[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3526-3532]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 836, EMERGENCY MORTGAGE RELIEF 
                        PROGRAM TERMINATION ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 151 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 151

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 836) to rescind the unobligated funding for 
     the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program and to terminate the 
     program. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Financial Services now printed in the bill. Each section of 
     the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. 
     No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those received for 
     printing in the portion of the Congressional Record 
     designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII in a 
     daily issue dated March 9, 2011, or earlier and except pro 
     forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so 
     received may be offered only by the Member who caused it to 
     be printed or a designee and shall be considered as read if 
     printed. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as

[[Page 3527]]

     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman, my friend from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 151 provides for a 
modified open rule that allows any Member to offer an amendment to the 
underlying bill as long as it is preprinted in the Congressional Record 
and complies with House rules. This rule continues to build on the 
commitment of the Republican majority to consider legislation in a more 
open, honest, and thoughtful way.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
bill. This legislation was introduced by my dear friend, the gentleman, 
the chairman of the Republican Conference, Jeb Hensarling, on February 
28, 2011, and marked up in the Financial Services Committee last week 
on March 3.
  This legislation went through regular order, which included committee 
hearings prior to a markup and making the text of the legislation 
publicly available for Members and the public to review prior to 
consideration in the committee and on the House floor.
  The chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, 
David Dreier, has once again provided Members of this body a 
transparent and accountable structure under the rule we are debating 
and discussing today, allowing Members of both sides of this aisle and 
of this body to offer amendments and to join in the debate of the 
underlying legislation.
  H.R. 836 repeals the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program and rescinds 
and permanently cancels all unobligated funds. It directs the Secretary 
of Housing and Urban Development to conduct a study to determine the 
extent of usage of the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program by covered 
homeowners, which includes members of the armed services, veterans, and 
Gold Star recipients.

                              {time}  1230

  Lastly, it requires the Secretary to submit the report to Congress, 
including the results of that study and identifying any best practices 
that could be applied to the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program for 
``covered homeowners.''
  The Dodd-Frank Act established a $1 billion Housing and Urban 
Development Emergency Homeowner Loan Program, which provides loans or 
credit advances to unemployed borrowers who cannot pay their mortgages 
to make mortgage payments for a period of 12 months, with a possible 
extension.
  These loans increase the amount of the homeowner's indebtedness, or 
the borrower's indebtedness, so that a borrower who is unable to pay 
back either the original amount of principal or the additional loans 
made under the program would quite probably be worse off in the long 
run. These borrowers derive no benefit from the program and the 
government will suffer the losses from their eventual defaults. That's 
the way the program was set up by the Democrat majority.
  Continued government intervention and questionable use of taxpayer 
dollars only prolongs our current economic crisis and ensures that the 
housing market will continue to struggle. The market needs to find its 
own footing free of government intervention and manipulation so that we 
can get on with a full recovery.
  The deficit is expected to reach a record $1.65 trillion this year, 
while our national debt is well over $14 trillion and growing rapidly. 
As a matter of fact, growing so rapidly that last month a $230-plus 
billion as a deficit for 1 month, the largest in the history of this 
Nation, was recorded. Yet what do we hear out of the White House? 
Spend, spend, spend, including against this bill that they have offered 
to veto because it would save some money. The U.S. simply cannot afford 
to loan billions of taxpayers' dollars that will not be repaid.
  The Obama administration in its FY 2012 budget proposal estimates 
that this program will have an almost 98 percent subsidy rate. That 
means for every dollar spent, the government is expected up-front to 
lose 98 cents. On every dollar of this program, the government right 
up-front is expected to lose 98 cents.
  Mr. Speaker, no wonder Republicans are trying to go back and look at 
the programs, the massive spending programs, not only by President 
Obama and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi but also the committee chairmen 
and those who brought these measures to the floor that have had a 
stunning impact on the economy of this country.
  Also, HUD regulations set up a process where the bridge loan can be 
forgiven over a 5-year period. This is irresponsible. It is 
irresponsible not only now; it was irresponsible at the time it was 
passed by this House, passed by the Senate, and signed by the 
President. This is not a loan program, but another government welfare 
program.
  Job creation is the most effective foreclosure prevention tool. Job 
losses--rather than unsustainable mortgage terms--are now the driving 
force behind foreclosures and mortgage defaults. The government does 
not need to be adding additional debt obligations onto borrowers who 
are already struggling with their current commitments, particularly 
when doing so adds to the debt burden of every single American, 
including those who took out these loans who have to suffer through the 
process as they are seeing their use of a government program that 
provides not only more debt for the country but tremendous strain on 
themselves.
  Government was not there to help. They were there to indebt the 
American people. Congress should focus on job creation, not welfare and 
giveaway programs. This is the best way to prevent more foreclosures 
and to get our economy back on track.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting H.R. 836 
would decrease Federal budget deficits by $840 million over the 2011-
2021 period. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand the 
current dire emergency that we are facing with the state of the U.S. 
economy and that American families are struggling. Why should the 
government go and make matters worse? It is our job as Members of 
Congress and as legislators to ensure that the policy which is passed 
by this House has integrity and can be backed up by the full measure of 
a free enterprise system instead of a government backstop. It is that 
government backstop that Republicans objected to then and object to 
now.
  We need to make sure that our greatest days lie in our future, not 
the government handing out checks because the government didn't mind 
the blank check that it originally satisfied itself for in this 
legislation. We should be creating opportunities. We should not be 
holding back Americans from earning not only the opportunity for 
potential in their future but also for making their life better. 
Eliminating this program will save taxpayer dollars and encourage more 
responsible government spending by the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, this was an unwise program, and today Republicans are on 
the floor of the House of Representatives to say we can do the right 
thing today. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote 
on the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for 
yielding this time to me, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I certainly want to agree with my colleague, the gentleman from 
Texas, that what the world is waiting for this

