers in that neighborhood and then
turning around and putting it back on the market.
Well, if one of our problems out there is we have a glut of
properties on the market, and that's one of the things holding down our
values, and I'm going to continue to support a program that's going to
drop another billion dollars buying properties and then putting them
back on the market. We have a circular logic here where I can't imagine
the mechanics within this, well meaning as they may be, actually have
any basis in economics or particularly real estate economics.
{time} 1640
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The other point that is significant and that needs to be dealt with
here is the $6 billion that has already been given away. That money
continues to recycle with those groups. It should. As to the cities,
the counties, the nonprofits, when they buy a house, refurbish it and
sell it and when the money comes back at whatever level, they could
take that money and buy another piece of property.
Nothing in my bill does anything with the $6 billion that's out
there. It just says: We're not going to give you another $1 billion.
We're going to try to give that back to the taxpayers.
If we could get the $6 billion back and could find a way to do it, I
believe we'd be trying to attack that vein, too, but that will not
occur and cannot occur as the money has already been given away.
They're going to continue to recycle it, hopefully to some benefit--
hopefully somebody will benefit from this--but it's $6 billion given
away. My colleague was exactly correct in his statements. As for the $1
billion that we have not given away, we're saying it is time to stop
giving away taxpayer dollars.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my
remaining time.
[[Page H1883]]
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 30 seconds
remaining.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Just to summarize again what my amendment is talking about, it is the
ability of State and local governments to revitalize, to rehab and to
help the neighborhoods so that those property values can go up and so
we can improve the economy. I would venture to say it's not giving away
the money. It's actually helping to revitalize and stimulate our
economy.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Waters
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 112-34.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 5. NOTIFICATION TO NSP GRANTEES REQUIRED.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall inform each covered entity (as such term is
defined in subsection (b)) in writing--
(1) that the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has been
terminated;
(2) of the name and contact information of such entity's
Member of Congress that represents its district; and
(3) that such entity should contact such Member of Congress
directly for assistance in mitigating foreclosed properties.
(b) Covered Entity Defined.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``covered entity'' means any nonprofit, government,
or other organization that--
(1) received or was scheduled to receive funding pursuant
to section 2301 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of
2008 (Public Law 110-289; 122 Stat. 2850) or title XII of
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 218) through the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program; and
(2) as a result of the rescission of funding under section
2 and termination of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
under section 3, will have funding for the entity made
available under the provision of law specified in section 2
rescinded and canceled.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, my amendment would simply require the
Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to send a
notice to all of the NSP grantees who would have received funding under
the third round of NSP that the program has been terminated. Further,
the notice would include the name and contact information for the
Member of Congress representing that grantee's district, along with a
notice saying that the grantee can contact that Member directly for
assistance in mitigating foreclosed properties.
As you know, we passed such an amendment off the floor when we took
up the FHA bill, which would have basically allowed the homeowners to
refinance their properties. So we have one such amendment with the
elimination of that program.
The CBO has scored this amendment at zero cost. Since the passage of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010,
which provided the NSP funds that are now subject to this repeal, my
office has received many calls from potential grantees about the status
of the program and what funding they could expect.
Because this act would rescind those funds nearly 8 months after the
passage of Dodd-Frank, I think that a simple letter from HUD, sent to
States, counties and cities, which would simply notify them of this
change, is in order. Moreover, a note to these States, counties and
cities saying that their Members of Congress are available to assist
them in mitigating foreclosed properties can help these grantees find
alternative solutions.
I've discovered there are any number of Members starting to do this
kind of thing. They are getting calls from their constituents who are
asking for help with loan modifications, and the Members are able to,
not get involved with the particular problem, but to help guide them
and send them to the proper servicers to get their loan modifications.
This is similar to that. Simply, our office has been able to say: Yes,
the program is no longer in existence, but this is what you can do if
there is an alternative.
Now, I would prefer not to rehash the back-and-forth we saw in the
Financial Services Committee about the termination of this program.
Members on my side of the aisle showed pictures, talked about the
problems caused by abandoned properties, and even showcased letters
from their districts, letters which talked about the good work NSP was
doing. Yet the debate, it seems, will not sway my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle. Instead, I think it's best to focus on my
amendment.
I believe this is a commonsense provision that can be accepted by
both sides of the aisle regardless of whether they agree with the
underlying bill. Grantees should be made aware of this funding
recision, and Members of Congress should stand ready to help
communities mitigate the effects of blighted properties.
I would ask for the support of my colleagues.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, the Congresswoman's
amendment does nothing to help at-risk borrowers, and the notification
the Congresswoman proposes would apply only to community groups,
leaders and speculators currently participating in the program. It is
not a serious attempt to address the underlying problem homeowners are
facing today.
If we are going to have a notification requirement, it makes more
sense to have the recipients of these funds to date notify taxpayers
how much, in what way they have spent taxpayer dollars and what return
taxpayers can expect from their investments.
Unfortunately, the answer is: none. Many have questioned HUD's
ability to properly monitor the use of such extraordinary amounts of
money being spent at the State level and in various ways. The Inspector
General of HUD has already identified multiple misuses of NSP money at
the State level. The GAO has questioned the information system in place
at HUD, and has questioned its ability to track the NSP funds.
I wish the amendment had said: Please continue using the $6 billion
in an appropriate way, and in some way, do everything you can to create
jobs for the American workers with the $6 billion we've given you.
It does not say that, and I cannot support the amendment the way it
is drafted.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have heard so many convoluted arguments
today about this legislation from the opposite side of the aisle.
My colleague from California, my friend and someone I highly respect,
knows that he does not have to wish what an amendment would say. If he
is interested in an amendment, he can offer it. My colleague from
California did not offer the amendment that he has just alluded to, and
he did not suggest when we were in committee that somehow he would like
to have an alternative. So I find it rather curious that he would come
to the floor and start wishing what my amendment would say.
Secondly, I want to straighten out something. My colleague from
California keeps talking about how this bill does not stop any
foreclosures. The NSP legislation was not intended to stop
foreclosures. It was intended to do exactly what the name implies,
which is to stabilize communities by taking these boarded up and
abandoned properties, rehabbing them or tearing them down so that they
discontinue the devaluing of the properties of those homeowners who are
trying to keep
[[Page H1884]]
their properties up and stay in the community.
{time} 1650
If he, in fact, was concerned about helping homeowners, he would have
supported the FHA refi programs. That program, he voted against. The
FHA refi program was basically a program for middle class people who
paid their bills on time, but who simply knew that their homes were
underwater. They were not worth what they thought they should be worth
when they got into the market, and they want to refinance them. He
voted against that.
