[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3812-3833]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           EMERGENCY MORTGAGE RELIEF PROGRAM TERMINATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 151 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. 836.

                              {time}  0914


                     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. 836) to rescind the unobligated funding for the Emergency 
Mortgage Relief Program and to terminate the program, with Mr. 
Westmoreland 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 gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people woke up several days ago to the 
very sad reality that this Nation has just incurred its single largest 
monthly deficit in the history of the Nation, $226 billion, which, by a 
back-of-the-envelope calculation, that is roughly $2,500 for every 
household in just 1 month. And, Mr. Chairman, February is the shortest 
month of the year. This is on top of our Nation's first trillion-dollar 
deficit, our Nation's second trillion-dollar deficit. And now, 
according to the budget presented by the President of the United 
States, the third-largest, the largest deficit, in America's history 
and the third trillion-dollar-plus deficit.

[[Page 3813]]

  Mr. Chairman, the Nation is drowning in a sea of red ink. If we want 
to help job creators create jobs today, we have got to start taking 
away the uncertainty of this huge national debt. If we want to save our 
children from bankruptcy tomorrow, we have to start doing something 
about the national debt. But everybody says essentially: well, not in 
my backyard. Not with my programs. Not today. Let's do it some other 
day. Let's kick the can down the road.
  But, Mr. Chairman, this is a Nation that is borrowing 40 cents on the 
dollar, much of it from the Chinese, and we are sending the bill to our 
children and grandchildren. This is a form of intergenerational theft. 
The Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland, when Republicans were 
in control and the deficit was a fraction, a fraction of what it is 
today, he termed it ``fiscal child abuse.'' The gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) said that when the annual deficit was $200 billion. Now the 
monthly deficit is $200 billion. If we want to help create jobs today, 
if we want to spare our children bankruptcy, we have got to quit 
spending money we don't have.
  And so this week, Mr. Chairman, House Republicans have brought a 
couple of bills to the floor to do something that is rarely ever done 
in this institution, and that is to save American families and save 
small businesses money: terminate a program. You know, as we are coming 
off the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birthday, I am reminded, 
and perhaps I don't have the quote exact, but he said something along 
the lines of the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a Federal 
program.
  So the bill we have before us today is a program that was originally 
authorized in 1975 and was never funded in its 35-year history. Now, a 
billion dollars has been allocated for this program. It is not out the 
door. Nobody has used that money. It is in a series of so-called 
foreclosure mitigation programs that the administration has put forth, 
almost all of which have been abject failures even by their own 
yardstick, by their own measurement.
  Number one, the best foreclosure mitigation program in America is a 
job. It's a paycheck. It's not a government check, it's a paycheck. Job 
creators are hampered by the uncertainty of the national debt. Historic 
levels of debt will lead to historic levels of taxation, which leads to 
historic levels of unemployment.

                              {time}  0920

  The equation could not be more true. The equation could not be more 
elementary.
  But don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. Let's hear from some of 
the job creators in America. Let's hear from the CEO of Caterpillar, 
which employs tens of thousands of people across our Nation: Unfunded 
entitlement programs, coupled with the coming wave of retiring baby 
boomers, will push the deficit to untenable levels. It is a train 
wreck.
  Mike Jackson, the CEO of AutoNation, with 19,000 employees: The best 
thing that this town could do to help the economic recovery become 
sustainable is to deal with the deficit.
  Bernie Marcus, the former chairman and CEO of Home Depot, with over 
200,000 employees in the U.S.: If we continue this kind of policy, we 
are dead in the water. Businesspeople, they don't know what's coming--
the debt, the budget. This debt we have is in the trillions. I'm going 
to have to pay for this somehow.
  Mr. Chairman, these are just a few of the voices of job creators.
  I am heartened to see that the unemployment rate ticked down last 
month. Frankly, it is attributable mostly to the fact that we now have 
a divided government. Job creators now know there is at least some 
check on the excesses of the Obama administration. It is a testament to 
the fact that, at the end of the last Congress, Republicans were 
successful in blocking, at least for 2 years, the single largest tax 
increase in America's history, and I don't know any American who 
believes that if you increase taxes on one's company that that's going 
to lead to a raise, to a bonus, or to employing more workers.
  Finally, we have what Warren Buffett calls the regenerative nature of 
the free enterprise system. This is an economy that wants to recover; 
but since the Great Depression, we've never had a longer recession or a 
more tepid recovery, which is due to the policies of the President and 
of the previous Democratic Congresses. So, if we want to help create 
jobs today, we're going to have to show that we can put the Nation on a 
fiscally sustainable path.
  Now, this is a $1 billion program where not $1 has left the door yet. 
I'm sitting here thinking, Mr. Chairman: If this body, after having 75, 
76 some odd different government housing programs that add up to, 
roughly, 56 some odd billion dollars that, frankly, have grown at an 
exponential over the family budget--the family budget has to pay for 
the HUD budget--if we can't terminate, in order to save our children 
from bankruptcy, in order to help create jobs, one program at $1 
billion where not one penny has left the door, how are we ever going to 
make the tough decisions that are necessary to save the country from 
bankruptcy?
  Mr. Chairman, at some point, you've got to quit spending money you 
don't have. At some point, when do you ever say enough is enough? When 
do you say we are tired of borrowing money from the Chinese? Is it the 
future of our children? Is it their destiny to shine the shoes of the 
Chinese? Is it our children's destiny that one day they'll wait tables 
for the Chinese? It's not the dream I have for my 7-year-old son. It's 
not the dream I have for my 9-year-old daughter. It's not the American 
dream.
  The American Dream is to leave your children with greater freedoms, 
greater opportunity, and a higher standard of living. That's what I 
believe the American Dream is.
  If we can't terminate one program from which the Obama administration 
itself says we're going to lose 98 cents on the dollar--I didn't say 
it; it was the Obama administration that said it, losing 98 cents on 
the dollar. If we can't do this, Mr. Chairman, I have great fear and 
great trepidation for the future.
  So I urge my colleagues to take one small, tiny baby step towards the 
path of fiscal sustainability. Take one measured baby step, and tell 
job creators in America we are going to put the Nation's fiscal house 
in order. Go ahead. It's safe to invest in America again. It's safe to 
create jobs.
  We're going to get this done. Take one tiny step today to help create 
those jobs and save our children from a pathway to bankruptcy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I hope Members will be careful walking on the floor right now, 
especially on the Republican side of the aisle, because I wouldn't want 
anyone to fall into the enormous gap that has just been created between 
the gentleman's comments and his voting record.
  Mr. Chairman, we heard a great argument about the need to cut the 
budget deficit and stop spending. During the recent debate on the 
budget, an amendment was offered to limit entitlement spending to 
farmers to $250,000 per entity. The amendment said no agricultural 
entity, no individual, could get more than $250,000 per year. It was 
defeated by the Republican Party. The majority of Democrats voted for 
it. It will cost $1 billion over 10 years--at least.
  We had the Brazilian cotton farmers, but my friends on the other side 
hate for me to mention that because unpleasant reality is always 
bothersome. You know, over a 4-year period, we're going to spend more 
money subsidizing American and Brazilian cotton farmers than we are on 
this program.
  The gentleman from Alabama said yesterday that it was Obama who made 
him do it. Rather implausibly, he argued that he was compelled to 
follow this recommendation of the Obama administration to send $150 
million a year to Brazilian cotton farmers for 4 years because the 
President told him to do it. Well, that's a very selective invocation 
of the President, I must

[[Page 3814]]

say--no more persuasive than Flip Wilson having invoked the devil as 
having made him do it, and of course there are sometimes analogies in 
the way in which they refer to the President.
  One hundred fifty million dollars. Now, the argument, by the way, was 
that we have to send $150 million to Brazilian cotton farmers. The 
gentleman voted for it because otherwise we would be in trouble with 
the World Trade Organization. But we could have saved that $150 million 
to the Brazilians by not sending $150 million to the American cotton 
farmers. By the way, that would include American cotton farmers who 
could get more than $250,000 a year.
  So we're not debating whether or not we should reduce the deficit. It 
is how. Do you exempt agriculture, as many of my friends do, because 
they represent agricultural districts? As for conservatism and the free 
market, it has got no application to the growth of cotton or grain or 
of many of these other programs that receive so much money.
  Beyond that, we have the military. Now, we're talking here about 
trying to stop a serious economic problem in American cities. Well, we 
can't afford that, but $400 million was voted to be spent on 
infrastructure in Afghanistan. I do not think that that $400 million 
will be very well spent. I understand there are some national security 
needs, but I think that that war has gone on too long. And the notion 
of sending $400 million to build up the cities in Afghanistan and to 
deny helping America makes no sense.
  We are also being told that we can send $1.2 billion for Iraqi 
security forces over and above what we spend on the American military. 
We are sending $1.2 billion. I voted against that. Members on the other 
side voted for it. The whole war in Iraq has been an enormous waste, in 
my judgment, of American money at the cost of American lives. Brave, 
young Americans went to war when they were asked to by their country, 
but it was a mistake for them to be sent there. The war in Iraq has so 
dwarfed any domestic expenditures in this area that I do not understand 
how Members can, on the one hand, talk seriously about cutting the 
deficit and then have voted for more and more and hundreds and hundreds 
and hundreds of billions of dollars for that war in Iraq.
  Now we have another point that should be made. It is true this $1 
billion that we are asking for--and by the way, according to the CBO, 
it will cost $840 million, not 98 percent in total expenditure, but 84 
percent. It's still a high number, but $140 million is still $140 
million. So this will cost $840 million, according to the CBO, if it is 
fully run. It is going to come out of the Treasury right now, but let's 
be clear: The reason it will come out of the Treasury as we try to deal 
with this--by the way, here is what the program is:
  It says to Americans who took out mortgages and became unemployed 
that we will help them pay their mortgages because you can't afford 
mortgage payments out of unemployment compensation.