[[Page 3528]]

Congress to do is to create jobs. We are approaching 100 days here 
without a single bill to do that, and we certainly look forward to that 
great day.
  Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that this country was facing 
the real possibility of another Great Depression. The financial crisis 
of 2008 was caused by reckless decisionmaking on Wall Street that had 
deep and painful impacts on hardworking Americans everywhere. As a 
result, millions of people lost everything. They lost jobs, retirement 
savings, and homes. All across America, families anguished over how to 
avoid homelessness, how to feed their families, how to keep them 
intact, how to keep their lives together for just one more day.
  Three years later, we are starting to see the signs of a fragile 
recovery. However slowly, we have started to see modest private sector 
job growth over the past few months. However, we are far from where we 
need to be, and the troubled housing market remains in complete 
disarray. Millions of Americans are unemployed and still struggling to 
keep up with their mortgage payments. Millions more are saddled with 
mortgages worth more than their homes.
  Foreclosures swallowed up a whopping 1.2 million homes across the 
country in 2010, up from 900,000 in 2009. Despite the Republicans' 
apparent lack of concern for the ongoing foreclosure mess, many 
estimate that the United States will eclipse previous yearly totals and 
foreclose on even more Americans in 2011.
  There is overwhelming evidence that everybody knows about that many 
of these foreclosures were faulty or downright illegal, and yet no 
accounting of this failure is demanded. But the people who lost their 
homes have lost it in major ways and have no recourse except some of 
these bills. These bills obviously need a lot of help. I couldn't agree 
more. They are not the best we could do. And yet the sad thing to me is 
that once these four bills are done away with, there is no replacement, 
and we simply leave Americans to function as best they can.