So I am not so sure, when he talks about this NSP program not helping
anybody stay in their homes, whether or not he really, really wants to
help people stay in their homes when he is voting against something
like the FHA refi.
As for jobs, this bill creates jobs; and I think my colleague knows
that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Well, I did not introduce an amendment because I introduced the bill.
I think that bill speaks for itself.
But I am glad that my good friend admitted that this was not meant to
mitigate the foreclosure process for people going through. I am glad
you admitted that, because that is not what your amendment says. It
says that: such entities should contact such Members of Congress
directly for assistance in mitigating foreclosed properties. You can't
mitigate a foreclosure when you don't help anybody with the
foreclosure.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chair, first, this is one of those few moments
I get to stand behind the microphone; and I say, having met the good
woman from California, she has actually been very gentle to me as a
freshman, so far.
But one of my concerns here is very, very simple: there is $6 billion
out there. And I won't call it a slush fund. Back in my days as
Maricopa County Treasurer, we would call it a revolving fund. There is
$6 billion out there already that goes out, and if the property is
sold, comes back; and that I believe operates for 5 years from the
enactment of the bill.
Well, a letter like this goes out and says, Oh, well, the last $1
billion isn't going to be there for you, but please keep using the $6
billion you already have to go do more good works in the neighborhood.
My great fear is something like this doesn't really accomplish much
good.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself the balance of my
time.
As much as I respect my good friend--and she knows--we have worked
together on a lot of issues, and I don't believe anything between us
has ever been personal in all the years we have known each other. And
nothing in this debate is personal. We both are well intended. We both
really want to help the American people. And I say that from the heart,
and you know that. And I know your efforts are for the right purposes.
But good people can disagree in a good way. And on this amendment, I
have to respectfully disagree, and I would ask for a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Waters
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 112-34.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 5. STUDY ON IMPACTS REQUIRED.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall conduct a study to determine the
approximate number of foreclosed and abandoned properties
that will not be purchased or rehabilitated with amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available under section 2301
of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law
110-289; 122 Stat. 2850; 42 U.S.C. 5301 note) in the district
of each Member of Congress as a result of the rescission and
termination of funding under sections 2 and 3 of this Act.
(b) Report.-- Not later than the expiration of the 60-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report setting
forth the results of the study under subsection (a).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment would direct the Secretary of HUD to conduct a study to
determine the approximate number of foreclosed and abandoned properties
that will not be purchased or rehabilitated in the district of each
Member of Congress as a result of the rescission and termination of
funding under this act. The Secretary would then report these findings
to Congress. CBO has scored this amendment at zero cost.
Now, personally, I do not believe that the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program should be terminated because NSP creates jobs. So far, about
72,000 housing units are projected to be impacted by round one of NSP.
HUD projects that an additional 24,000 housing units are projected to
be impacted by NSP2.
Each of these projects requires the work of contractors, such as
roofers and painters and landscapers and pavers. And through the
program, other real estate professionals like Realtors and title
insurance agents have also received employment and contracting
opportunities. This NSP program really does create jobs, and this is a
program that creates jobs by doing important work in the community.
Contrary to what some say, the problem of homes abandoned by banks is
common, and it is difficult for municipalities to mitigate their
effects. As GAO has noted in a report from November 2010, servicers
sometimes charge off properties or fail to formally foreclose on
borrowers because the costs of maintaining the property post-
foreclosure exceed the costs of just writing the property off. These
charge-offs typically occur after the foreclosure proceedings were
initiated. However, borrowers aren't aware that the servicers are
stopping short of taking their title.
Because borrowers think that their servicer has finalized the
foreclosure process, they may move away and become unreachable by the
municipal agency now dealing with the upkeep of the property.
Additionally, it may become logistically difficult or cost
prohibitive to track down thousands of borrowers now responsible for
property maintenance, taxes, and code violations because of servicers'
failure to formally foreclose.
Additionally, NSP provides an alternative to speculative investors
purchasing foreclosed properties. Unlike homeowners and municipalities,
some speculative investors often purchase properties for cash and in
bulk, sometimes sight unseen, buying them up before others have a
chance to bid. Some of these investors may not resell properties to
owner-occupants, but let them sit on the market without any
improvements while the investor waits for housing prices to rebound.
Alternatively, anecdotal evidence suggests that investor-owners
sometimes rent properties out to tenants with little or no
rehabilitation or maintenance of the property.
We had a field hearing in Minneapolis in January 2010. At that field
hearing, State Senator Linda Higgins said, ``Homes are being snapped up
by investors. Some are clueless about how to rehabilitate a building
and get good tenants. Others think that the laws really aren't meant
for them. They buy a house for pennies, paint the wall, scrub the
kitchen appliances, and rent it out. They forget the small details like
the condemnation order and the requirements for lifting the
condemnation and getting a new certificate of
[[Page H1885]]
occupancy and the need for a rental license.''
That is not to say that all private investment is bad, but we must
recognize that the work NSP is doing is a critical counterweight to
some of these bad practices. For all of these reasons, I will defend
the work that NSP is doing across the country. However, we are here now
because we need to talk about this amendment and what it would do once
this program is terminated.
My NSP study amendment would provide critical information to Members
of Congress. If Members knew the number of abandoned and foreclosed
properties in their district that will not be mitigated because of this
rescission of funds, they would be better prepared to help grantees
access responsible private market sources of funds that can help
community revitalization. I would ask my colleagues' support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My friend has said that we need to determine the approximate number
of foreclosed and abandoned properties that will be purchased or
rehabilitated because of termination of NSP. That is impossible. We
have no idea how many times the money will be recycled, because the $6
billion that is out there could be recycled over and over and over. We
don't know. We don't know how much money is going to be given away to
somebody who bought the house, how much is going to be taken back in
the sale. So that is an unknown quantity.
But my good friend did say that 72,000 units were impacted by NSP 1.
So, America, for $6 billion you impacted 72,000 units. How do you feel
about that? Now, I am not sure what we did to impact them, but we
impacted them. We sure spent a lot of your money impacting them.
Now, at the same time, we are asking HUD to do a study. That is like
the fox guarding the hen house. I am really sorry. Because when I asked
Mercedes Marquez of HUD at our committee hearing to discuss where the
money went, she finally said, The money is going to homeowners and to
American citizens. And they strongly support the program and they are
strongly encouraging the President to veto this bill, should it get to
him.
So let's just have the very organization do a study on a program that
they said they support and love and, if we are successful in getting
the bill passed, would encourage the administration to veto it.
That is the biggest conflict of interest I have ever had presented to
me to vote on, but it is an easy conflict of interest that I say is a
conflict of interest. I would strongly encourage my colleagues to vote
``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
{time} 1700
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Maloney
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 112-34.
Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk which is
in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 5. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds have the
potential to rehabilitate housing units in all 50 states:
(A) There are 13369 homes in Alabama that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(B) There are 974 homes in Arkansas that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(C) There are 52511 homes in Arizona that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(D) There are 92186 homes in California that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(E) There are 20671 homes in Colorado that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(F) There are 8501 homes in Connecticut that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(G) There are 224 homes in the District of Columbia that
have been vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to
receive funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(H) There are 549 homes in Delaware that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(I) There are 203882 homes in Florida that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(J) There are 92950 homes in Georgia that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(K) There are 754 homes in Hawaii that have been vacant 90
or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(L) There are 2609 homes in Iowa that have been vacant 90
or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(M) There are 375 homes in Idaho that have been vacant 90
or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(N) There are 49043 homes in Illinois that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(O) There are 74100 homes in Indiana that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(P) There are 2311 homes in Kansas that have been vacant 90
or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(Q) There are 1191 homes in Kentucky that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(R) There are 2439 homes in Louisiana that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(S) There are 7331 homes in Massachusetts that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(T) There are 1878 homes in Maryland that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(U) There are 167 homes in Maine that have been vacant 90
or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(V) There are 120365 homes in Michigan that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(W) There are 13937 homes in Minnesota that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(X) There are 20084 homes in Missouri that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(Y) There are 4431 homes in Mississippi that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(Z) There are 172 homes in Montana that have been vacant 90
or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(AA) There are 4510 homes in North Carolina that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(BB) There are 7 homes in North Dakota that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(CC) There are 2911 homes in Nebraska that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(DD) There are 155 homes in New Hampshire that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(EE) There are 10859 homes in New Jersey that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(FF) There are 41297 homes in Nevada that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(GG) There are 16422 homes in New York that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
[[Page H1886]]
(HH) There are 116325 homes in Ohio that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(II) There are 2961 homes in Oklahoma that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(JJ) There are 32 homes in Oregon that have been vacant 90
or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(KK) There are 847 homes in Pennsylvania that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(LL) There are 3142 homes in Rhode Island that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(MM) There are 11172 homes in South Carolina that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(NN) There are 18141 homes in Tennessee that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(OO) There are 33982 homes in Texas that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(PP) There are 85 homes in Utah that have been vacant 90 or
more days and could be eligible to receive funding under the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(QQ) There are 5638 homes in Virginia that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(RR) There are 71 homes in Washington that have been vacant
90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding
under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(SS) There are 5413 homes in Wisconsin that have been
vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive
funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
(2) Congress finds that by voting to terminate the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program these housing units may
not be able to be rehabilitated and may remain vacant.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act which will quantify
the number of vacant homes across the country and add findings to the
bill listing these numbers in every State so that it will be
transparent exactly what the impact will be in not continuing this
program that is needed.
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program is one of four programs that
my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting
to eliminate. All of these programs in one way or another help to
stabilize neighborhoods and help to provide affordable housing to keep
people in their homes.
Economists have testified before our committee and other committees
that housing is as much as 25 percent of our economy, so it is critical
that we do what we can to stabilize housing, not just for the benefit
of the families benefiting from the housing, but also for their
neighbors, for their localities, for their cities, for their States and
for the overall economy.
Foreclosed properties lead to volatile housing prices, blight and the
deterioration of communities. The mayor of New York cited at a recent
meeting of the delegation how important the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program has been to help New York recover from the housing crisis. He
said that over 500 units were rehabbed and converted into affordable
rental housing through the three rounds of funding that have come
forward.
Now, some of my colleagues say this is not important or should not be
a priority, but I can tell you it has been a lifesaving program,
particularly to the families that are living there now and to their
neighbors and to the housing prices and the neighbors where these
housing units are located.
Funding has also been used to assist multifamily buildings in
distress and has provided long-term affordability for renters. It also
has provided jobs. The two main priorities of most communities across
this country are housing and jobs, and this program helps provide both.
My amendment points out why the program is so desperately needed by
listing, through findings, the number of vacant homes that could be
eligible for funding by State. For example, in the home State of my
good friend and colleague Mr. Miller, California, there are over 92,000
homes that have been vacant for 90 or more days. In my State of New
York, there are over 16,000 homes that have been vacant for over 90
days.
The amendment clarifies that by terminating the program, vacant homes
across the country cannot benefit from the Neighborhood Stabilization
funds that could help acquire, demolish in some cases, rehab in some
cases and redevelop in other cases.
We have all seen the pictures on television of bulldozers plowing
vacant homes under because they are pulling down the prices and are a
blight in neighborhoods. This is one program that I have received phone
calls on, not just from the mayor in the city in which I serve, but in
cities across this country, where they have expressed the importance of
the program in helping them to stabilize and to recover from this
financial crisis caused primarily from the subprime mortgages.
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program accomplishes the dual goals of
incentivizing homeownership while also improving the housing stock in
neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures. Vacant, foreclosed properties
have a very negative effect on the surrounding neighborhoods and on the
property values of homes in those neighborhoods.
I believe this is an important amendment to highlight the potential
housing stock in this country that Neighborhood Stabilization funds
could be used to help, to rehab, to redevelop, to resell, to preserve
neighborhood property values in communities across our great country;
so I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Well, I know my good friend Mrs. Maloney has the best of intentions
in putting this amendment forward, but you are talking about the number
of homes in each State that have been vacant 90 days or more and could
ultimately receive funding under the NSP.
Well, the homes are not eligible to receive funding. Entities are
eligible to receive funding. Then those entities, whether they be
government or private sector, can go buy those homes. The problem is
they can buy any home they want to. The only restriction on the program
is that you can only earn up to 120 percent of the median income in an
area to qualify to buy the house, but it does not restrict the price of
the home being bought by the agency or the nonprofit. They can buy
virtually any home they want to, and that is one of the flaws in the
bill.
For example, if you have any home that has been vacant 90 days or
more, well, I have a partner of mine and myself, we had four homes for
sale in the last year that were on the market more than 90 days. The
houses were in perfect condition, but yet they remained on the market
for over 90 days. So based on this encouragement, one of these groups,
whether it be a city, a county, a private entity that is not affiliated
with government, could have bought those houses and resold the houses
for far less than they paid for them. That is the flaw with this
program here.
We are saying that what this wants us to do here is congressional
findings to the bill listing all 50 States and the District of Columbia
in separate subparagraphs and the number of homes in each State that
have been vacant 90 days or more and could be eligible to receive
funding in NSP.
What you mean is any home vacant for over 90 days would have to be
listed, because there is not a dollar amount in the bill saying how
much you can pay for a house. There is only a dollar amount saying how
much a person can earn to buy the house.
