[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 65 (Wednesday, May 9, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3043-S3046]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 3047. A bill to encourage responsible homeowners to refinance
mortgages, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
[[Page S3044]]
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act of 2012.
This bill will allow homeowners who are struggling to stay in their
homes to refinance their loans at today's historically low mortgage
rates.
The administration's current refinancing programs are designed to
help homeowners whose loans are guaranteed by Federal housing agencies.
The problem is, those programs do nothing to help homeowners whose
loans are owned by banks and mortgage trusts.
This bill would create a fund in the Federal Housing Administration
that would allow underwater homeowners whose loans are not guaranteed
by the GSEs or FHA to refinance into today's low mortgage rates. The
FHA would be able to insure these loans, greatly reducing the interest
rates charged by lenders.
Currently, these homeowners are completely locked out of refinancing
and are not being served by the private markets.
A homeowner paying 7 percent interest on their mortgage could reduce
their interest rate by 2.5 percent or more through this program.
The average American homeowner could save up to three thousand
dollars a year in lower interest payments.
The Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act of 2012 is modeled after
a proposal President Obama outlined in his State of the Union address
in February.
Eligibility requirements for this new program are very
straightforward.
Homeowners must be current on their mortgage. They must meet a
minimum credit score. Their loan must be under the FHA conforming loan
limit. They must be living in a single-family, owner-occupied home that
is their principal residence.
Additionally, the program requires that loans not be higher than 140
percent of a home's value. Housing data shows that homeowners with
loan-to-value ratios under 140 percent are significantly less likely to
default than those with higher ratios.
An added benefit of the 140 percent loan-to-value limit is that it
could encourage lenders to write down the principal amount owed on the
mortgage to allow homeowners to qualify for participation. This would
be tremendously helpful for homeowners whose home values have fallen
dramatically after the collapse of the housing bubble.
Some will criticize this proposal, suggesting the government must get
out of the housing market for it to recover.
I believe the government can play a vital role in making sure that
home values don't continue their steep declines. Robert Shiller, the
noted housing bear and respected housing economist who publishes the
closely watched Case-Shiller housing index, believes that home prices
have reached normal levels.
To those who would oppose this bill, I ask: how much further would
you have home values decline?
While many economic indicators are increasing, falling home prices
and foreclosures continue to burden the economy. Here is a quick
inventory of the state of America's homeowners:
Case-Shiller found home prices in February rising for the first time
in 10 months, although that gain was a nominal 0.2 percent.
Nationally, more than 11 million homeowners, or 23 percent, are
upside down on their mortgage, meaning they owe more than the value of
their home. Almost 30 percent of homes in California are underwater.
Median home prices are at levels not seen since the late 1990s, with
the gains in the intervening years completely wiped out. Home values on
average have dropped by more than 30%, with $7 trillion in household
wealth lost.
And Core Logic found that home prices increased 0.6 percent last
month, but are still down 0.6 percent from a year ago.
Many housing economists believe the market is at its bottom, but that
doesn't mean we are out of the woods. Further increases in foreclosures
would undoubtedly put further downward pressure on home prices, which
could further threaten underwater homeowners and feed into a vicious
negative cycle.
This is also a matter of fairness.
When homeowners take on a mortgage, they have no control over whether
their bank will slice-and-dice that loan, selling it to third-party
investors. If that happens, chances of refinancing into lower interest
rates plummet.
I have worked closely with the administration to make sure this added
responsibility does not increase the financial risk to the FHA.
The Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act would create a new
insurance fund at the FHA, totally separate from the existing mortgage
insurance fund that is currently under-capitalized.
The new fund would receive its own appropriation and would be audited
separately from the existing mortgage insurance fund. Furthermore, I
have worked to put safeguards in place to reduce FHA's risk. Most
notably, homeowners must be current on their mortgages in order to
participate.
Finally, the cost of the new program would be completely offset by a
0.1 percent increase in guarantee fees for loans backed by Fannie and
Freddie in 2022.