                              {time}  1240

  If we are a Nation that cares whether or not our neighbors are kicked 
out onto the street, it's clear that we can't end these programs 
designed to lend a helping hand without something to replace them. The 
Emergency Homeowners Loan Program was created to help prevent 
foreclosures that are the result of massive financial hardships caused 
by unemployment and underemployment across the Nation.
  Admittedly, some foreclosure prevention efforts of the past few years 
have not had as much success as we hoped. And we certainly have had 
very little cooperation from banks. They were simply asked to help, not 
required to. Democrats agree that the programs need improvement and 
would support a process to allow for bipartisan collaboration. So it's 
a shame that we stand here today ready to kill this program before it 
even gets off the ground or has a chance to help stem the tide of 
foreclosure.
  My colleagues on the other side are ready to end the program without 
offering any solution to what is clearly a continuing problem. But if 
we don't provide help to our constituents in need, then who? It surely 
won't be the big banks foreclosing on our neighbors at record numbers. 
Just today, the New York Times reports that the CEO of Bank of America 
rejected the idea of reducing home loans for Americans in need. He 
thinks if he has to do it for one, he'll have to do it for all.
  What's fair about big banks reporting record profits by kicking 
homeowners out on the street? What's fair about banking executives 
walking away from their failed mortgage schemes without punishment 
while thousands live in their cars or subsist in squalor not fit for a 
global superpower? The audacity to call for a fair modification process 
after swindling millions of Americans with predatory mortgages and 
walking away with record profits as the house of cards collapsed is 
simply maddening. Yet we stand here today preparing to debate a bill 
that will tell the American people that we just don't care.
  With so many homeowners still facing foreclosure, we should be 
focused on ways to improve programs designed to keep people in their 
homes. Many of these families are facing insurmountable odds on their 
own, but with just a little help they may be able to make it through 
this tough time. But instead of reforming the program, today we are 
eliminating it.
  I would like to talk a little about the process. Today's rule is 
called a modified open rule, but this is not an open process. For 
starters, if the debate on the bill inspires an amendment, a Member 
cannot offer it because it would not have been printed in time. 
Secondly, if the bill is changed by an amendment, Members will not have 
the ability to respond to the changes. This limits the give-and-take of 
ideas that is the hallmark of dynamic and rigorous debate. But the 
biggest problem with this process is that Members who want to reform 
the program rather than completely get rid of it must find a germane 
offset, which is nearly impossible because the bill completely 
eliminates the program. In other words, any amendment to save any part 
of it would have to be offset by new money.
  We agree that reform is needed. Members have ideas for reform, 
alternatives to simply eliminating the existing program. Unfortunately, 
under this process, these alternatives cannot be offered.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side to work with us to improve 
these foreclosure programs, stem the foreclosure tide, and strengthen 
our middle class. This bill does not do that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the way, we are working with all the 
Members of Congress. And that's why we went through regular order, 
which was a new process for this House from the last 4 years. We also 
came to the Rules Committee and allowed an open process. And any Member 
that chose to have an amendment to be offered today simply had to go 
and tell us ahead of time that they would like a preprinting notice and 
they could get that done. That is working together with every single 
Member of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as she may consume to the 
chairwoman of the Housing Subcommittee of the Financial Services 
Committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, House 
Resolution 151, and House Resolution 150, the rule for H.R. 830.
  Last week, the Committee on Financial Services considered and 
approved two bills: H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program 
Termination Act, and H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination 
Act. H.R. 836 would terminate the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program and 
rescind any unobligated balances remaining under the program.
  The Emergency Mortgage Relief Program, created by the Dodd-Frank Act, 
establishes a $1 billion fund to provide loans or credit advances to 
borrowers who cannot pay their mortgages because of unemployment or 
reduction in income. To date, no funds have been provided to homeowners 
under this program, and serious questions remain about its cost, 
effectiveness, and benefits. The CBO estimates the program will have a 
98 percent subsidy rate, meaning that for every dollar loaned under 
this program, 98 cents is not expected to be repaid. Given the 
country's current fiscal situation, no program warrants funding when 
benefits are speculative at best and substantial taxpayer losses are 
certain.
  The other bill approved by the Financial Services Committee, H.R. 
830, which will be addressed by rule in a little bit, H.R. 830, the FHA 
Refinance Program Termination Act, would rescind all unobligated 
balances made available for use under this program. More than $8 
billion in TARP funds have been set aside for the FHA Refinance 
Program, and $50 million has been disbursed since September 2010.
  For this extraordinary investment of their money, taxpayers have thus 
far

[[Page 3529]]