For example, if you live in Hawaii, you can make up to $73,825.20 a
year and qualify to buy a home. In California, you can earn $68,416.80
a year and qualify to buy a home. It might be an $800,000 home, but you
can still qualify, if they sell it to you cheap enough. In Virginia,
you could earn $74,382 and buy a home; in New Jersey, $78,367; in
Massachusetts, $72,384; in
[[Page H1887]]
Utah, $75,044; in Alaska, $76,786; in Colorado, $73,131; and in New
Hampshire, $79,411.
So the concept of this program is just helping people at the lower
rungs who are really struggling. I am not saying people aren't
struggling in these income brackets. That is not what I mean. But I
don't want the American people to have the perception we are just
trying to pick up deals and sell them to the lowest of income levels.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman is listing those numbers.
Would the gentleman tell us what the maximum number is he thinks people
should be eligible to get a house through the FHA and Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, I was in the
building industry from my early twenties, and the most excitement you
could ever see on a person's face was when they bought a home and they
were moving into that home and they thought about raising their family.
I would love a country that every person in this country has the
ability and the opportunity at some point in their life to buy a home.
But, in some fashion, lenders have put people in positions to put them
in homes that they could not afford, and those homes, in many cases the
individuals lost those homes through foreclosures. And those people,
who were well-intentioned, moved into homes that they could not afford
because the lender perhaps did not describe it exactly or they thought
the way the economy is going, in 3 or 4 or 5 years the house is going
to be worth 40 percent more than I paid and I am going to make a lot of
money. The problem is the market went the other way, as it did in 1974-
1975, 1981-1983, 1990-1996, and recently in 2007 to current the market
slid.
{time} 1710
And then we're saying we're going to go out and we're going to ask to
do a survey and we're going to list any home throughout the United
States in separate paragraphs that have been vacant for 90 days or more
that could be eligible. Well, all of them would be eligible.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. From my recollection, I was struck by the
gentleman talking about those figures, that they were too high, because
the last I heard, the gentleman and I were together in trying to
establish--
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Frank, what
specifically has been said throughout this debate, as if we're trying
to help people at the lower rungs, which I have no problem with, but
I'm saying that there was not a restriction on the amount that could be
paid for the house and there was not a requirement of how much it
should be sold for.
I ask for a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mrs. MALONEY. The problem is the other side of the aisle wants to
abolish four programs that help people stay in their homes, helps
affordable housing. They have no idea or no program to be helpful. They
say it will be taxpayers' money. But if they supported the Democratic
plan, it would have come out of an assessment on the banks.
I understand the chairman will be introducing a bill, and I would
like to cosponsor that.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just would say that the gentleman from
California previously had agreed with some of us that you could be able
to get a house in the FHA for up to $729,000.
Mrs. MALONEY. Reclaiming my time, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the
amendment.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 861--NSP Termination Act
(Rep. Miller, R-CA, and 4 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.
861, which would eliminate the Department of Housing and
Urban Development's Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)
and rescind $1 billion of funding from the program's current
efforts. This program allows States and select local
governments to stabilize neighborhoods by redeveloping
foreclosed and abandoned properties, leading to increased
property values and lowered risk of foreclosure from
remaining residents. The Administration is committed to
helping struggling American homeowners stay in their homes,
and has taken many steps over the last two years to stabilize
what was a rapidly-declining housing market. With many
communities still struggling with the impact of the severe
decline in the housing market, the Administration believes
that continued funding of the NSP grants is important to the
Nation's sustained economic recovery.
If the President is presented with H.R. 861, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
____
City of Los Angeles,
March 7, 2011.
Hon. Spencer Bachus,
Chairman, Financial Services Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bachus: I am writing to express my strong
opposition to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program (NSP) Termination Act. NSP has helped cities across
the country address and mitigate the deleterious effects that
vacant and blighted properties have on neighborhoods and
property values. As a result of the foreclosure crisis,
communities throughout the country, including Los Angeles,
face significant challenges as foreclosed homes create a
vicious cycle of blight, neighborhood decay, and lower
property values. NSP has been instrumental in helping to stem
this downward spiral by addressing the negative effects of
abandoned and foreclosed properties.
In the City of Los Angeles, where, over the past four
years, we have an estimated 39,000 foreclosed properties, NSP
has played a critical role stabilizing our fragile housing
market and helping to construct and rehabilitate a total of
1,200 housing units. Furthermore, at a time when unemployment
in our construction industry is at an all-time high, NSP has
created more than 900 jobs spurring Los Angeles' economic
recovery.
Given the economic challenges facing cities today, I urge
the committee to continue funding for the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program.
Very truly yours,
Antonio R. Villaraigosa,
Mayor.
____
Office of the Mayor,
City of Chicago,
March 8, 2011.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Frank: I understand that the Financial
Services committee is marking up two bills on Wednesday,
March 9, and marked up two more last week. I am concerned
that these bills would eliminate four important programs that
help both homeowners facing foreclosure and localities facing
increasing numbers of vacant and abandoned properties. I am
especially concerned with the NSP Termination Act, which
would terminate the Neighborhood Stabilization Program and
eliminate a third round of funding, known as NSP 3, crated
under the dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform bill.
Localities, like Chicago, are in desperate need of funding
such as NSP 3 to assist neighborhoods that are facing
unprecedented numbers of foreclosures. In 2010, for example,
there were 23,364 foreclosure filings in Chicago. To put this
in perspective, before the housing crisis began in 2007,
Chicago saw an average of 8,375 foreclosure filings per year.
As you are aware, foreclosures are devastating for
neighborhoods--vacant and abandoned properties depress home
values, weaken the tax base, breed crime, and drive up
government costs as municipalities bear the burden of
securing and maintaining them. Cities are already stretched
thin financially and need as much support as possible from
the federal government.
We have already used funds from previous NSP programs to
revitalize neighborhoods and create jobs. To date, the City
of Chicago has committed funds from the first two rounds of
NSP to assist 579 units in 120 properties in targeted hard-
hit areas, representing more than $75 million in NSP
investment. In addition, our NSP work thus far has created
344 construction jobs.
Using the $15.9 million the City of Chicago expects to
receive in NSP 3 funds, we estimate we can acquire and
rehabilitate approximately 70 vacant units and demolish
approximately 100 vacant, blighted units. These funds will
allow us to continue the work we have started in communities
across Chicago that have been hardest hit by foreclosure.
Every vacant property that is rehabbed moves us closer to
stabilizing these neighborhoods.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Daley,
Mayor.
[[Page H1888]]
____
March 1, 2011.