                              {time}  0930

  That's the lavishness of this program. We're taking people who are in 
trouble and facing losing their homes and having more foreclosures, 
which have negative effects not just on the individual foreclosed, but 
on the neighborhood, on the city, on the whole economy. So this has a 
macroeconomic impact, but we are going to come to their assistance.
  In the financial reform bill passed last summer, we, in the 
conference committee, voted to take this money from an assessment on 
the largest financial institutions. We voted that financial 
institutions with $50 billion or more in assets and hedge funds with 
$10 billion or more in assets would have to pay for this. And our logic 
was that it was the activity of these institutions that caused the 
crisis that led to the unemployment and led to the foreclosures. Many 
of them profited from it.
  And we then had the TARP--and this is money that we voted in the TARP 
in another set of programs--and we said, you benefited from 
intervention. We didn't do it because we loved you. We did it because 
we had to save the economy from going upside down. I know Members like 
to rail about bailouts, but let's be very clear: every activity in the 
United States--known as a bailout recently--was at the initiative of 
the George Bush administration or Mr. Paulsen and Mr. Bernanke. And 
they were bipartisanly supported, and I agree that we had to do them. 
We had to do them because of failures in past regulatory policy.
  But the fact is that in the bill we passed last summer, this money 
wouldn't have come from the Treasury. It wouldn't have added to the 
deficit. It would have been recouped from an assessment on large 
financial institutions. The Republican Party blocked it--not here, they 
didn't have the votes here, as we don't often have the votes today, but 
in the Senate.
  So I will make this announcement: I plan to reintroduce next week the 
provision of the financial reform bill that would have taken the money 
for this program and other programs to alleviate the impact of 
foreclosure--the Neighborhood Stabilization Program that helps get 
foreclosed property back into productive use, aid to the homeowners who 
are unemployed--and pay for it, as we tried to do last July but 
Republican opposition stopped us, not from the taxpayer, but from the 
large institutions. And I don't mean to demonize, but I think Goldman 
Sachs and Wells Fargo and the Bank of America and Citicorp and Morgan 
Stanley and the large hedge funds, I think they can pay for this. 
That's what we would have done. So I agree, this should not come from 
the taxpayer.
  By the way, with regard to the bill we debated yesterday--and I 
regret not pointing this out, but, you know, you can only correct so 
much error in a limited amount of time. I talk fast, but error outpaces 
me when we get into these debates.
  We were talking yesterday about money that was going to be spent in 
another program, the FHA refi. And people talked about $8 billion. Yes, 
$8 billion--it won't cost $8 billion--but $8 billion that was set 
aside, if necessary, from the TARP. And people said that TARP money was 
promised to go back to the taxpayers. It was, and here's how--Members 
may have forgotten this, having voted for it; but in the TARP 
legislation we added a provision that said in 2013, when the TARP is 
concluded, the President at that time is mandated to send to the 
Congress a bill that would recoup the funds that had not been returned 
to the Treasury from those large financial institutions. And we 
reiterated that in the financial reform bill over the Republicans' 
objections.
  So the point is this: the TARP money that will be spent--if it is on 
the refinancing--and the TARP money that will be spent on the HAMP 
program will not come out of the Treasury. It will be reimbursed to the 
Treasury--if my colleagues on the other side go along with what we 
voted for--from the large financial institutions. So let's be very 
clear, whether we are talking about the programs in the financial 
reform bill or the programs in the TARP, they are a package of programs 
to deal with the consequences of foreclosure.
  I must say, I saw a draft of my Republican colleagues' budget views, 
and they said--astonishingly--that spending TARP money to deal with 
foreclosures was inappropriate because those were unrelated to the 
financial crisis. Foreclosures unrelated to the financial crisis? That 
is an illogic that I am surprised at. Ideology drives you to certain 
ridiculous conclusions, but that one goes further into that than I 
would have thought.
  So let's again be very clear. Our proposals are that the large 
financial institutions--assets of $50 billion or more, hedge funds of 
$10 billion or more, most of which would direct beneficiaries of our 
activity in dealing with the financial crisis that many of them helped 
cause--that's how we will fund these programs.
  So with regard to the HAMP, with regard to the FHA refinance, no, 
that will not come out of the Treasury. That will be reimbursed 
ultimately, yes. The TARP money goes back and the law calls for that to 
be assessed.

[[Page 3815]]

And so, yes, I understand my Republican colleagues, they don't want 
Goldman Sachs or Citicorp or any of the large financial institutions or 
any of the large hedge funds to have to pay the cost. But that's what 
the debate is, not the Treasury and the average taxpayer versus 
alleviation of foreclosure, the large financial institutions.
  And, yes, they did succeed, temporarily, I hope, in changing that. 
They knocked out of our bill a requirement that the large financial 
institutions would help us mitigate foreclosures and help us have 
cities buy up property that is rotting and causing trouble; and, 
unfortunately, temporarily, that's not the case.
  But I will file the bill next week. And given their concern for the 
taxpayer and the deficit, they will have a choice: do you add the cost 
of these programs to the deficit, because they're not going to become 
law, these repealers. The President is going to veto them. The Senate 
won't pass them even for him to do that. Are you then going to say that 
it will come out of the deficit, or will you join us in taking it from 
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and the Bank of America and those 
unreasonable institutions that do a lot of good work, but they can 
afford this $1 billion. Their bonuses alone would pay for these 
programs.
  So let's be clear what the choice is. First of all, we have people 
who are prepared to send money to Brazilian cotton farmers so they can 
send money to American cotton farmers. They will not limit entitlements 
to agricultural individuals to $250,000 a year. They'll send billions 
to Afghanistan and Iraq that will be wasted, not for our defense, but 
to build up their infrastructure and their security. And then, when it 
does come to the relatively small amount that we will be spending on 
some of these programs, like $840 million here--and that's small 
compared to what they spend elsewhere, for instance, in their wars--
they would rather have it come out of the taxpayer. They would rather 
not spend it at all; but if they have a second choice, it comes out of 
the taxpayer and not out of the large financial institutions.
  So let's frame the debate appropriately. The large financial 
institutions, because of inappropriate regulation and improper 
regulation during the Bush years--fairly, the Clinton years as well, 
but mostly the Bush years--provoked a financial crisis. We began to 
deal with it in 2008 in the last months of the Bush administration in a 
bipartisan way. We did it. We provided some funding in the first 
instance to those very financial institutions, not out of love for 
them, but because we thought that was needed to stabilize.
  The requirement is that any money spent under the TARP will 
ultimately be recouped by an assessment on the large financial 
institutions. Apparently, the Republicans want to forget that one. They 
want to act as if it's the Treasury, apparently because they can't bear 
the thought of telling the large financial institutions, who were a 
large part of the cause of the financial crisis and benefited from our 
efforts to correct it, that they should have to pay.
  And we do know that when we said this program and programs to give 
money to municipalities--which they very much want--to buy up property 
that would otherwise fester because there would be nobody to make them 
take care of it, that they prefer that to be paid for by the taxpayer 
than by the large financial institutions. We'll give them a chance to 
correct that mistake.
  So I hope this bill is defeated. And next week we will have 
legislation that I hope our committee will be having hearings on and 
act on which will reinstate the provision that says all of the four 
programs we're dealing with this week and next week will be dealt with 
in one of two ways: it will be financed by the TARP, and that money 
will be recovered when the program is over by an assessment on the 
large financial institutions; and the smaller amounts that will go to 
this program, that money will also be recouped from the large financial 
institutions. And those institutions which received hundreds of 
billions--they have repaid it and it has been useful--but they were 
great beneficiaries of it. They caused some of the problem in general. 
They will be the ones that will bear the cost.
  So that's the choice. We have a choice of doing nothing to alleviate 
the impact of foreclosures on the overall economy, on municipalities, 
and on families, or of doing something and recouping that money from 
the large financial institutions.