The benefits of this proposal are clear: Refinancing into lower
interest rates could save the average homeowner upwards of $3,000 a
year.
Recent statistics show that the expanded refinancing program the
administration announced in November is seeing tangible results.
According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, refinance applications
have jumped by as much as 70 percent in some of the hardest-hit States.
Clearly, efforts to expand refinancing opportunities are working.
Similar benefits should be afforded to those homeowners whose loans--
through no fault of their own--are not insured by the Federal
Government.
Beyond providing relief to American families, savings on mortgage
payments would have a broader benefit for the economy.
Since the beginning of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has
maintained an extremely low interest rate policy to encourage the
availability of affordable credit.
There is no question that these measures have had an effect.
The stock market is climbing again after falling off a cliff in late
2008.
Mortgage rates have fallen to near-historic lows, recently dipping
below 4 percent.
Consumers are spending less of their income paying down debt, from a
high of 9.1 percent in 2007 to 5.8 percent today.
As a result, consumers are saving more and spending more on purchases
that have been put off for years. This is a boost to the economy. For
proof, look no further than the rebound in vehicle sales that has
fueled the resurgence of American auto manufacturers.
However, there is also no doubt that the effects of the Fed's low
interest rate policies have been dampened by problems in the housing
market. The Fed has noted that home foreclosures are one of the biggest
drags on the economic recovery.
Allowing all homeowners to lower their mortgage payments through
refinancing is one way to help stop this downward spiral.
We cannot have a robust economic recovery while the housing market
languishes. Just as a dilapidated foreclosure erodes the value of every
home on the block, a sputtering housing market affects all aspects of
the economy.
The sooner we reverse declines in the housing market, the sooner we
can foster a robust economic recovery. We owe that to every American,
and I encourage my colleagues to support The Expanding Refinancing
Opportunities Act of 2012.
______
By Mr. BEGICH (for himself and Mr. Boozman):
S. 3049. A bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to expand the
definition of homeless veteran for purposes of benefits under the laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague from
Arkansas, Senator Boozman, to introduce a bill that will help veterans
who have been forced out of their homes because of domestic violence.
This bill will expand the definition of homeless veteran to include
domestic violence.
Due to an oversight in the law, the legal definition of ``homeless
veterans'' differs significantly from the existing definition of
homelessness. Existing law recognizes individuals who have
[[Page S3045]]
been forced from their homes by domestic violence as ``homeless'' but
for the purposes of special ``homeless veteran'' benefits, this
situation is overlooked. The small wording change in our bill will
allow those veterans who are in a domestic violence situation access to
the same benefits available to other homeless veterans. In order to
qualify for benefits offered to homeless veterans through the
Department of Veterans Affairs, must meet the definition of homeless in
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. That is all we are
changing.
One out of four women will experience domestic violence sometime in
her lifetime, including veterans who have served honorably for this
country. They should qualify for the benefits they deserve and need to
protect them.
This bill simply updates the legal definition of ``homeless veteran''
to bring it to the same standard as the rest of the law--correcting a
grievous oversight that could deny those who served our country the
support and benefits they earned a thousand times over with their
patriotism and courage.
In closing, it is an honor for me to serve as a member of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee. I feel very privileged to work on behalf
of our veterans. I appreciate the work of my distinguished colleagues
on the committee and ask them and all senators to join me in supporting
this small but very important expanded definition of homeless veterans.
______
By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Risch, Mr. DeMint,
Mr. Wicker, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin,
Mr. Paul, Mr. Moran, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mr. Toomey, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Barrasso,
Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Thune, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Vitter):
S. 3053. A bill to require Regional Administrators of the
Environmental Protection Agency to be appointed by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in an attempt to refresh our memory on
what happened with the overreach of the EPA, we might remember that it
was from this podium, I guess, 2 weeks ago--it was on a Friday that we
found out and we had access to a tape that we released to the public.