Re Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
Hon. Judy Biggert,
Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Luis Gutierrez,
Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairperson Biggert and Ranking Member Gutierrez: The
undersigned organizations representing local elected
officials, State and local program practitioners, and
community-based organizations write in support of the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program--NSP1, NSP2, and NSP3. The
collapse of the housing market in 2008 wreaked havoc on
neighborhoods across America; foreclosures were rampant and
abandoned homes dotted both urban and rural landscapes. This
national crisis threatened to bring down local economies.
Congress stepped in to provide funding for NSP1--the first
round of funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program--to abate the crisis. This funding was quickly
followed by NSP2 and NSP3 to further aid local neighborhoods.
While more funding is needed, the contribution these programs
have made have been important to abating the foreclosure
crisis and arresting neighborhood decline. NSP3 is needed to
continue the reverberating effect of the activities started
under NSP1 and NSP2.
According to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), NSP1 and NSP2, combined, have assisted
approximately 100,000 properties. The programs have assisted
a wide mix of income levels, from very-low income persons at
or below 50% of area median income to middle-income people
with incomes up to 120% of area median income.
NSP funds are efficiently allocated and managed. NSP funds
are highly targeted to communities with the most severe
neighborhood problems associated with the foreclosure crisis.
Grantees are under very tight deadlines to obligate and
expend the funds, ensuring that funds are spent quickly. The
programs have strict reporting requirements that allows HUD
to see that the funds are being spent as directed by statute
and regulation and in a timely fashion.
The programs could not have been implemented in such an
efficient and quick manner without the guidance and technical
assistance that has been provided by HUD. HUD staff have
devoted a lot of time and resources to NSP grantees to ensure
they have the capacity and tools to allocate funds quickly
and implement program activities to arrest neighborhood
decline.
We urge you and the other Subcommittee members to support
these valuable neighborhood revitalization programs.
Sincerely,
National Association of Counties, National League of
Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Community
Development Association, National Association for County
Community and Economic Development, Council of State
Community Development Agencies, Enterprise Community
Partners, Inc.
____
NYC Department of Housing
Preservation & Development,
New York, NY, March 9, 2011.
Re H.R. 839--``The HAMP Termination Act of 2011''; H.R. 861--
``NSP Termination Act''.
Hon. Spencer Bachus,
Chairman,
Hon. Barney Frank,
Ranking Member, Financial Services Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: I am writing this letter to express
the City of New York's opposition to the above-referenced
bills coming before the House Financial Services Committee.
These measures would eliminate crucial foreclosure prevention
and neighborhood stabilization support available to
homeowners and communities grappling with the devastating
effects of the foreclosure crisis here in New York City.
The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has been an
invaluable tool for homeowners throughout the city who have
unsustainable mortgages.
Data shows us that permanent HAMP modifications have on
average saved homeowners almost $400 more in monthly payments
than the savings achieved by non-HAMP modifications ($1200
vs. $828).
Of the permanent modifications reported by the Center for
New York City Neighborhood's extensive network of service
providers, 46% are HAMP modifications (479 out of 1036),
which is on par with the national average of 41%, as reported
by the OCC (http://tinyurl.com/4qajkkt).
HAMP has had a tremendous impact in New York. In the NYC
MSA, there have been 41,785 HAMP modifications (32,785
permanent and 9,000 active trials), which represents 6% of
all HAMP activity nationwide.
Without HAMP foreclosure prevention efforts would be
greatly diminished. HAMP has been critically important in
moving the mortgage industry to make more affordable,
sustainable modifications for homeowners who have the ability
to stay in their homes. We know from counselors on the ground
that the banks' own proprietary modifications have become
more affordable and ``HAMP-like'' since the full roll-out of
the program, further illustrating HAMP's impact. However,
HAMP must be preserved because even as the quality of non-
HAMP modifications improves, they are not nearly as
beneficial as HAMP modifications.
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) provides
states and municipalities with much-needed funds to stabilize
neighborhoods hardest-hit by the foreclosure crisis. In NYC,
we have used NSP funds to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed
homes for resale as affordable housing.
NSP funds are reducing the city's stock of vacant,
foreclosed homes that are a blight on communities. To date,
we have acquired 65 homes that are in various stages of
rehab, and on track to buy and restore 25 more. We are poised
to launch a program that will offer NSP funds as downpayment
assistance to encourage homeowners to buy foreclosed homes.
These programs accomplish dual goals of incentivizing
homeownership while also improving the housing stock in
neighborhoods devastated by foreclosure.
NSP funding has also been used to assist multifamily rental
buildings in distress, providing long-term affordability for
income-eligible families. As a result of the economic
downturn, New York City is witnessing an increase in the
number of rental buildings with deteriorating physical
conditions, with many of these buildings in default on their
mortgages. Addressing the needs of these properties is
putting a strain on our typical funding sources, making NSP a
particularly valuable tool. We have expended over $3M of NSP
funds on the acquisition of foreclosed multi-family
buildings, creating over 200 affordable rental units in The
Bronx and Brooklyn. At least $10 million in future NSP funds
will be targeted towards stabilizing some of the most
distressed multi-family rental housing in the City.
As outlined here, the aforementioned programs offer
critical assistance to New York City families and
neighborhoods suffering from the harmful effects of the
foreclosure crisis. These programs' positive impacts are
extensive and they are compelling. To eliminate them now
would be unwise. For these reasons, The City of New York
oppose their termination.
Sincerely,
Rafael E. Cestero,
Commissioner.
REPORT ON THE NUMBER OF HOMES VACANT 90 DAYS OR MORE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Homes
State Vacant 90 Days or
More
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................................. 13,369
Arkansas............................................. 974
Arizona.............................................. 52,511
California........................................... 92,186
Colorado............................................. 20,671
Connecticut.......................................... 8,501
Washington, DC....................................... 224
Delaware............................................. 549
Florida.............................................. 203,882
Georgia.............................................. 92,950
Hawaii............................................... 754
Iowa................................................. 2,609
Idaho................................................ 375
Illinois............................................. 49,043
Indiana.............................................. 74,100
Kansas............................................... 2,311
Kentucky............................................. 1,191
Louisiana............................................ 2,439
Massachusetts........................................ 7,331
Maryland............................................. 1,878
Maine................................................ 167
Michigan............................................. 120,365
Minnesota............................................ 13,937
Missouri............................................. 20,084
Mississippi.......................................... 4,431
Montana.............................................. 172
North Carolina....................................... 4,510
North Dakota......................................... 7
Nebraska............................................. 2,911
New Hampshire........................................ 155
New Jersey........................................... 10,859
New Mexico........................................... 0
Nevada............................................... 41,297
New York............................................. 16,422
Ohio................................................. 116,325
Oklahoma............................................. 2,961
Oregon............................................... 32
Pennsylvania......................................... 847
Puerto Rico.......................................... 0
Rhode Island......................................... 3,142
South Carolina....................................... 11,172
Tennessee............................................ 18,141
Texas................................................ 33,982
Utah................................................. 85
Virginia............................................. 5,638
Vermont.............................................. 0
Washington........................................... 71
Wisconsin............................................ 5,413
Wyoming.............................................. 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. MALONEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
will be postponed.