                              {time}  0940

  I hope that we will, in the end, decide that we were right to say 
that the large financial institutions can appropriately be asked to 
bear part of that burden.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, for the past several years the conversation in 
Washington has been about how much we can increase spending. Today, the 
debate is centered on how much we can increase savings.
  On November 2, voters sent a message that they will not sit by as 
Congress spends our way into national decline. It was a statement of 
rejection towards a buildup of debt and burdensome regulation that 
continues to cloud the prospects for the future.
  The new Republican majority has responded with a cut-and-grow agenda 
designed to produce results. We're cutting spending and job-destroying 
regulations and growing private sector jobs in the economy.
  Last month, we voted to cut spending down to 2008 levels. Today, 
through our YouCut program, we offer American taxpayers the opportunity 
to recoup roughly $300 million dollars in wasteful spending. The 
savings come from terminating a program funded in the Dodd-Frank 
regulatory bill. This mandatory spending program allegedly provides 
loans to homeowners potentially facing foreclosure, but it is estimated 
that the subsidy rate, meaning the amount of the loan that will not be 
repaid, is 98 cents out of every dollar.
  So we are borrowing money we don't have to give loans to certain 
homeowners that can't repay and that other American families will have 
to pay back in higher taxes in the future. This program truly does not 
make sense and leaves everyone worse off.
  At a time, Mr. Chairman, when we must do everything in our power to 
balance the Federal budget, this legislation must pass. And I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. I thank our ranking member for yielding time.
  I'm here today because this is a series of actions, all of which I 
oppose, that are in sequence. And I think we need to put this in 
perspective.
  Yesterday, my colleagues were proposing to terminate the FHA 
Refinance Program that helps people refinance mortgages under FHA. Next 
week, we'll be back on the floor out of our committee with a proposal 
that they have made to do away with the Community Stabilization 
Program, which is designed really to stabilize communities and keep 
people who own properties and are trying to pay their mortgages from 
seeing the values of their properties go down even further. And next 
week they'll be offering a proposal to do away with the mortgage 
refinance assistance program called HAMP.
  Of all of the four proposals, including the one we're here debating 
today, this, I think, is the most mean spirited and most duplicitous 
one and I think the one that most vigorously deserves to be opposed by 
my colleagues here in the House; because this proposes to do away with 
a program that assists people who were employed, got a mortgage, were 
paying their mortgage, then lost their jobs to the downturn in the 
economy and found themselves in a position where they could no longer 
afford to pay their mortgage. These are not people who were out getting 
second homes. These are working people who had jobs, fell on bad times, 
and lost their jobs and getting unemployment benefits. And all we're 
saying is give

[[Page 3816]]

them a break for 12 months and give them the opportunity to go back 
into the marketplace and find a job, and then they can resume paying 
their mortgages.
  It is absolutely mean spirited to say to somebody who has complied 
with all the rules and lost their job by no fault of their own and then 
find themselves unable to pay their mortgages that we won't try to give 
you some measure of relief.
  It's further complicated--made even more duplicitous, really--by a 
provision that has been inserted into this bill that directs the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to conduct a study and, 
based on that study, issue a report on the best practices that could be 
used to implement this program--a program which they are proposing to 
terminate.
  Why would you spend taxpayer money to have a study on the best 
practices to implement a program that the bill itself says is going to 
be terminated? A waste of taxpayer money. Yet my colleagues are here 
representing to the Members of this House and to the American public 
that their whole objective is to save the taxpayers money.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentleman 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. WATT. I don't understand the rationale of my colleagues. And it 
would be something else if this bill were going to see the light of day 
in the Senate. It's not going anywhere.
  This is a message bill, Mr. Chairman. That's all this is about. Let's 
send a message to the American people that we can cut. Whether we're 
cutting money that's taxpayer money or cutting money that's going to be 
paid out of the top fund that the law requires the biggest financial 
institutions in America to make the taxpayers whole, if, at the end of 
the day there is a deficit in repaying this money, it doesn't matter. 
Let's just stand up and beat on our chest and say to the American 
people and think that they will believe that we are doing something to 
save them tax dollars.
  This bill saves no tax dollars, and it's an abomination.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Grimm).
  Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Emergency Mortgage 
Relief Program Termination Act.
  And I'm sitting here and I hear that we're mean spirited, and it 
makes me think of the last year that I had with my father before he 
passed away. I spent a lot of time with my dad because I was taking him 
to the hospital. He had lung cancer. And we had to sit and wait, often 
more than an hour, to see the doctor to get his tests or to get his 
chemo.
  And I asked my father, knowing that his life was nearing the end, 
what was the toughest thing that he ever had to do. My father told me 
the toughest thing he ever had to do was tell his children ``no.'' 
Sometimes when you're a child, you don't understand. You ask for 
things, whether it be new hockey skates or a new baseball mitt, or 
whatever it may be, and a good parent sometimes says they can't afford 
it.
  Well, I don't think it's mean spirited to step up and answer the 
message not that we're sending, but the message that the American 
people sent us that we cannot continue reckless spending. And this 
program, to put it right back on point, this program is the poster 
child of waste and reckless spending.

                              {time}  0950

  It's not me. It's not anyone in this Chamber that said it's going to 
be subsidized 98 cents on the dollar, we will lose 98 cents on the 
dollar. The administration said that: 98 cents on the dollar. We cannot 
continue to spend on programs that are failing. That is the definition 
of waste. We were sent here to cut the spending, to stop the waste for 
one reason, so that we can grow the economy. And when we grow that 
economy, we actually create jobs. The whole point, if I understand the 
argument on the Democratic side, is that these people have lost their 
jobs.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BACHUS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRIMM. For that reason, the answer is not more failed programs; 
it's growing the economy and creating a job. We need to give them hope, 
not false hope.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Two years ago, the President told us that we were all to blame for 
the housing bubble and the financial crisis that followed. No, we're 
not. Those families who passed up the get-rich-quick real estate 
seminars and who turned down the loans that they couldn't afford, or 
who settled for a smaller home, or who rented because that's all they 
could afford, they're not to blame. And they shouldn't be left holding 
the bag.
  Ninety-one percent of Americans are making their mortgage payments 
not only because it's the right thing to do, but because they know that 
the sooner the market corrects itself the sooner their homes will begin 
to appreciate once again. By propping up bad loans and by undermining 
responsible homeowners, our government's extending the agony and 
postponing the day when the market stabilizes and home buyers can 
safely reenter the housing market.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West 
Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. I have been listening to the discussion. Certainly over 
the last several years I have been in the committee where we have seen 
program after program being introduced to try to alleviate the problem 
that we know exists with the foreclosure issue. But this is about 
making choices today. This is about making choices about programs that 
are working, programs that are not working, programs that are costing 
too much, and programs that we need to reshape and reform.
  I believe this program is one that we can in good measure eliminate. 
It hasn't really gotten started. It's a billion-dollar program, and in 
some sense we already know, and we've heard from many in the 
discussion, that 98 cents out of every dollar that's set forth as a 
loan in this program will actually be a forgiven loan.
  Now, we talk about fairness and mean-spiritedness. Is it fair to the 
rest of the folks who are working, scraping, paying their mortgages 
every single day to know that 98 cents of every dollar that goes out 
the door in helping some other folks is never going to come back in 
when the original agreement--it is a loan. I think this is a good-sense 
cut that will lead to more jobs and better-sense government.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 15 seconds to note that I 
am not surprised at that, because there are people on the other side 
who think it's unfair to pay the unemployed anything, like unemployment 
compensation. So, no, I don't think it's unfair to say to people who 
are unemployed in this economy that they will get some economic help. 
And that's what this is about.
  I yield 3\3/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 836. This is one of four anti-
foreclosure programs that the majority is voting to terminate. This 
particular program they want to terminate today is designed to assist 
homeowners who have experienced a significant reduction in income or 
are at risk of foreclosure due to loss of a job, involuntary 
unemployment, underemployment, or a medical condition.
  This is a group that needs our help. There are 1.2 million households 
with a mortgage where a head of household or spouse is unemployed. And 
in my home State of New York, where Mr. Grimm--I wish I had the 
opportunity to ask him, was he aware that 142,000 households in our 
home State have a mortgage with a person who is the head of the 
household or spouse is unemployed. And this program potentially could 
have helped those people.

[[Page 3817]]

  The majority leader who spoke earlier, in his home State, the great 
State of Virginia, there are over 59,000 households that have a 
mortgage in which someone in the family is underemployed or unemployed. 
And in the great State of Texas, the largest number of households with 
a mortgage and a spouse or head of household who is unemployed, there 
are over 172,000 families in this terrible situation.
  Families across the country would benefit from the program. But 
instead, they are cutting it. The program fulfills an important gap 
because it addresses a temporary loss of income and helps homeowners 
when they are most vulnerable. It has been successful in Pennsylvania, 
which has its own State-run program. Over 45,000 homeowners have been 
assisted, with an average loan of $11,000; and 85 percent of these 
recipients have been able to stay in their homes as a result. If we 
continued this program, we would be able to help families across the 
country.
  So I oppose terminating the program, and I oppose tossing hardworking 
Americans out in the street. I oppose this mean-spirited effort to 
terminate help for unemployed Americans.
  Now, to put this in perspective, this program is one of four that the 
majority is putting forward to terminate programs that would help 
people stay in their homes. Yesterday, they terminated the FHA 
Refinance Program. Next week they're going to attempt to terminate HAMP 
and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Yet economist after 
economist tell us that in order to strengthen our economy we have to 
stabilize the housing market.
  So these cuts are wrong. They are wrong in the first place, and they 
are certainly wrong at this time when we are working to dig our way out 
of this hole and to get people back to work.
  This program, like the others, is narrowly tailored to help a 
specific class of homeowners because of this economy and because of the 
high level of unemployment. During the financial crisis, we lost 7 
million jobs in this country. We are slowly gaining jobs again, but we 
are not even at the point where we are keeping place with the 
workforce.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