gotten very little return. The administration originally estimated this 
program would help between 500,000 and 1.5 million homeowners. However, 
only 44 loans have been refinanced and only 245 applications have been 
submitted.
  This program has been plagued by problems from the start. Borrowers 
are frustrated that few lenders participate in the program, and it is 
difficult for borrowers to even find out if their mortgage servicer has 
agreed to participate. Rather than continue to spend money we do not 
have on programs that do not work, Congress should focus on creating 
the certainty job creators need for economic activity and hiring. This 
means we must root out wasteful government spending on ineffective 
programs such as the FHA Refinance Program. What the American people 
want are jobs, not a handout or a program that doesn't work or is 
ineffective.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rules for H.R. 836 and H.R. 830.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with the gentlelady from Illinois who 
just spoke, who said what the American people want is jobs. I agree 
with her. And when we assess the record of the new majority on this 
issue, I think we have to assess that it's found very wanting.
  This is the 10th week of the new majority. In 10 weeks, they found a 
way to shut down women's health clinics by defunding Planned 
Parenthood. They've found a way to essentially repeal 30 years' worth 
of protections for our drinking water and our air and our land. They've 
found a way to pass a budget that cuts education, that saps strength 
and energy from our job creators in this country, but they haven't 
found one bill, 1 minute, one debate over a plan to work together to 
create jobs for the American people.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the American people want Republicans and 
Democrats to come together and figure out an environment that will 
encourage entrepreneurs and small businesses to create jobs for our 
country. The majority has, frankly, done everything but that. And today 
is yet another bill that I think is a wasted opportunity in that 
regard.
  I view today's debate through the eyes of three constituents I 
interacted with at home this weekend. One was a gentleman who runs a 
music distribution company. They produce CDs for people who have 
written and recorded music and don't have a label yet so they can get 
their music out to the rest of the world. He employs 500 people, and he 
wants to grow. And in order to grow, he needs people who are facile 
with various software and other technologies that will help his company 
grow. He depends upon graduates from our community colleges and our 4-
year colleges and universities. And he didn't understand why the 
majority wants to cut the maximum college scholarship under Pell Grants 
by $845, thereby taking employees away, conceivably, from him by taking 
them out of school.

                              {time}  1250

  It's the homebuilder that I met who really can't call himself a 
homebuilder anymore because he's not building any homes, and he wonders 
what we're doing to try to restore faith and confidence to the real 
estate market so that Americans will feel secure and confident enough 
to buy a home and put him and his workers back to work. He wonders what 
we're doing.
  It was the gentleman I met yesterday who runs a biotech company that 
has two employees, and he depends on contracts from the National 
Institutes of Health to do research on various pharmaceutical products. 
He wants to double the size of his company, put just two more people to 
work, but he won't hire them as long as the threat of a government 
shutdown is imminent.
  This is the wrong bill at the wrong time on the floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady.
  What we should be doing is coming together, Republicans and 
Democrats, to cut spending, to find ways to sensibly cut spending. Many 
of us on the floor, for instance, 2 weeks ago voted to not send $1.5 
billion to Iraq to fund their police department. Many of us voted not 
to spend a substantial amount of money for the Brazilian Cotton 
Institute. Many of us voted to say that if you make over a quarter of a 
million dollars a year as a farmer you shouldn't get a crop subsidy. 
These are areas that we agreed upon to reduce spending.
  Let's work to sensibly reduce spending but let's not cut education 
and let's not undermine jobs. By all means, let's bring to the floor a 
bill that says to my friend that runs the music production company, we 
will help train the workers that you need; that says to my friend that 
wishes he were a homebuilder, we will talk to these banks that have 
record amounts of money in their balance sheets and get them lending 
money again so people can buy a home; and says to our friend that's 
running the small biotech company, you don't have to worry that there's 
going to be gaping cuts in the research budget of the National 
Institutes of Health, we're going to fund them, and they're going to 
continue to pay people to be the best and the brightest and find cures 
to diseases, and you can hire those two more people.
  Ten weeks, no jobs bill, no jobs plan, no cooperation to produce an 
environment where small business and entrepreneurs can put America back 
to work. Let's put aside our differences. Let's get to work on solving 
the real problems of our country.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you know, I'm shocked at our friend after 
friend on the Democratic side who say ``no jobs bill,'' ``no jobs 
bill.'' But my friends also recognize what the American public does, 
that we voted, literally the first vote in this House, to overturn what 
is known as ObamaCare, the massive government takeover of health care 
in this country that would result in a loss of 800,000 jobs. Mr. 
Speaker, the Republican majority does have a jobs bill, and that is to 
go and rescind what the Democrats have outrageously done and that is to 
put this country in a diminished position not only with us being 
competitive overseas but also for us diminishing American jobs.
  No, we're not going to go and do a, quote, jobs bill to add jobs. 
We're trying to simply go back and save the jobs that are being lost 
today and would be lost by wasteful government spending, huge 
government bureaucracies, and so my friends on the other side simply 
want to come and attack us. Well, the Republicans have it, and so do 
the American people. We are going to stop the outrageous spending. We 
are going to attack the rules and regulations which are killing not 
only business but losing jobs all across this country. We, as 
Republicans, are going to stand up and say $4 gasoline is outrageous, 
Mr. President; work on the things from your administration that you are 
doing that ruin jobs, that make sure we have higher gas prices at the 
pump, and do those things that would help the American people.
  The Republican House majority is one-half of one-third of the body, 
and we are one-third of government. We are trying to do the things that 
the American people sent us here for. We are all about trying to reduce 
wasteful government spending. We are going to take on the laws that 
have been passed by this President and the former two sessions of 
Congress that were outrageous spending, tax increases, an assault on 
employers, making it more difficult for the American people to have 
freedom and diminishing our future.
  So every time one of our Democrat friends goes and says there's no 
jobs bill by the Republicans, the American people will get it. The 
Republicans first have to save the jobs that are at risk today; 800,000 
net free enterprise system jobs that--if we do not overturn ObamaCare 
that was passed by this body on March 22, a year ago, we're going to 
lose even more jobs.
  So the most immediate thing we're doing is trying to reduce wasteful 
government spending, to try and do away