EN BLOC AMENDMENTS NO. 9 AND 10 OFFERED BY MS. CASTOR OF FLORIDA
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider en bloc amendments
No. 9 and 10 printed in part B of House Report 112-34.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Chair, I have en bloc amendments at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the en bloc amendments.
The text of the en bloc amendments is as follows:
[[Page H1889]]
amendment no. 9
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 5. GAO STUDY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ROUND 3 NSP FUNDING.
The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct
a study to determine the economic impacts that providing
assistance under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program,
using the funding identified in section 2, would have on
States and communities in the United States, if such funding
were not rescinded and canceled under such section, but
remained available and was used in accordance with the
provisions of law applicable to such amounts as in effect
immediately before the repeal under section 3(a). Not later
than the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General
shall submit to the Congress a report setting forth the
results and conclusions of the study under this section.
amendment no. 10
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 5. GAO STUDY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ROUNDS 1 AND 2 NSP
FUNDING.
The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct
a study to determine the economic impacts that providing
assistance under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has
had on States and communities in the United States. The study
shall identify such impacts resulting from the funding under
the each of the provisions of law specified in subparagraphs
(A) and (B) of section 3(b)(2). Not later than the expiration
of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the
Congress a report setting forth the results and conclusions
of the study under this section.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Chair, my amendments are very simple.
They say that 90 days after enactment of this bill, we will commence a
Government Accountability study to determine the impact of Neighborhood
Stabilization rounds 1, 2, and 3 on communities all across the country.
Now, I have to tell you, Madam Chair, I do not need a study to tell
me that in my community Neighborhood Stabilization has provided
terrific benefits. Neighborhood Stabilization in the Tampa Bay area in
Florida, a community that was very hard hit by predatory lending,
subprime mortgage, and the foreclosure crisis, Neighborhood
Stabilization has given us the tools to create vital housing in the
midst of this horrendous crisis and it has created jobs.
Things have been tough in my neck of the woods, and Neighborhood
Stabilization has given communities in our neighborhoods and our
nonprofit agencies a little bit of hope. Property values in the Tampa
Bay area have plummeted by over 40 percent since 2007. Neighborhood
Stabilization has helped us to stop the bleeding. Neighborhood
Stabilization has helped us protect our property values. And
Neighborhood Stabilization has turned some of the worst abandoned and
foreclosed homes that were causing blight all across our community into
rehabilitated properties. And here are just a few examples of what
Neighborhood Stabilization has done in Tampa and in Hillsborough
County.
First, with the help of our local nonprofit partners, in East Tampa
we have taken an abandoned, dilapidated residential property and we are
turning it into housing for 18 homeless female veterans and their
families. If you come down to my neck of the woods, unfortunately, you
will see folks out on the street corner. We have a panhandling problem
like never before--nothing I have ever seen in my lifetime in my
hometown--and it's very difficult to deal with. A lot of the homeless
are veterans, and some of them are female veterans. So we've taken that
Neighborhood Stabilization money and plugged it into buying an old
abandoned residential property, and we're now providing housing for
those homeless veterans. We broke ground last fall, and all of the
construction workers, the architects, the engineers, they were there to
thank us because they also needed the work.
Here's a second example. We also breathed new life into a new
downtown redevelopment mixed use initiative. Years ago, the Tampa
community tore down what was the worst public housing project anywhere
around. It was named Central Park Village. Well, thanks to Neighborhood
Stabilization, next week we are going to break ground on the first
residential piece of this new community. The first residential piece
will provide affordable apartments to seniors. Neighborhood
Stabilization did that. We did not have the funds and our local
partners did not have the funds to continue on that mixed use public-
private partnership. And it gets even better, because that big mixed
use project is going to create 4,000 construction jobs in an area that
really needs them and 1,000 permanent jobs once the new redevelopment
is finished.
Third, through our community, we have targeted those ugly, abandoned,
dilapidated houses and duplexes on the street or boarded-up apartment
complexes. We put people to work cleaning them up. We've sold them or
rerented to a family that met eligibility standards. A renovated home
can sometimes set off a chain reaction of home improvement throughout
your neighborhood, and that is what we're seeing.
The alternative would be letting houses stay vacant, continuing to
drag down property values in my community even further. We're putting
families back into these homes. Our local nonprofit partners are
returning them to the fabric of the neighborhoods rather than just
having them sit there or seeing them flipped by out-of-town investors.
In addition to the meaningful tools Neighborhood Stabilization gives
to local communities like mine and the thousands of jobs it has helped
create, I would like you to take one step back and consider the modest
investment Neighborhood Stabilization has provided--overall, $7 billion
over the past few years. I can't help but compare that to the $700
billion that was provided to Wall Street through the Wall Street
bailout that I did not support because that was not directing the big
banks to provide any help to our local communities. Well, Neighborhood
Stabilization, this very modest investment--1 percent of the Wall
Street bailout funds--now is providing greater stabilization throughout
our communities.
So I urge my colleagues to support my amendments and oppose H.R. 861.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the
time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Some of the arguments that the
gentlelady made are heart-wrenching. You hate to think about homeless
people. Veterans are suffering in this country, there's no doubt about
it. Veterans are coming back. Some of them have problems from being on
the front in combat. In our church every week, our pastor talks about
that, and we pray for these veterans. You feel sorry for them.
But we talk about elderly; we talk about veterans; we talk about
children; we talk about homeless. Nothing in this bill prioritizes them
in any fashion. There are groups that could be helped as a consequence
of it, and I understand that, but nothing prioritizes.
I'm going to accept the gentlelady's amendment because I have no
problem with trying to determine the economic impact of the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program. I think there's been a huge impact
on the economy because we've given away, to date, $6 billion of
taxpayers' money on this program. And I think we could have done a much
better job at investing that money in another fashion that wouldn't
have put the taxpayers at risk and perhaps created jobs in doing that.
But I met with the NAHB, National Association of Home Builders, to
talk about all the people in the industry out of work. I've talked to
BIA, talking about all the Building Industry Association members out of
work, and they're trying to put them to work. This bill does not help
them.
We talk about a giveaway to banks. In TARP 1, we lent money to banks,
yes, and they paid it back with interest. Freddie and Fannie, yes,
we're lending money to Freddie and Fannie. They're paying 10 percent
interest on the money. So to create this straw man out there of the
bank giveaway and Wall Street and Freddie and Fannie is fallacious.