                     EMERGENCY HOMEOWNER LOAN PROGRAM (EHLP) STATE ALLOCATIONS--OCTOBER 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Households with a   Household with a
                                              Mortgage, Head or  Mortgage, Head or
                    State                       Spouse in the          Spouse         Share      HUD Allocation
                                                 Labor force         Unemployed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas.......................................          3,091,395            172,280     0.1354        135,418,959
New York....................................          2,282,350            142,040     0.1116        111,649,112
Pennsylvania................................          1,960,525            134,605     0.1058        105,804,905
Massachusetts...............................          1,048,520             77,650     0.0610         61,036,001
Washington..................................          1,052,975             71,590     0.0563         56,272,599
Minnesota...................................          1,003,985             71,050     0.0558         55,848,137
Wisconsin...................................            974,890             65,570     0.0515         51,540,638
Missouri....................................            948,920             62,340     0.0490         49,001,729
Virginia....................................          1,284,620             59,320     0.0466         46,627,889
Colorado....................................            865,890             52,525     0.0413         41,286,747
Maryland....................................            986,825             50,840     0.0400         39,962,270
Connecticut.................................            599,820             41,915     0.0329         32,946,864
Kansas......................................            441,240             22,580     0.0177         17,748,782
Arkansas....................................            372,850             22,565     0.0177         17,736,991
Iowa........................................            514,585             22,110     0.0174         17,379,343
Louisiana...................................            570,160             21,235     0.0167         16,691,558
Utah........................................            413,850             21,090     0.0166         16,577,582
Oklahoma....................................            499,880             19,815     0.0156         15,575,381
Puerto Rico.................................            241,335             18,720     0.0147         14,714,668
Idaho.......................................            243,960             16,900     0.0133         13,284,075
New Hampshire...............................            236,540             16,100     0.0127         12,655,243
New Mexico..................................            261,340             13,645     0.0107         10,725,515
Maine.......................................            230,635             13,205     0.0104         10,379,657
West Virginia...............................            228,700             10,610     0.0083          8,339,884
Nebraska....................................            285,530             10,565     0.0083          8,304,512
Hawaii......................................            148,885              8,005     0.0063          6,292,250
Delaware....................................            146,535              7,695     0.0060          6,048,577
Montana.....................................            132,410              7,265     0.0057          5,710,580
Vermont.....................................            109,490              6,145     0.0048          4,830,215
Alaska......................................             94,145              4,950     0.0039          3,890,898
Wyoming.....................................             85,010              2,985     0.0023          2,346,329
South Dakota................................            117,250              2,610     0.0021          2,051,563
North Dakota................................             94,275              1,680     0.0013          1,320,547
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................  .................          1,272,200       100%     1,000,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Census--American Community Survey, 2009.
Note: EHLP funds were allocated based on each eligible state's share of unemployed homeowners with a mortgage in
  2009. Actual allocations to states will be reduced on a pro-rata basis to cover HUD administrative costs (To
  Be Determined).
 

  Mr. BACHUS. I have no further requests for time, Mr. Chair, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there is a more basic and 
fundamental question that we are confronting today. That question is, 
Can we continue to go out of our way to help major corporations? As a 
matter of fact, $700 billion. Can we go out of our way to help them and 
make sure that the programs work for them and then turn our backs on 
the taxpayers that helped those very same major corporations? That's 
the basic question that we have to contend with. Are the banks and the 
major corporations too big to fail and are the taxpaying Americans who 
helped bail them out too small to help?

                              {time}  1000

  Can we continue to end programs that help people stay in their homes 
that did not create the exotic products, that did not create prepayment 
penalties that coincide with teaser rates, that did not create loans 
wherein you qualify for your teaser rate but you don't qualify for your 
adjusted rate? Can we continue to allow them to be evicted when we can 
help some of them?
  We may not be able to help everybody, but when you can help somebody, 
you ought to try to do the best that you can and help those that you 
can.
  With reference to the FHA refi that passed, that was ended yesterday 
by a vote of this House, that bill did not lose money unless persons 
failed to pay their mortgages. It was only if mortgages were not repaid 
that FHA came forward and covered the cost. So to say that it cost $8 
billion is incorrect. It cost whatever at the end of the program may 
have been spent; but that money had not been spent, so the money was 
there.
  There was also a premium to be paid by persons who got the refis. FHA 
was going to help a lot of people stay in their homes and help a lot of 
communities and neighborhoods maintain their integrity and their 
property values.
  We, today, have an opportunity to help people with emergency mortgage 
assistance, people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their 
own because of this downturn in the economy. It is a very simple 
premise.

[[Page 3818]]

  Will we allow ourselves to save major corporations and deny the 
people, the taxpaying Americans, some help in their time of need?
  If there is one thing that I heard from American people, it was: 
Where is my bailout?
  Well, when we come up to the plate, and we try to help people who 
actually need and merit the help, somebody comes forward and finds a 
reason why we can't help them. This is the day to help those American 
people. Let's not let them be too small to help while others will allow 
banks to be too big to fail.
  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, at this time I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, again, we cannot lose sight of the fact 
that our Nation is drowning in a sea of red ink. It is a sea of red ink 
that continues to hamper job creation. Job creators today are uncertain 
of our future.
  They know, though, they know that historic levels of debt lead to 
historic levels of taxation, which can only lead to historic levels of 
unemployment. They are looking for some signal from this body that we 
get it, that we get it, that we are going to stop borrowing 40 cents on 
the dollar, much of it from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our 
children and our grandchildren.
  Again, when the annual deficit, the annual deficit was $200 billion 
and dropping, as opposed to the monthly deficit, which is now over 200 
billion, but when the annual deficit was 200 billion, the gentleman 
from Maryland, the Democratic whip, said that was fiscal child abuse.
  Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle are introducing the 
term ``mean spirited.'' I don't know. Is fiscal child abuse mean 
spirited? It's their term, Madam Chair. I will let them reflect upon 
that.
  Now I hear the ranking member talk about fiscal responsibility, and 
he points to one item: cotton. We have heard cotton throughout this 
debate. But I would note that the ranking member apparently voted for 
the conference report on the farm bill which includes cotton subsidies 
that he comes to this floor to decry.
  He speaks about a WTO decision, but it's the Obama administration 
that says that countervailing measures would have cost this country 
more than 800 million. I suppose we could have that debate, but I would 
recommend that the ranking member have the debate with the Obama 
administration, because that's where many of us got the information.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. There were two ways we could have dealt 
with it, yes. The gentleman and the Obama administration on one side. I 
disagree with the President. We could have avoided that by reducing 
American cotton subsidies to the same amount as we did with Brazil. So 
we could have either saved 300 million or not.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Reclaiming my time, I would just point out to the 
ranking member that was not the vote before us. And if there was a 
chance to get out the cotton subsidies--and I must admit people on both 
sides of the aisle vote for them, but the opportunity was at the point 
of the conference report on the farm bill which the gentleman from 
Massachusetts voted for.
  But to put this again in a larger context, we on this side of the 
aisle fervently believe that you will not have job creation until you 
put the Nation on a fiscally sustainable path. We are talking about $1 
billion here. If we can't do it on this program, what program can we do 
it on?
  And I must admit, I also find it ironic how many of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle will come to the floor and say, You know what? 
There are people in this Nation trying to force loans onto people who 
are unemployed, people who can't afford to pay it back, people who are 
in debt. That's predatory lending, and now they want the government to 
do the same thing.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. HENSARLING. We heard throughout the debate there needs to be a 
consistency, a consistency of debate. So let me get this right. A 
payday lender is guilty of predatory lending if they loan money to 
somebody who is underwater, to somebody who may be struggling, but if 
the Federal Government does it, it's something else. It's noble. I 
don't see the consistency in the debate there, Madam Chair.
  But again, most importantly, when does the day arrive that we quit 
spending money we do not have? I say today is that day.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time remains, Madam Chair?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Alabama has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. May I inquire, do we have general leave?
  The Acting CHAIR. Yes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, the last statement is, of course, totally contradictory 
from the gentleman from Texas. But when you just want to bash things, 
you will say anything.
  You cannot simultaneously say this program is too generous because of 
its forgiveness and is a predatory loan. The fact is it has very 
generous forgiveness provisions, which is why it is scored at 84 
percent, not 98 percent. So that argument the gentleman just made is, 
of course, entirely self-contradictory because it can't be both.
  Secondly, as to agriculture, I did vote for an amendment that would 
change it, but the gentleman, the spectacle of my Republican colleagues 
hiding behind Obama is bizarre. You could have done what we have 
offered, which was to cut the $150 million from going to Brazil and 
then cut it out of America. But it's not the only item I mentioned.
  I mentioned the $1.2 billion the gentleman wanted to send to Iraqi 
security forces, the 400 million to build infrastructure in Kandahar 
and Kabul, the $250,000 limit the Republicans rejected on individual 
entities. So, no, there are billions in agriculture and the military. I 
didn't just mention one item.
  The gentlemen do understand that they are vulnerable, so they blame 
Obama. They and Obama are both wrong about sending money to Brazil. But 
the most important point is this, and I hope in his final time the 
gentleman from Alabama will address it.
  In the first place, on two of these programs--the HAMP Program, which 
we will deal with next week on the floor, and the FHA refi--the money 
doesn't come from the Treasury. They keep saying it, but they are 
wrong, and ignoring a fact doesn't make it go away. Those are funds 
that come from TARP.
  In the financial reform bill, we reinforced an earlier provision. It 
says, the FDIC ``is authorized to conduct risk-based assessments on 
financial companies'' to pay for this, the money that's left in the 
TARP. We have a mandate to the FDIC so that when the TARP is finished, 
large financial companies will have to pay this, not the Treasury.
  So I know that troubles people on the other side. They are solicitous 
of these large financial companies. But when they talk about it adding 
to the deficit, they are wrong. It is statutorily required that this 
will come, over their objection, from the large financial institutions.
  As to the other two programs, including the one today, we had similar 
language in our bill to do that. It was rejected by the Republicans 
because we needed to get 60 votes in the Senate. So, yes, for now, that 
840 million will come out of the taxpayer. If we had our way and the 
Republicans had not been successful in frustrating us, it would have 
also come from Goldman Sachs and from Morgan Stanley and the other 
large institutions, and I will give them another chance.
  So the fact is that the bulk of this money does not come from the 
Treasury. It is mandated that it will be repaid back to the TARP, and I 
hope the