[[Page 3530]]

with and attack rules and regulations that will kill the jobs that we 
have, and to make sure that we're telling the American people that this 
spending spree that we're on causes a massive deficit, a hemorrhaging 
by this government, including last month $230 billion we overspent. 
Then we're doing our job. If we are doing those things, we're trying to 
save the jobs that we've got.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what the Republican majority is about. We're not 
going to let the Democrats get us off our game. We understand what they 
want. They want to talk about, well, we can look at doing back to some 
of the spending, but when it comes down to it, they can't pick anything 
they really will support. Everything is a sacred cow. Everything that 
we do is a problem if you go and touch it.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party, the Republican majority, led by 
Speaker Boehner and our majority leader Eric Cantor, is all about 
trying to get back to an America where we have a balance, to where we 
don't lose more jobs, where we don't add more debt, and we stand up for 
the American people. That's why we're the new majority party.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews) to respond.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great respect and affection for my friend from 
Texas. He's a valued Member of this House and someone who cherishes 
this institution and represents his constituents well. I would like to 
respond to two of the points that he's made.
  First, he makes reference to this 800,000 job loss as a result of the 
health care act. There was a prediction made before the final version 
of the act was put together, very early in the process, by a group that 
frankly is rather ideologically to his side of the aisle, that 
predicted that 800,000 jobs would be lost. In fact, most economists 
have argued that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be gained, but 
more importantly, Mr. Speaker, than predictions is reality.
  The health care law was signed into law almost a year ago, and I 
wonder if anyone on the majority side could tell us how many jobs the 
economy has lost in that year. How many jobs has the economy lost since 
the health care bill was signed into law?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. You asked if somebody who knew the answer would stand 
up. I don't know the answer, but what I will tell you is that we will 
have the taxation start, and yet, the plan kicks in 2014. So massive 
taxation will start, and then we will find out what happens.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, the answer is that the economy has 
added over 1 million private sector jobs since the health care law was 
signed into effect, so predictions of great job loss have turned out 
not to be the case.
  Secondly, the gentleman made reference to the sort of great 
opposition to this law around the country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  So the fact here is that despite this prediction of 800,000 jobs 
lost, in fact, the economy has gained more than 1 million private 
sector jobs since this happened.
  But I want to address one other thing that he said. He said that our 
goal is to ``knock the Republicans off their game.'' We do not think 
this is a game. We think 15 million unemployed people is a very serious 
national crisis, and we do not want to play a game. We want to come to 
an agreement that would create an environment for small businesses and 
entrepreneurs to create jobs for the American people.
  He mentioned sacred cows. We don't think college scholarships are 
wasteful spending. We don't think that student loans are reckless 
spending. We don't think that reading teachers and math coaches for our 
neediest children is wasteful spending. We don't think that job-
training grants for people who have lost their job is wasteful. We 
think that cutting those programs wastes jobs in the private sector. 
That's why we oppose their reckless budget plan. That's why we beseech 
the majority, let's get to work putting Americans to work.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I stood up and openly said I have no clue 
how many jobs have been added. But the million-job figure that the 
gentleman quotes is not a net figure. It's not a net figure. We have 
lost many, many, many times what we have gained. And the net figure 
means that when you add in what has been added versus what was lost, 
this country is in trouble. And I think the American people understand 
this. They understood it last November. They understand it now.
  People are scared. They're scared about their future. They're scared 
about their job. They're scared about how much gasoline is going to go 
up. They're scared about whether the EPA is going to come put some more 
rules and regulations on them. They're scared about what will happen in 
the long run with their job and health care. They see the diminishment 
of freedom.
  They see where we are in trouble not only in our own homes; we are in 
trouble with our country. They see that we ran a $230 billion deficit 
last month alone. They see where this administration is incapable of 
looking at facts and factors and making a realistic choice about, now 
that we understand what's happening, what are we going to do when we're 
in trouble.
  The Republican Party is here, and we are not going to be knocked off 
our game. We're going to go and try and save as many jobs as we can 
from the onerous rules and regulation, the excessive taxation, and 
perhaps worst of all, the inattention to try and create a better 
circumstance for this country.
  So that's what we're going to do. We're going to go after and we're 
going to repeal this ObamaCare. We're going to stay after the rules and 
regulations, and we're going to make sure that the middle class of this 
country has a chance to save the job that they have rather than 
diminishing it.
  You have seen, Mr. Speaker, all across this country the States who 
are in the most trouble have top-to-bottom Democratic-controlled 
legislatures as well as Democrat Governors. Those States are unwilling 
to make tough choices. They're unwilling to do the things which would 
say ``no'' to constituencies who are special interests. Today, the 
Republicans are on the floor of the House of Representatives, and we're 
saying not only ``no'' to special interests, but what we're trying to 
say is that we need to use common sense and balance.
  And I recognized 14 years ago when I came up here that common sense 
is not common in Washington. But today, part of that common sense takes 
place with, we're going to read the bills before we vote on them; we're 
going to go through regular order; we're going to relook at the things 
which have been passed which diminish jobs and which harm our economy. 
And those are the things which are on the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of our Republican majority. I'm proud of our 
Speaker, who's from the great State of Ohio, who understands himself, 
personally, because of the State where he is from, that the State of 
Ohio is in need of leadership, real leadership, in Washington, DC, just 
as the rest of the country. And so the Republican Party stands on the 
floor of the House today. We are about jobs. We're about reducing 
wasteful Washington spending, and we're going to stand for common 
sense.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to yield myself 1 minute, if I may, 
simply to say that one of the things that we're hearing today is that 
these bills are unneeded.
  Let me just quote a little bit from the Dallas Morning News: home 
prices down 3.6 percent in December, 40 percent of home sales in north 
Texas are foreclosed and short-sale homes. A Dallas housing analyst 
said, ``There's no doubt the foreclosures continue to have