It has been on the TV and everyone has seen it now. It is a tape of the
region 6 administrator of the EPA, Mr. Armendariz. At that time, when
talking to the regulators who were under his jurisdiction and along
with the public at a public meeting that was taking place in Texas, he
said:
But as I said, oil and gas is an enforcement priority. . .
. I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff
about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was
probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the
meeting but I'll go ahead and tell you what I said. It was
kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages
in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little Turkish town
somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw and they
would crucify them.
And let them die on a cross. Everyone would look at that. Then he
said:
And then you know that town was really easy to manage for
the next few years. . . . So, that's our general philosophy.
This is the EPA we are talking about, and this is 1 of 10 of the
regulators. This happens to be the region 6 administrator. This
regional administrator recently resigned when not only his statement
received attention but also following public awareness about the manner
in which he initiated the enforcement actions in region 6.
We know about--and I have already mentioned in my previous remarks--
the company down in Texas. This company was cited by Armendariz. They
are accused of groundwater contamination. They are accused of perhaps
misusing hydraulic fracturing. All these were just accusations. But
then they sent a letter to them and said we are going to fine you
$33,000 a day--$33,000 a day. If we read those letters carefully, we
will find out that decision isn't already made, it is not going to
start, but to the person who is reading the letter, who receives the
letter, they will think, I can stay in business for 30 more days and
that is it.
One has to ask the question: How many companies are out there that
have received a letter such as this from the EPA and assumed they are
going to have to start paying this fine, so they folded up their tent
and they quit? This is what they want. They want to put people out of
business.
I told the story from this podium about a company in my State of
Oklahoma. This was back probably 10 years ago. I received a letter--we
had a lumber company in Oklahoma and the president of the lumber
company said: I don't know what to do. The EPA has just put us out of
business.
I said: What did you do wrong?
He said: I don't think I did anything wrong. He said: I have been
selling our used crankcase oil to the same licensed operation for the
last 10 years and some of that--this contractor was licensed by the
State of Oklahoma and the Federal Government in the County of Tulsa. He
said: We have been selling it to the same group, this organization, for
10 years. He said: Some of that has been traced to a site where they
have said this came from our used crankcase oil, and they said for that
reason you have violated the law and we are going to fine you $5,000 a
day.
Now, $5,000 a day, this is to a relatively middle-sized lumber
company, Mill Creek Lumber, it is called--and they are still in
business today--and that would have put them out of business. I said:
Send the letter to me and let me read it. I read it and I told him they
are just threatening you and trying to run you out of business.
We have to wonder as to how many companies out there are closed now
or out of business because of actions such as this. How many of these
companies received a letter such as the operation did down in Texas
saying we are going to impose $33,000 a day and, finally, they just
fold up their tent and quit? We don't know that. There is no way of
knowing. We have invited people from this podium to call and we have
received calls from people who have been out of business. This is an
intentional effort we are dealing with and have been dealing with for
quite some time.
So we introduced today, just a few minutes ago, S. 3053. I have a
whole bunch of cosponsors--it looks like about 20 cosponsors--on the
bill. What we do is a very simple thing. I have found in my experience
in both the House and the Senate that the shorter and simpler we make
something, the easier it is to understand. This is a little, small,
two-page bill, and all it does is say that anyone who is going to be
appointed--or nominated, I should say--as a regional administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency would have to be appointed by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate. We have a list in our laws
as to what has to have Senate confirmation. The Administrator of the
EPA has to--and she went through that process and that person is Lisa
Jackson--but not these 10 regional directors. So we are saying they
should be subjected to the same advice and consent of this Senate, and
we wouldn't have these kinds of problems. I suspect the Administrator
of the EPA did not know what was going on in region 6 with Mr.
Armendariz. I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't.
In fact, she was very critical of him once we stood here and exposed
what was going on.
This will solve the problem. I am going to invite people to join in.