[[Page 3819]]

gentleman from Alabama will address that in his final remarks.

                              {time}  1010

  Is he for repealing that? Does he believe we should not as we have 
said we would twice legislatively, including on one bill he voted for, 
assess the large financial institutions and hedge funds? Does he want 
to take it off? But of course if he doesn't, it doesn't come from the 
Treasury. It doesn't add to the deficit. It may reduce the bonuses at 
some of the large financial firms, it may reduce the dividends at some 
of the large financial firms, but that's not adding to the deficit in a 
way that we care about.
  And as to the other money, the money for the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program and for this program, if they will come back with 
us and join, that also will come from the large financial institutions.
  So let's drop the phony argument about the deficit. If you want to 
protect the large financial institutions, be honest about saying so.

            TITLE XVI--FINANCIAL CRISIS ASSESSMENT AND FUND

     SEC. 1601. FINANCIAL CRISIS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.

       (a) Special Assessment.--The Council shall impose, and the 
     Corporation shall collect on behalf of the Council, one or 
     more special assessments on the financial companies 
     identified in subsections (e) and (f) to collect, in the 
     aggregate, the lesser of--
       (1) $19,000,000,000; and
       (2) the product of 1\1/3\ and the amount necessary to fully 
     offset the net deficit effects of the provisions of this Act 
     (excluding the effects of sections 1601 and 1602) for the 
     period starting on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     through September 30, 2020, which amount shall be determined 
     by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget--
       (A) by reference to the latest statement submitted for 
     printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairmen of the 
     House and Senate Budget Committees titled ``Budgetary Effects 
     of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, excluding the net 
     deficit effects of the special assessments imposed under 
     sections 1601 and 1602, provided that such statement has been 
     submitted prior to the vote on passage in the House acting 
     first on the conference report for that Act; or
       (b) Timing of Payments.--The special assessments described 
     under subsection (a) shall be collected on an annual basis, 
     with the first payment due no later than September 30, 2012, 
     and subsequent payments due no later than September 30, 2013, 
     no later than September 30, 2014, and no later than September 
     30, 2015, respectively.
       (c) Assessments Placed in the Financial Crisis Special 
     Assessment Fund.--Special assessments collected pursuant to 
     this section shall be deposited by the Corporation as 
     follows:
       (1) The first $15,000,000 in special assessments collected 
     pursuant to this section shall be deposited in an account to 
     be maintained by the Corporation for the payment of 
     reasonable implementation and administrative expenses of the 
     Corporation associated with the collection of assessments for 
     the Financial Crisis Special Assessment Fund established 
     under section 1602; and
       (2) the remainder of the special assessments shall be 
     deposited into the Financial Crisis Special Assessment Fund 
     established under section 1602.
       (e) Companies Subject to Assessment.--The Council shall 
     impose risk-based assessments on and the Corporation shall 
     collect such assessments from financial companies in such 
     amount and manner and subject to such terms and conditions 
     that the Council determines are necessary in order to satisfy 
     the requirements of subsections (a), (f), (g) and (h).
       (f) Minimum Assessment Threshold.--
       (1) In general.--The Council shall not assess financial 
     companies with less than $50,000,000,000, adjusted for 
     inflation, in assets on a consolidated basis and shall assess 
     financial companies with $50,000,000,000, adjusted for 
     inflation, or more in assets in accordance with subsections 
     (g) and (h).
       (2) Hedge funds.--The Council shall not assess financial 
     companies that manage hedge funds (as defined by the Council, 
     in consultation with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
     for purposes of this section) with less than $10,000,000,000, 
     adjusted for inflation, of assets under management on a 
     consolidated basis, and shall assess any financial companies 
     that manage hedge funds with $10,000,000,000 or more of 
     assets under management in accordance with subsections (g) 
     and (h).
       (h) Requirement for Equitable Treatment in Assessments.--In 
     establishing the special assessment system under this 
     section, the Council shall consider differences among 
     financial companies based on complexity of operations or 
     organization, interconnectedness, size, direct or indirect 
     activities, and any other risk-related factors the Council 
     may deem appropriate to ensure that the assessments charged 
     take into account the risk posed to the financial system by 
     particular classes of financial companies.
       (6) Penalty for failure to timely pay assessments.--Any 
     financial company that fails or refuses to pay any assessment 
     under this section shall be subject to a penalty under 
     section 18(h) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as if 
     that financial company were an insured depository 
     institution.

  Mr. BACHUS. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The American people have sent us here to tell the truth, and the 
truth is that there are too many government programs that do not work 
and actually make things worse. These government programs are paid for 
by the American people.
  You can say that it's not from the Treasury, or that it's from the 
Treasury; that it's from TARP, it's not from TARP. But the fact remains 
that it is from the American taxpayer. In fact, the gentleman at one 
time said it comes out of the Treasury. Then he said it comes from 
TARP. But the promise in 2008 was that it would go back to the American 
people. It would go back in the national Treasury. In fact, it does 
not. I will address where it goes, and I think the American people, 
when they find out where it goes under this program, they're going to 
be even more upset. I don't think they'll be surprised, because I think 
they've come to realize that there's not a lot of will in Washington to 
protect them, the taxpayers.
  The American people already know that there are too many ineffective 
government programs that cost too much, and this is a poster child for 
those programs. If you can't cut this program, I'm not sure you can cut 
any. And when we find such programs, we as the representatives of the 
people have a duty and a responsibility to the taxpayers to end these 
programs. That's what we are doing this morning. We're going to end 
this program. That's what we're here for.
  In this legislation by the gentleman from Texas, we stop a $1 billion 
failed spending program. Now it's a well-intentioned program. But just 
as the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so is the road to 
higher deficits and record-breaking debt, a debt that our children and 
our grandchildren will have to pay.
  You know, when we talk about the taxpayers ultimately fund this 
program, when we borrow 42 cents out of every dollar, it's our children 
and our grandchildren that will have to pay for these programs. We're 
charging something and we're telling them to pay the bill.
  Today, we have an unthinkable debt of $14 trillion, a debt that 
imposes a birth tax on every child born in America. It's $45,000 today. 
Just last year it was $35,000. It's grown by $10,000. Even worse, this 
debt or birth tax is growing every day, because our government is 
spending some days $5 billion, some days $8 billion more than it takes 
in and adding to what our children and grandchildren will have to pay.
  One question that the American people often confront is, are they 
better off than their parents and will their children be better off 
than they are, and their grandchildren? It's interesting that in survey 
after survey, or poll after poll, the American people say, we're better 
off than our parents. Our parents fought for our freedom, they 
preserved it in numerous wars, they saved their money, they watched 
their money, they worked hard, and they left us in good shape.
  But when that same question is a little different question, ``Do you 
think your children or grandchildren will be better off?'' the American 
people know. They instinctively know. ``No'' is the answer, sadly. And 
that's because of our national debt and our deficit. In fact, both the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary Robert Gates have 
said that it's a national security problem. Our debt threatens our very 
existence as a country.
  This Washington spending binge is driving our country right off a 
cliff. We've seen the effect of overspending on our economy today. The 
government absorbs so much money from our citizens that it's hard to 
create private jobs. Each dollar out of the economy is a job that the 
private sector can't create.
  Now actually President Reagan and President Clinton both realized 
this