[[Page 3531]]

an impact on the market,'' and they're going to receive 135 million 
assistance unless all these bills die.
  I will insert the full text of the Dallas Morning News into the 
Record. I obviously mention Dallas because that is the district of my 
colleague, and I wanted to point out that there's pain at home.

             [From the Dallas Morning News, Feb. 22, 2011]

                   Dallas-Area Home Prices Sag Again

                            (By Steve Brown)

       Dallas-area home prices show no sign of a rebound in the 
     latest measure. And economists worry that further declines 
     are ahead.
       Prices in the area were down 3.6 percent in Standard & 
     Poor's/Case-Shiller Home Price Index released Tuesday.
       The December report was the sixth consecutive year-over-
     year Dallas decline in the closely watched monthly survey.
       Nationwide home prices were 2.4 percent lower than a year 
     earlier, according to Case-Shiller.
       Only two of the 20 cities that Case-Shiller tracks had 
     increases from previous-year levels.
       ``Despite improvements in the overall economy, housing 
     continues to drift lower and weaker,'' Standard & Poor's 
     David Blitzer said in the report.
       Dallas' decline in December was a bit improved from the 4.2 
     percent annual price drop that the area saw in November.
       Home prices in the area remain about 9 percent below where 
     they were at the peak of the market in 2007.
       So far, that's the smallest such drop among all the U.S. 
     markets that the Case-Shiller index tracks.
       Nationwide prices have slid about 30 percent since 
     residential values began falling in summer 2006.
       Dallas prices at the end of 2010 were about 5 percent lower 
     than they were in June, when the local housing market 
     appeared to have turned the corner.
       Since then, sales have plunged and the number of 
     foreclosures coming onto the market has grown--both creating 
     downward pressure on prices.
       ``There's no doubt the foreclosures continue to have an 
     impact on the market,'' said David Brown, who heads the 
     Dallas office of housing analyst Metrostudy Inc. ``We are 
     [also] continuing to see the effect of the slowdown in sales 
     after the tax credit expired.