We have already introduced it. It is S. 3053. It is one that would
force the administrators to be subjected to confirmation by this
Senate. Keep in mind that these administrators, these regional
administrators, have the power of life and death over many companies in
America.
I believe this will solve that problem, and I look forward to passing
this bill and having it become law.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 3054. A bill to provide strategic workload to Army arsenals in
their function as a critical component of the organic defense
industrial base; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
[[Page S3046]]
S. 3054
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 ``Army Arsenal Strategic
Workload Enhancement Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE USE OF ARSENALS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 143 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 2425. Department of Defense use of arsenals
``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop
and promulgate measurable and enforceable guidelines for the
Department of Defense, defense agencies, and the military
services to have supplies, components, end items, parts,
assemblies, and sub-assemblies made in factories or arsenals
owned by the United States, to the extent those factories or
arsenals can make those supplies, components, end items,
parts, assemblies, and sub-assemblies on an economical basis
while preserving the ability to provide an effective and
timely response to mobilizations, national defense
contingency situations, and other emergency requirements.
``(b) Determination of Economical Basis.--For purposes of
determining whether supplies, components, end items, parts,
assemblies, and sub-assemblies can be made on an `economical
basis' under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall
analyze the direct costs associated with the manufacture of
such supplies, components, end items, parts, assemblies, and
sub-assemblies. If an analysis is not performed, the
Secretary of Defense or the relevant defense agency or
military service shall promptly report to the congressional
defense committees the justification for not performing an
analysis.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``2425. Department of Defense use of arsenals.''.
SEC. 3. ASSIGNMENT OF WORKLOAD AT ARMY FACTORIES AND
ARSENALS.
(a) In General.--Section 4532 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 4532. Assignment of workload at Army factories and
arsenals
``(a) Assignment of Workload.--(1) The Secretary of the
Army shall assign Government-owned and Government-operated
Department of the Army factories and arsenals sufficient
workload to ensure cost efficiency and technical competence
in peacetime, while preserving the ability to provide an
effective and timely response to mobilizations, national
defense contingency situations, and other emergency
requirements.
``(2) At a minimum, workload may be derived from
manufacturing of supplies, components, parts, systems,
subsystems, and foreign military sales.
``(3) The Secretary of the Army shall develop and
promulgate guidelines to make the arsenals available to the
Department of Defense, defense agencies, and military
services for procurement of supplies, components, parts,
systems, and subsystems.
``(b) Waiver Authority.--(1) The Secretary of the Army may
waive the requirement under subsection (a)(1) if such a
waiver is necessary for the national defense.
``(2) A waiver under paragraph (1) shall not take effect
until 30 days after the Secretary submits to the
congressional defense committees a notification of the
determination, together with the justification for the
determination.
``(3) The authority to grant a waiver under paragraph (1)
may not be delegated.
``(c) Annual Arsenal Report.--In 2013 and each year
thereafter, not later than 60 days after the date on which
the budget of the President for a fiscal year is submitted to
Congress, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report for the Army identifying, for the relevant fiscal
year, each of the following:
``(1) The core arsenal manufacturing capability.
``(2) The workload required to cost-effectively support the
arsenals and the manufacturing capability inherent in these
installations.
``(3) The Secretary of the Army's performance in
maintaining the Department of the Army's factories and
arsenals with sufficient workload to ensure affordability and
technical competence in peacetime.
``(4) The capital investments required to be made in order
to ensure compliance and operational capacity.
``(d) Comptroller General Review.--The Comptroller General
shall review each report required under subsection (c) for
completeness and compliance and provide findings and
recommendations to the congressional defense committees not
later than 60 days after the report is submitted to
Congress.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 433 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 4532 and
inserting the following new item:
``4532. Assignment of workload at Army factories and arsenals.''.
f (c) Initial Workload Plan Report.--The first report
required under subsection (c) of section 4532 of title 10,
United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), shall be
submitted not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
____________________