[[Page 3820]]

and they grew the economy. Those were the only two years with a growing 
economy and government spending either level or going down. That's the 
only time in our country we had a surplus. They both realized that it 
was the private sector that would see us out of this. This growth in 
the Federal Government and in its spending is hampering job creation. 
And that's what these homeowners need. They need a job.
  Let's look at this program. This is from the Obama administration. 
This is their budget that was just filed. Here is what the American 
people need to know. What does this program do? It offers a loan of up 
to $50,000 to pay all arrearages to homeowners on their first mortgage. 
Fifty thousand dollars. And then to pay up to 24 consecutive months of 
mortgage payments; 24 months of their mortgage payment.
  Both the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
kept talking about the large financial institutions. That's who is owed 
the money. In fact, we're not getting this money from the large 
financial institutions. Just the contrary. We're paying them, because 
they're the ones that hold this mortgage. So when the taxpayers write a 
$50,000 check under this program to pay arrearages on the mortgage, who 
do you think it goes to? It goes to Bank of America. It goes to Morgan 
Chase. It goes to Citigroup. It's shocking that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts would actually say that this money is coming from the 
very institutions that are going to receive this money. This billion 
dollars is not going to homeowners. It's going to these large financial 
institutions. He says they're the ones that ought to be paying this, 
not the homeowners or not the taxpayers. We always thought the 
homeowners were supposed to pay their mortgages. But I think we could 
all agree that it's not the taxpayer. It's just an astounding thing.
  He says that if Flip Wilson told us to vote for something, we would. 
But it wasn't Flip Wilson. It was Ron Kirk. And what did he tell us? If 
I were Chairman Frank, I would talk about anything but this failed 
program. I think that's why they've talked about everything but this 
failed program. It was Ron Kirk that told us that our automobile sector 
would suffer, that our pharmaceutical sector would suffer. He said that 
this would cost jobs in medical equipment, electronics, textiles, 
wheat, fruit, nuts, cotton. He did include cotton. He said $60 billion 
worth of exports were at risk.

                              {time}  1020

  Well, do the math: 7,000 jobs for each $1 billion worth of exports, 
that's 420,000 jobs. So do you want to vote against something that 
would put 420,000 Americans out of jobs? And then they would all line 
up for another government program that the minority would design?
  The other thing--and this is the last thing I'll say. They keep 
saying that the taxpayers will get paid back. Well let me introduce 
this. This is from the Obama administration. This is their same budget 
for fiscal year 2012. It estimates the losses on this program, and they 
have accused us of making up these figures, 97.72. That's the loss on 
this program, 98 cents out of every dollar. Madam Chair, it's time to 
end this failed program.
  Mr. TOWNS. Madam Chair, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no 
on H.R. 836. This legislation would repeal any underlying authority for 
loans and other assistance to unemployed homeowners at a time when we 
still have nearly nine percent of our Nation out of work. The effects 
of this bill would kill the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program before it 
has any chance of helping homeowners who are in desperate need of 
immediate assistance.
  It is troublesome to me how we as a nation can bail out banks, the 
automobile industry and even other nations. However, when a neighbor 
has lost their job through no fault of his or her own, we are willing 
to sit on our hands. Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong message to send to 
our constituents.
  The Emergency Mortgage Relief Program will provide $1 billion to the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development and is projected to help 
30,000 to 50,000 distressed homeowners. The bridge loans that will be 
disbursed through this program will be at zero interest to the 
borrower. This will allow homeowners a chance to receive some relief 
from payments until they are able to find a job, or are able to resume 
payments through other means.
  Madam Chair, this Congress must ask itself who we value and more 
importantly who do we stand with. Congress must stand on the side of 
homeowners. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 836.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Chair, I rise today to oppose H.R. 836, the 
Emergency Mortgage Relief Termination Act.
  The new Republican Majority has been in control for 10 weeks. This 
has been enough time for them to reveal their agenda--an assault on 
working Americans. The Majority has no plan to keep families in their 
homes. They have no plan to create jobs and they have no plan to 
improve health care.
  Earlier this year, the Majority voted to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act. Their plan for those who can't afford insurance or have a pre-
existing condition? ``NoCare.'' What about the majority's jobs agenda? 
The GOP's spending bill, H.R. 1, would result in the loss of up to 
700,000 jobs. When asked about the impact of H.R. 1 on the economy, the 
Speaker replied: ``So be it.'' Today, we are witness to the Republican 
plan for those families struggling to pay their mortgage. In short, 
their plan is, ``good luck.'' If you are one of the 2 million 
homeowners in California whose mortgage is underwater--good luck.
  The Emergency Homeowners Loan Program that is on the chopping block 
today was part of last year's Wall Street Reform legislation. It is 
designed to provide short-term bridge loans to homeowners who have lost 
their jobs, so they can stay in their home while they search for a new 
job. The program is paid for by a fee on large banks. The program that 
the majority voted to eliminate yesterday, the FHA Short Refinance 
Option, would allow homeowners with underwater mortgages to reduce up 
to 10 percent of their loans principal and refinance into stable FHA 
loans.
  Although I agree that both Congress's and the Administration's 
response to the mortgage crisis has been wholly inadequate, the answer 
is to improve these programs, not to eliminate them. Congress could 
work to provide homeowners with the same bankruptcy protections that 
investors have or we could require banks that received TARP funds to 
participate in loan modification programs. I don't expect that 
Republican leaders will be pursuing any of these ideas.
  The Majority has no plan to create jobs, improve health care, or keep 
families in their homes. I urge all of my colleges to reject this 
agenda and vote no.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition 
to H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act.
  This legislation would end the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's Emergency Homeowners' Relief Program, a program designed 
to help unemployed homeowners keep their homes.
  Buying a home is one of the biggest commitments and the most valuable 
investment of our adult life. If this program is eliminated unemployed 
homeowners will have nowhere else to turn when their home is 
threatened.
  Our unemployment rate is now 8.9 percent. We must not forget those 
still struggling to pay their bills and trying to provide for their 
families.
  Ending vital recovery programs and offering reckless spending 
proposals will only move our country backwards. While cuts are 
necessary to address the nation's long-term fiscal problems, cutting 
too deeply before the economy is in full expansion will add unnecessary 
risk to the housing recovery.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 836, the 
Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act.
  The Emergency Mortgage Relief Program, also known as the Emergency 
Homeowners Loan Program, EHLP, was established to help responsible 
homeowners who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed or 
underemployed or suffer from a medical condition and can no longer make 
their mortgage payments.
  The $1 billion relief fund provides these homeowners with zero-
interest loans, credit advances, or payments. Up to 30,000 distressed 
homeowners at risk of foreclosure could be assisted by this program. 
The Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, is working to 
implement EHLP as soon as possible to assist homeowners in the 32 
states that are not participating in the Hardest Hit Fund, HHF, a 
successful $7.6 billion fund that has been made available to the 18 
states

[[Page 3821]]

that have been hardest hit by the housing crisis. EHLP is also modeled 
after a highly successful program in Pennsylvania. Simply terminating 
EHLP before it has had a chance to take effect and help the homeowners 
who need it the most is unconscionable.
  With 13.7 million people unemployed in our country, I am sure that 
all of my colleagues have constituents who are unemployed or 
underemployed and are in need of a lifeline.
  I met a couple who work as substitute teachers in Kona on Hawaii 
Island. As the economy worsened, it became harder and harder for them 
to find steady work. Despite applying for numerous jobs, they remained 
underemployed. For more than a year, they tried to work with their 
mortgage lender to avoid delinquency and foreclosure, submitting all of 
their financial documentation many times. The lender clearly was not 
motivated to help them. It was only through the support of the Hawaii 
HomeOwnership Center, a federally funded nonprofit in Hawaii that 
provides foreclosure prevention assistance, in addition to an inquiry 
from my office that the couple was able to get forbearance and a 
permanent modification. To top it off, the husband received a good job 
offer. But, this couple will never forget the stress and anxiety of 
fighting to keep their home.
  Not all the stories of struggling homeowners have a happy ending. In 
fact, many of them do not. Programs like the Emergency Homeowners Loan 
Program are a lifeline for these individuals and families. This bill is 
another example of Republicans turning their backs on middle class 
Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to help struggling homeowners throughout the 
country by supporting programs like EHLP and voting against this 
measure.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chair, the Emergency Mortgage Relief program 
was created in the Dodd-Frank Act to help distressed homeowners who 
fall behind on their mortgage payments due to involuntary unemployment, 
underemployment or a medical condition. The program works by providing 
qualifying borrowers with a zero interest bridge loan that enables them 
to make their mortgage payments until they can find a job or otherwise 
resume paying their loan. Assistance under the program is terminated 
when a borrower's income is restored to 85 percent of pre-crisis levels 
and is limited to a maximum of 24 months or $50,000, whichever comes 
first.
  Madam Chair, this program is modeled after successful initiatives at 
the state level--such as the Homeowners Emergency Mortgage Assistance 
Program, HEMAP, in Pennsylvania, whose 85 percent success rate has 
helped over 45,000 homeowners stay in their homes at an average loan 
amount of $11,000 per borrower. With our economic recovery still 
gaining momentum, and unemployment hovering around 9 percent, now is 
not the time to terminate assistance to borrowers at risk of losing 
their homes through no fault of their own. Instead, we should give this 
program a chance to work and extend a temporary hand to those who need 
this assistance the most.
  The Acting 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.
  No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
is in order except those received for printing in the portion of the 
Congressional Record designated for that purpose 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 read if printed.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                                H.R. 836