Freddie and Fannie are paying 10 percent interest on the money.
We did not just, the people who voted for the first half of TARP,
vote to give
[[Page H1890]]
banks money and forget it, go home. It was to stop a major run on the
banks and to stop this economy from plummeting. And Bernanke and
Paulson and the administration, everybody on both sides of the aisle
agreed it had to be done. And the money was paid back, and we made
money on it. Shock.
This money was given away and we will not be getting it back.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Schweikert).
{time} 1720
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chairman, I am pleased that we're actually
accepting this amendment, because if we get an honest study from it, it
could be some very interesting numbers. But I hope it's an honest study
that also looks from top to bottom. Such as in the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program in the previous $6 billion that has been spent,
what crowding out has it done? What first-time homebuyers, what
investors, found themselves competing with government? It would be
interesting to know.
Also, we keep hearing the numbers of saying, well, with our
government money we created this many jobs. How many jobs were being
created if they were private investors or first-time homebuyers or
other families that were acquiring the same sort of properties and
fixing them up? If we're going to get like for like, it will be
fascinating.
Then we also have to deal with the reality of it as we saw in the
previous amendment. In that amendment, it was claiming there were about
1,061,000, we'll call them vacant units in the country. Okay. If we
start doing the math with the remaining billion dollars of additional
money, how much impact does that have? And will the study also step up
and say, with the $6 billion that's out there that's supposed to be
acting like a revolving fund, 5 years from the beginning of this
program, which was what, last summer? How is that money being used? How
much velocity is it really getting? Or is it now sitting in houses that
are competing with other neighbors who are trying to sell theirs.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I would be happy to yield to the
gentlelady. I was not meaning to be rude or forget about you.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my colleague very much for agreeing to
accept my amendments.
My point on comparing neighborhood stabilization to the Wall Street
bailout was just to point out--and I know both sides of the aisle were
involved in the Wall Street bailout. It was the Bush administration,
but a number of Democrats worked to do that, and I'm not here to
criticize that. It's just to compare the scale. There was $700 billion
provided to Wall Street banks, just to compare, and 1 percent of that
to communities under neighborhood stabilization.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I reclaim my time.
I was going to allow for adequate time on that, but it was not a
giveaway. It was a loan. You're comparing $350 billion in the first
half that was lent to lenders to stabilize the economy versus $700
billion that was a giveaway.
It's my time, Madam Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me briefly?
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Regular order, Madam Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts will allow the
gentleman from California to continue.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I think we're comparing things that
have nothing to do with the bill before us. So we can talk about Wall
Street. We can talk about banks. If anything, this has helped banks
because it's taken foreclosed properties that they've had and it's
bought them. So we can add all these straw men to the debate that we
want to. The thing is, should we give away taxpayer dollars? I say no
and I ask for an ``aye'' on the gentlelady's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
112-34 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Waters of California.
Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Waters of California.
Amendment No. 8 by Mrs. Maloney of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Ellison) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 244, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 183]
AYES--183
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
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
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
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
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
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
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--244
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
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
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
[[Page H1891]]
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
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
McHenry
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
Peterson
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
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
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)
NOT VOTING--5
Cohen
Giffords
Labrador
Nadler
Schwartz
{time} 1749
Messrs. BERG, PENCE, PITTS, and YOUNG of Indiana changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Waters
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 248, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 184]
AYES--174
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
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
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
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
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--248
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
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
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
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
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
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
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
Peters
Peterson
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
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bass (CA)
Cohen
Franks (AZ)
Giffords
Labrador
Marchant
Nadler
Owens
Schwartz
Welch
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1757
Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Waters
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178,
noes 249, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 185]
AYES--178
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
[[Page H1892]]
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
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
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
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
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
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--249
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
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
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
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
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)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
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
Peters
Peterson
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
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--5
Cohen
Giffords
Labrador
Nadler
Schwartz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1803
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Maloney
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Maloney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179,
noes 246, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 186]
AYES--179
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
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
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
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
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
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--246
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
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
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
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
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
[[Page H1893]]
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
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
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
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
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--7
Cohen
Giffords
Johnson (OH)
Labrador
Nadler
Renacci
Schwartz
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1809
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Chaffetz) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 861) to
rescind the third round of funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program and to terminate the program, and, pursuant to House Resolution
170, reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Braley of Iowa moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 861, to
the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
In section 3(b)(1), before ``shall continue'' insert the
following: ``, and all amounts made available for use
pursuant to subsection (d),''.
In section 3(c), before ``, and outlays'' insert ``or under
subsection (d)''.
At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection:
(d) Continuation of State Program; Priority for Rural
Areas.--There is authorized to be appropriated an amount
equal to the portion of the unobligated balances described in
section 2 that, pursuant to the provision of law specified in
section 2, was allocated to States. Any amounts made
available pursuant to the authorization under this subsection
shall be used for assistance under the same provisions of law
applicable to the amounts made available by the provision of
law specified in section 2, except that assistance made
available pursuant to the authorization under this subsection
shall be allocated only to States and any State that receives
an allocation from such amounts shall, in distributing such
allocated amounts, give priority emphasis and consideration
to rural areas (within the meaning given such term for
purposes of the provision of law specified in section 2).
In section 4, after ``(NSP)'' insert the following; ``for
assistance for units of general local government''.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of
order against the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, this picture tells the story of why
this amendment is so important. This isn't Wall Street. You don't see
any hedge fund managers or investment bankers here. They are doing
pretty well these days. This isn't the headquarters of BP.
Most small towns are lucky to have a single convenience store, and
they are even luckier if that convenience store sells gasoline. This is
a Main Street in my State of Iowa, and there are far too many of these
in communities in my State and in my district. And I guarantee you,
there are far too many of these in rural communities in your States.
Because while Wall Street and big corporations are doing fine, our
rural communities and small towns are facing a real crisis, and the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program is making a real difference in rural
America.
I want to tell you about a woman from Oelwein, a small town in my
district. She is 23 years old. She only makes $22,000 a year working at
a day care. She grew up in Oelwein and she wants to raise her children
in Oelwein, and the national Neighborhood Stabilization Program is
helping her become a first-time homeowner.
Now, our amendment would simply take the money that has already been
allocated for this program and prioritize it for our rural communities
so we can change the way that streets like this look, and so we can
make sure that more moms can raise their kids in the towns where they
grew up. This amendment doesn't cost any money. It allows a mom to
raise a child in her home community. And our amendment will not kill
this bill. It would simply give our rural communities the ability to
weather the worst crisis they have faced in a generation.