                          Positive, but . . .

       ``I think the reports will start to turn more positive in 
     the second half of the year,'' Brown said.
       In the meantime, economic growth in the area and expected 
     gains in home sales later in 2011 will reduce the unsold 
     inventory, he said.
       But there are also worries that thousands of public-sector 
     layoffs will add to the housing sector's woes. ``Most of the 
     people who work in the public sector are homeowners,'' said 
     Dr. James Gaines, an economist with the Real Estate Center at 
     Texas A&M University. ``It will be like another wave of 
     private-sector layoffs.''
       Gaines said it's too early to tell how many teachers and 
     other state and local government workers will lose their 
     income because of Texas' huge budget shortfall.
       But he knows the impact of these layoffs could cause 
     further home foreclosures and certainly reduce potential 
     housing purchases. ``Hopefully, the private sector will 
     absorb some of these folks losing their jobs,'' Gaines said. 
     ``It depends on how severe it is.''
       Case-Shiller said that at the end of 2010, the biggest home 
     price declines were in Detroit, down 9.1 percent from a year 
     earlier, and Phoenix, down 8.3 percent.
       Washington, D.C., (up 4.1 percent) and San Diego (up 1.7 
     percent) were the only markets that Case-Shiller studied 
     where December prices were higher.
       Dallas-area home prices began falling in July after eight 
     months of year-over-year gains.


                          Troubled properties

       By recent estimates, almost 40 percent of monthly home 
     sales in North Texas are distressed properties--previously 
     foreclosed and short-sale homes. On average, these homes sell 
     for about 30 percent below nondistressed prices.
       Case-Shiller looks at the actual value of specific single-
     family homes over time. The index does not include 
     condominiums and townhouses. It only covers pre-owned 
     properties--no new construction.
       Declining home prices.
       Percentage change in home prices in December 2010 compared 
     to year earlier in each market.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta....................................................        -8.0%
Boston.....................................................        -0.8%
Charlotte..................................................        -4.4%
Chicago....................................................        -7.4%
Cleveland..................................................        -4.0%
Dallas.....................................................        -3.6%
Denver.....................................................        -2.4%
Detroit....................................................        -9.1%
Las Vegas..................................................        -4.7%
Los Angeles................................................        -0.2%
Miami......................................................        -3.7%
Minneapolis................................................        -5.3%
New York...................................................        -2.3%
Phoenix....................................................        -8.3%
Portland...................................................        -7.8%
San Diego..................................................         1.7%
San Francisco..............................................        -0.4%
Seattle....................................................        -6.0%
Tampa......................................................        -6.2%
Washington.................................................         4.1%
Composite-20 city..........................................        -2.4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Standard & Poor's and Fiserv