       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 
     Program Termination Act''.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to both H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance 
Program Termination Act, and H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief 
Program Termination Act.
  I readily recognize that both these programs could have accomplished 
more in helping Americans to save their homes. But, just because a 
program needs improving does not mean that it should be eliminated.
  There is a tremendous need for programs that help homeowners to stay 
in their homes. We have assisted large national banks, Wall Street 
investment companies, and the major automobile companies of our 
country. In fairness, we cannot turn our backs on the hard-working 
American homeowners--who in most cases were victims of the large, 
multi-billion dollar financial organizations--and allow them to lose 
their homes because the economy has hit on such low times.
  These mortgage assistance programs can make a difference in the 
Fourth Congressional District of Arizona. I am told by housing 
officials in Arizona that part of the reason so little has been done 
and these programs have had such a limited level of success is that the 
infrastructure for administering them, both in the private and semi-
public sectors, was not in place. And, even when it was put into place, 
many financial institutions failed to fully cooperate.
  Can these programs be improved? The answer is a definite yes.
  Should these programs be improved? Again, the answer is yes.
  But let us work to fix them, so that they can keep families in their 
homes.
  Local authorities need more discretion in making decisions. The 
Phoenix housing market is a perfect example of this. Dollar limits that 
may suffice in other parts of the country are not sufficient in higher 
priced markets like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Miami, and San Diego.
  But, we should not just eliminate these programs because they have 
struggled to become operative. Let's work together to fix the problems, 
not create further problems by evicting people from their homes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chair, it is a very strange Congress. At a time 
when Wall Street has been bailed out, banks have been bailed out--and 
banks were bailed out who kicked people out of their homes, now the 
programs that have been created to help keep people in their homes, 
these programs are going to be canceled by the majority, which, of 
course, will cause people to lose their homes to the banks. So the 
banks in America have people coming and going. And they keep getting 
more and more money.
  Madam Chair, millions of Americans are facing or will face 
foreclosure in the coming months. Their hold on their homes has been 
endangered by unemployment, or predatory loan terms, or falling house 
values. We are in the worst crisis facing homeowners in the history of 
this country. And the facts are well known. No one in the House can 
feign a lack of knowledge of the misery that has gripped American 
homeowners and neighborhoods across the country. Yet today, this House 
takes up a bill to terminate a program intended to assist distressed 
borrowers. Next week, the House will consider more bills to eliminate 
two other assistance programs.
  What message is this Congress sending? If you're a distressed 
borrower or you have a relative who is in trouble or a neighbor in 
distress, the message of this House is, tough luck. Worried about 
losing your house? Tough luck.
  Government assistance to distressed borrowers should be effective. I 
can agree with my colleagues on that. I share the belief that some of 
the programs intended to assist distressed borrowers do not help enough 
people. But is that an argument to just end the programs? You know that 
people need help and that the programs aren't effective, and you just 
say, well, we're going to end the program. How does that help people 
stay in their homes? It doesn't.
  I submit that the fundamental problem with these programs, the 
fundamental problem is that they depended on the voluntary 
participation of the very banks and servicers that created the housing 
crisis in the first place. So the programs are set up where you need 
the banks to participate. Banks don't want to participate, or they 
slow-walk the applications, and before you know it, people are just 
left in a desperate strait where their homes are being lost.
  Now, when the banks were in trouble, taxpayer assistance was rushed 
forward. I voted against the bailouts. Now that the banks have emerged 
from a crisis, unfortunately, our friends in the majority are 
determined to dismantle

[[Page 3822]]

the few legal efforts that are there to preserve and protect 
homeowners.
  We should be reforming these programs, not dismantling them. If the 
House approves the bill before us today, H.R. 836, Congress will be 
turning its back on people whose lives have been wrecked by a crisis 
created by irresponsible banking practices. So I'm urging a ``no'' vote 
on the bill, Madam Chair. But I also hope that we take a very cold and 
sober look at what we're doing here. We're really attacking the very 
victims of this housing crisis, and we're giving comfort to those who 
created the crisis.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY MORTGAGE RELIEF 
                   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 1496(a) of the Dodd-
     Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public 
     Law 111-203; 124 Stat. 2207; 12 U.S.C. 2706 note).


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Canseco

  Mr. CANSECO. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 22, after the period insert the following: 
     ``All such unobligated balances so rescinded and permanently 
     canceled shall be retained in the General Fund of the 
     Treasury for reducing the debt of the Federal Government.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CANSECO. Madam Chairman, I want to thank my colleague and friend 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for offering the bill to terminate the 
emergency mortgage relief program.
  The amendment I'm offering will ensure every penny of savings that 
comes from terminating the emergency homeowner relief program will go 
back to the Treasury's general fund in order to reduce the debt of our 
country.
  We are in the midst of a spending-driven fiscal crisis. Today, every 
child born in the United States is responsible for more than $45,000 of 
the debt. If we don't stop spending and put our Nation back on a 
sustainable fiscal path, we will ensure that the futures of our 
children and grandchildren drown in a sea of red ink.
  The total debt of our Nation is on track to equal the entire size of 
our economy. The debt held by the public today is $10.43 trillion. That 
represents 69.4 percent of GDP. Per household, this is $89,007. The 
gross debt, according to the monthly Treasury statement through 
February, our gross debt is $14.194 trillion, which is 94.41 percent of 
GDP, or $121,128 per household. No nation in history has ever survived 
a debt burden the size towards which we are hurtling.
  As I travel across the 23rd District of Texas, over and over I hear 
of very, very real concerns my constituents have over our out-of-
control Washington spending and our exploding deficits and debt.
  The facts are really frightening. There is over $14 trillion of debt 
on the backs of American families. We've had two straight years of 
trillion dollar-plus deficits. The CBO projects that the deficit for 
fiscal year 2011 will be $1.5 trillion, and the President's recently 
released fiscal year 2012 budget projects more than $1 trillion in 
deficits.
  Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has 
warned that ``the most significant threat to our national security is 
our debt.''

                              {time}  1030

  These are dire facts, and are more than just numbers on a ledger. 
They represent a real threat to our economy and our security and job 
creation.
  Yesterday, Moody's announced that they had downgraded the debt of 
Spain, another country in a long line of downgrades in Europe. With the 
deficit and debt realization, you cannot say that would never happen in 
America. Spain is expected to have a budget deficit of 6 percent of GDP 
in 2011, while the United States is expected to run a deficit of about 
9.8 percent of GDP in 2011. Without a change in our course, we are on 
track to become the next Spain, the next Greece.
  The writing is on the wall. We are headed to a fiscal and economic 
nightmare if nothing is done. This is an unsustainable path that will 
end one of two ways: either we have the courage to tackle our Nation's 
problems, or we continue throwing money at wasteful programs and revert 
to the status of a Third World country.
  My colleagues on the other side have made clear which option they 
will choose. They want to continue to create wasteful programs hoping 
that the magic one will come along and fix all of our problems. We have 
to stop kidding ourselves that this is the way to create jobs and 
economic prosperity.
  Not only do we have an obligation to reduce our debt for the sake of 
our economy, but we have a moral obligation to our children and 
grandchildren to leave this country to them better than we found it. 
Unfortunately, that is not the case right now unless we act.
  This Congress has a clear mandate from the people who sent us here to 
do our job: cut the spending and reduce the debt. With this bill and my 
amendment, we will do both. I urge passage of my amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. We heard just the other day in this Chamber the leader of 
our great ally Australia talk about the greatness of our Nation and how 
it is the belief that we can achieve anything.
  This lack of confidence illustrated in the rhetoric here on the floor 
today about the greatness of America, maybe we need to walk back a 
minute and look at how we invested and rebuilt Japan and Germany after 
the war, how we bailed out Mexico, over $40 billion. How, today, this 
day alone, we are spending $2 billion this week in Afghanistan. We have 
people all over the world trying to assist others. We will be one of 
the first nations rushing to help those affected by the tsunami this 
morning in Japan. This is a great Nation.
  We come today, however, to say to law-abiding, tax-paying citizens 
who lost their jobs because of the shenanigans on Wall Street, that 
even though we were able to help the banks to the tune of trillions of 
dollars, we can't provide a small bridge loan to help a homeowner who 
has been paying their bills, been abiding by the law and has been 
affected by the actions or inactions of the government and Wall Street.
  Now, this is not a new program built on hopes and dreams. This is a 
replication of a program that has been operating in Pennsylvania for 20 
years. It actually has a history in which the State of Pennsylvania has 
put in $235 million and gotten back $250 million, and in which 44,000 
homeowners have been able to secure their homes over a small 
interruption in their employment by getting help over 24 months.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman tell us from what 
party the Governors of Pennsylvania have come during this period?
  Mr. FATTAH. Well, this was started under a Republican Governor, 
Governor Thornburgh. I introduced this as a young State legislator with 
no gray hair, and it has worked very well in the State of Pennsylvania. 
I offered it here in this Chamber. In 2007, we hit a 50-year high in 
mortgage foreclosures.
  It makes no sense to move someone out of their home, ruin their 
credit for a decade and have their family be homeless when in the 
Pennsylvania instance, for less than $7,000 on average, you can help 
them over a period of difficulty.
  So here is the Republican majority. They say, look, we can't find it 
within us as a Nation, even though we help people all across the globe, 
to actually pause for a minute for a paltry sum and help a citizen in 
our own country meet a burden, and do it in a way that would actually 
be more cost effective for our taxpayers.