Now, maybe our small towns or this young mom should incorporate as a
bank. Maybe then they would get the same kind of attention that we have
given to Wall Street. Because, folks, Wall Street is getting through
this crisis; Main Streets are not. And it is time we answer this
question: Are we going to stand with Wall Street and Big Oil and
corporate CEOs, or are we going to stand up for small towns all across
America that need our help now more than ever?
At this time, I yield to my good friend from the State of Iowa,
Congressman Boswell.
Mr. BOSWELL. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this. And,
again, I want to say this amendment does not kill the bill.
Republicans have put forth a bill that again forces our middle class
and our working families to sacrifice, sacrifice, and sacrifice so they
can continue the giveaways for Big Oil, billionaires, and corporations
that outsource American jobs.
As a former professional soldier, I approach our economy with a
military eye to take the hill and get our economy going again, and we
need all of our troops behind us. In this case, our troops are our
workers, the middle class Americans who must be healthy and armed with
the tools to rebuild the economy. Our camps are the communities that
must have the resources to do just that. So why are our troops and
communities in rural America being left behind?
Rural Main Streets in Iowa have been devastated as Republicans have
rewarded outsourcing. Manufacturing plants in my district, like
Maytag--all of you know who Maytag is--in Newton, Iowa, they have
packed up and
[[Page H1894]]
moved their jobs to Mexico. Many of you have similar situations.
Rural workers have lost jobs in ethanol, biodiesel, and wind turbine
plants because we have given tax breaks to Big Oil while cutting
investments in renewable energy. These communities have weathered farm
crisis after crisis, as Republicans defend Wall Street speculators
tinkering with the markets that they depend on.
I urge my colleagues to say ``yes'' to rural America and the middle
class by supporting this amendment to H.R. 861. Rural America is not
blue or red. Rural America is simply hardworking communities that are
already struggling to keep the American Dream alive for their residents
who live, work, and believe in them.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, to many people, rural America is a
policy or a program. To Congressman Boswell and me, it is where we came
from. That is why I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this motion
to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition
to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California continue
to reserve his point of order?
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I withdraw my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. That was a very nice picture of a
storefront. It was not a picture of a home. Now, why would you impose a
terrible program on rural America that you don't want on urban America?
You have to say we have given away $6 billion of taxpayer monies and
it will never come back to the Federal Government. We are saying let's
preserve the last billion dollars.
There is a huge lack of accountability in this program. The inspector
general of HUD has already identified multiple misuses of NSP money at
the State level. The GAO has questioned the information system that
places HUD at risk using the tracking system.
How many of you want to use your money to buy this house that
Chairman Bachus has pointed out? Nobody. But, taxpayers, guess what? We
are using your money. The biggest problem with this program is unfair
allocation.
Now, rural America, you probably got ripped off in this whole process
like everybody else did because, let's see, where did the money go? In
the NSP 1, we spent $4 billion. In the NSP 2, $1.93 billion. We are
saying the last billion dollars, let's at least save that for the
taxpayers and use it for some beneficial purpose.
Where did the money go? Let's see if it was fairly distributed. Let's
look at my area. L.A. County got $26.3 million. San Bernardino County,
one of the hardest hit, got $33.2 million. Orange County got $4.3
million. San Diego County, $5.1 million. A total of $68.9 million on
hard-hit counties.
Now, let's see. What did nongovernment agency groups get out there
that are incorporated? Neighborhood Lending Partners, Incorporated got
$50 million; the Community Builders, Incorporated got $78.6 million;
Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Service, Incorporated got $60 million;
Neighborhood Lending Partners of West Florida, Incorporated got $50
million; and Chicanos por la Causa, Inc. got $137 million.
Now, all of my counties got $68.9 million; the Community Builders got
$78.6 million; Chicanos por la Causa got $137 million. Is that
considered nonequitable qualification? It is nonequitable, period. It
does not make sense. And we say $1.3 billion went to nongovernment
agencies.
Now, somebody said I was racist because I said Chicanos por la Causa
got $137 million. They got 10 percent of all the funds given to
nongovernment agencies. If it was Germans for Affordable Housing that
got $137 million, I would oppose it just like I oppose this one.
Now, taxpayers understand, clearly, it did not prevent one
foreclosure in this entire country. Not one person got to keep their
home because we spent $6 billion. In fact, imagine the family who owned
the home. Maybe the ma or pa got in trouble with their job. They
couldn't quite make the payments. For the last 3 years, they have been
unable to repair the plumbing. They couldn't replace the oven that
wasn't working. A couple windows were broken out.
{time} 1820
The house needed painting. And they had to sit there and let their
house go back to the lender, to watch some entity, a nonprofit or
government agency, buy that home, fix it up, and sell it to somebody
else. How would you feel when nobody came to your aid when you were
losing your home, but yet your tax dollars were used to buy that home
to give it to somebody else?
Now, understand clearly, the argument they have made is look at all
the money we gave to bail out the banks. Well, I got an update from
Treasury today. Ninety-nine percent of the money that we lent to banks
has been paid back. And, guess what? We made $20 billion on it. But we
gave $7 billion away to this program. So, yes, we made 20, and we ended
up with a net 13, by lending the money that you say bailed out the
banks. It was a loan.
This program does nothing but say we are going to send you a check,
and you never send us a dime back. And the sweet part is you can pay
any amount of money you want for the house. It is almost impossible to
violate the terms of this deal, because there are no conditions. You
can pay $800,000 for a house and sell it for $50. The requirement is
whatever you pay for the house, plus whatever you pay to rehabilitate
the house, you have to sell it for less.
And it doesn't say who you have to sell it to. A nonprofit, I am not
saying they would, could have a cousin who wanted to buy the house that
they paid $180,000 for and they could sell it legitimately for $20,000,
and, guess what? You have not violated the terms of NSP 1, 2 or 3, and
you have not broken the law. And when you sell the house, if you sell
it, you can take the money and recycle it again. You could even take
this money and do a private venture with a private group, splitting
profits, and, falling under the conditions of how you buy the house and
sell the house, money gets split. There are very few restrictions in
this bill.
This is a terrible bill. I would encourage a ``no'' vote on the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153,
noes 272, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 187]
AYES--153
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kind
Kissell
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
[[Page H1895]]
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--272
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
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
Capuano
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
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)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kucinich
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Weiner
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--7
Cohen
Giffords
Labrador
Lamborn
Nadler
Schwartz
Wasserman Schultz
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1838
Messrs. WATT, MARKEY, KUCINICH, Ms. TSONGAS, Ms. RICHARDSON, and Ms.
BERKLEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 182, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 188]
AYES--242
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
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
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
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
Peterson
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
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--182
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
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
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
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
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
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
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
[[Page H1896]]
NOT VOTING--8
Cohen
Giffords
Labrador
Moore
Nadler
Schrader
Schwartz
Wasserman Schultz
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1845
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________