  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  As I said on the floor this morning and listening to my esteemed 
colleague on the other side, I must tell you that I am a bit upset, for 
he talks about common sense and balance. These two words, ``common 
sense'' and ``balance,'' are something that I talk about all the time. 
As the ranking member of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee, 
we talk about common sense; and we talk about balance.
  And part of common sense and balance is trying to make sure our 
children are educated. Part of common sense and balance is making sure 
that I helped my neighbor who just died of cancer. I would have to go 
into my pocket over and over again to give him the money to supplement 
his chemo. Common sense and balance.
  Common sense and balance is trying to make sure that people will have 
jobs when I appear at my jobs fair in a few weeks, and that it won't be 
just like last year where 9,000 people showed up at 6 o'clock in the 
morning and circled around the buildings. Common sense and balance 
means that the students at Morgan State University will not have their 
Pell Grants reduced by $800 when they are struggling right now. They're 
working and trying to get a job if they can get one, and working doing 
the best that they can, and then it's their turn. Common sense and 
balance says we don't cut them off.
  And so as I listen, I think about all of this, and I'm trying to 
figure out, how do the American people get common sense and balance out 
of what is going on in this House?
  Now, with regard to I heard my friend talk about regulations, just 
this morning in a hearing that we had in Government Reform, we had all 
of these execs from corporations come and talk about how they wanted to 
get rid of ``job-killing'' regulations. Every one of them agreed with 
me that regulations are important because they protect the health, 
welfare and safety of people. And as I told them this morning, I said 
to them, and I was very clear, I said, when I was a young student, a 
high school student, and I would go to Bethlehem Steel every summer to 
work, when I blew my nose after being there for an hour, when the mucus 
came out, it was black. It was regulations that addressed that. And 
there were men who had been there 40 years who were breathing that 
every day, 8 hours a day. And many of them died early. Common sense and 
balance.
  Common sense and balance. And then I said to my constituents, and I 
said it to them at a town hall meeting this week, I said, I wish the 
Congress would address issues like we deal with our family problems. If 
you've got a family problem, if you have got a daughter or a son who 
wants to go to college, maybe go to an expensive college, you don't say 
to them, you're not going to go to college. You find a way to, yeah, 
cut back on some things. You don't cut back on everything. You don't 
say to that child, you cannot go to school because it's now their turn. 
You just don't turn your back on them. You don't cut off people's jobs 
and their training when they're trying to be retrained, when that 
father who's lost his job is trying to be retrained----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. So common sense and balance.
  I rise today in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for 
consideration of H.R. 836, a bill that seeks to kill the Emergency 
Homeowner Loan Program. This program was created to provide limited, 
low-cost loans to enable borrowers who are unemployed through no fault 
of their own--through

[[Page 3532]]

no fault of their own--or who face debilitating medical costs to 
continue paying their mortgages until they have made their way through 
the storm.

                              {time}  1310

  By the way, a lot of people say they will never face these medical 
costs. Well, all of us are the walking wounded. All of us will face 
difficult problems. The question is: Will America be the America it has 
always been? We do not get our authority by might; we get it by the way 
we treat each other.
  And so these folks are going through some difficult times. These are 
the same people that this loan program is about; these are the same 
people who have shown up time after time sitting in the front row of 
something I call my foreclosure prevention program with tears running 
down their faces. Many of them have never missed a mortgage payment, 
have worked hard every day and have done everything that was required 
of them. These are our American neighbors. They are the American 
neighbors who sit in Ohio. They are the ones in California and New 
York. Those are our neighbors. They are in a time of need.
  We are talking about a billion-dollar program to try to help people 
as they are struggling, trying to get up after an economy--by the way, 
where regulations failed them. They find themselves in these 
difficulties in many instances because people were not regulating 
properly.
  And, yes, it upsets me because I go back to a district every night, 
40 miles away from here, where people are sad and there are areas in my 
district where you probably have 25 percent unemployment. So I care 
about the jobs. They are important to me. I care about people living 
and staying in their homes.
  And so if anything was said by the November elections, it was about 
we need to sit down and get together and work through people's problems 
like any family would address family problems. And we must be about the 
business of making sure that we do those things to have a future. I 
don't want any child in America--I don't care whether he is in your 
district, Mr. Speaker, or anybody else's district--I want every child 
to have an opportunity. I want the same opportunities for your 
children, Mr. Speaker, as I want for mine.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inform the 
gentlewoman from New York that I have no further requests for time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the facts of this case state very clearly 
that this Nation is being overrun; it is being overrun by too much 
taxing, too much borrowing, too much spending. Just last month, we hit 
a record deficit, $223 billion. This is unacceptable. The status quo of 
where we are moving is not acceptable. With the debt looming at $14 
trillion and unemployment hovering across the country at 9 percent, and 
much higher in many areas of the country, including congressional 
districts that are hurting even more, and I understand this because 
those who first lose their jobs many times are disabled people and I 
understand disabled people and their plight that they have also and it 
is sad, and it hurts us as Members of Congress and it hurts the 
American people. The American people asked Congress to rein in the 
spending and do something about jobs, and that is what we are doing. We 
are not making excuses; we are getting the job accomplished.
  Eliminating this program will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of 
dollars. By gaining control of government spending and eliminating 
wasteful Washington government spending and handouts, the private 
sector can gain some confidence in the economy and start investing in 
jobs and a brighter economic future.
  I applaud my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), for 
bringing this legislation, and to the chairman of the Rules Committee, 
the young chairman, David Dreier, favorite son from California, San 
Dimas, California. David comes here and so ably runs our Rules 
Committee for us. We thank them for providing an open and transparent 
process.
  I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________