[[Page 3823]]

  We should reject this. We should reject the notion that somehow we 
are so much in debt that we can't afford to help our own citizens. What 
we should know is we are the wealthiest country in the world. Just 
yesterday, we should read the story about how we have a few 
billionaires who have trillions of dollars. We should remember that 
last week on the front page of USA Today, we had a story saying for a 
quarter-of-a-million dollars, seats on boards of directors were going 
wanting in our country because they weren't being paid enough for six 
meetings a year.
  We can afford to pay our bills. The Republican majority says let's 
cut 1.5 percent of what the Federal Government is going to spend this 
year in the face of a $1.5 trillion deficit. If they want to balance 
the budget, they should step forward for a much more aggressive plan. 
This is not about balancing the budget. It will not get close to 
balancing the budget. This is about somehow being willing to help big 
banks when President Bush stepped forward and said we have to do TARP. 
But when it comes to helping a homeowner meet their obligation, somehow 
we have to do less than our best as a Nation.
  This is not the America that has come to have great allies like the 
leader of Australia who spoke from that podium who said we can do 
anything and how the whole world looks at us as a beacon of hope. We 
should think again. This is ill advised, and I hope that this House 
rejects this bill and today stands up for an American citizen who needs 
a little help.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. First of all, I commend the gentleman from Texas for 
his good amendment. I think it is interesting that we keep talking 
about the country, and certainly that is important and the taxpayers 
are important. The other flaw in this program is that it encourages 
these people to get further in debt. And quite honestly, the level of 
debt they have is their primary problem. It is the same mentality that 
has kind of gotten our country in the jam it is in where we will have 
to have a vote here in a few weeks about raising the debt ceiling. It 
is the reason a lot of individuals and companies and governments around 
the world are overleveraged.
  So what we are saying is the way to fix someone's problem that has 
too much debt is for them to take on more debt. It is absurd to think 
that is good for these borrowers.
  I would like to yield to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Canseco).
  Mr. CANSECO. I thank you for yielding.
  I think we need to focus on what this amendment does and the purpose 
of it. The purpose of it is to bring back those funds that are 
allocated to this failed program and bring them back into the Treasury 
so that the Treasury can use those funds in order to reduce the debt 
that we have. It is but a small return into the Treasury, but it goes a 
long way into fiscal responsibility so we can continue on that path and 
reduce that budget.
  Now, with regards to the program itself that this amendment 
addresses, we have to realize that this program spends an enormous 
amount of taxpayers' money that came out of Dodd-Frank, a $1 billion 
HUD emergency homeowner relief program which provides loans or credit 
advances to unemployed borrowers. This program would spend 98 cents for 
every dollar that does not come back. Those are very important, to 
realize that these funds are taxpayer funds that would otherwise go as 
a grant to the borrower, not any repayment program, but grants to the 
borrower, that does not get repaid.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, let me address the wholly 
contradictory argument of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  We have heard on the other side, through the eagerness to just say 
negative things, two entirely contradictory things: one, that this is 
too lavish a subsidy to the homeowner and, two, that it will further 
indebt the homeowner.
  Members do understand that they cannot possibly both be true. In 
fact, there is a significant element of subsidy here, and those who 
take this money and who pay off their mortgages will get a subsidy so 
they will not be further in debt.
  The argument just made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) 
is wholly without basis. The argument that it is a more generous 
subsidy is a more accurate one. By the way, even if they were to pay it 
back, avoiding late fees and interest helps them out.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, as the ranking member knows, it has been billed 
as a loan program, but what we're saying is that it is, in fact, a 
grant program.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, no, that's not what 
the gentleman is saying. The gentleman is completely contradicting 
himself.
  He says it's a grant program. First, he was contradicting the other 
gentleman from Texas. Now he's contradicting himself. He said it's a 
grant program. Well, if it's a grant program, why did the gentleman say 
it was getting people further in debt?
  The gentleman has been caught in a totally contradictory argument. He 
did not say it was a grant program. He said it was getting people 
further in debt.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I think one of the things that points out how 
terrible this program is----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I'm sorry, I reclaim my time. I will 
yield if you want to clarify what you said. You had your 5 minutes. I'm 
not going to yield for general philosophy. I'm sorry, but it's my time. 
I was yielding if the gentleman thought I was misinterpreting him. For 
him to simply repeat what he already said takes time that I don't want 
to give him.
  He did contradict himself completely. First, it was a program that 
was going to put people further in debt. Now it's a grant program. He 
can decide which it is.
  I now want to go back and make my central point, which is that the 
only reason this has any impact on the taxpayer is that the Republicans 
insisted on protecting the large institutions. The gentleman from 
Alabama said all this money is going to the large institutions. Well, 
that's not true, because it does go to pay off loans to keep people 
from being foreclosed. Some will go to smaller institutions. Some will 
go to credit unions. Some will go to community banks.
  But here is the point: under our proposal, which the Republicans 
temporarily blocked--and I hope they'll repent--all of the funding 
would have come from the large institutions, but the Members don't want 
to address that. Under our proposal in the bill that passed--and we had 
to amend it, and we're going to try and come back and change it again--
every single penny that will be expended here will come from 
institutions of more than $50 billion in assets and hedge funds of more 
than $10 billion in assets.
  So, if you do it our way, not a penny will come from the taxpayer. It 
will come from the large financial institutions. And, yes, it will be a 
help to these individuals. Some of them will pay some of it back, but 
they won't have late fees. And, yes, the gentleman was correct when he 
said the second time around that it could become a grant program.
  I will now yield to the gentleman from Texas if he can explain to me 
how it can both be a grant program and something that gets people 
further in debt.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I have a question for the gentleman: Do you think 
this is

[[Page 3824]]

a loan program or a grant program? Which do you think it is?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I understand it's going to be primarily--
--
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. It's a question of----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I'm sorry. It's my time. You asked me a 
question. I'm going to answer it. I will note you don't want to answer 
the question.
  I am being consistent. Yes, I think it will work out for most people 
as primarily a grant program, 84 percent. I am pointing out that the 
gentleman is trying to cover his own embarrassment because he made the 
argument without any basis that it was going to put people further in 
debt. He then acknowledges that it's a grant program. People do not 
become further indebted when they receive grants.
  So, yes, it will work out for people who are responsible, to a great 
extent, as a grant program. That's why the CBO says 84 percent will be 
spent. That 84 percent in our bill, as we did it, would come from the 
large financial institutions. I don't want it to come from the 
taxpayers. While temporarily it now does, we will be offering a bill--I 
hope the committee of which the gentleman is an active member will give 
us consideration--so we can amend the law under which this program is 
authorized so that every penny, whether it's loans or grants or some 
combination--it will be primarily grants--will come from the large 
financial institutions and not a penny from the taxpayer.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Will the gentleman again yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Does the gentleman think that the language in the 
legislation as it is written now represents it as a loan or as a grant?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It will work out as a grant.
  Again, I am struck by the gentleman from Texas. He is the one who 
said it was an excessive loan program and a grant program. He has made 
two entirely inconsistent statements in a very short period of time. 
Even for a politician, that's a record for self-contradiction.
  The point is that it is both a grant and a loan. It will be primarily 
a grant.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Canseco).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF EMERGENCY MORTGAGE RELIEF PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Title I of the Emergency Housing Act of 1975 
     (12 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), as amended by section 1496(b) of 
     the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
     Act, is hereby repealed.
       (b) Treatment of Remaining Funds.--Notwithstanding the 
     repeal under subsection (a) of this section, any amounts made 
     available under the provision specified in section 2 of this 
     Act and obligated before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act shall continue to be governed by the provisions of law 
     specified in subsection (a) of this section, as in effect 
     immediately before such repeal.
       (c) Termination.--Upon the completion of outlays to 
     liquidate all amounts referred to in subsection (b) of this 
     section and the completion of all activities with respect to 
     such amounts under the provisions of law specified in 
     subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development shall terminate the Emergency Mortgage 
     Relief Program authorized under the provisions specified in 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Study of Use of Program by Members of the Armed Forces, 
     Veterans, and Gold Star Recipients.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall conduct a study to determine the extent of usage of the 
     Emergency Mortgage Relief Program authorized under the 
     provisions specified in subsection (a) by, and the impact of 
     such program on, covered homeowners.
       (2) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 90-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 paragraph (1) and 
     identifying best practices, with respect to covered 
     homeowners, that could be applied to the Emergency Mortgage 
     Relief Program.
       (3) Covered homeowner.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term ``covered homeowner'' means a homeowner who is--
       (A) a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on 
     active duty or the spouse or parent of such a member;
       (B) a veteran, as such term is defined in section 101 of 
     title 38, United States Code; or
       (C) eligible to receive a Gold Star lapel pin under section 
     1126 of title 10, United States Code, as a widow, parent, or 
     next of kin of a member of the Armed Forces person who died 
     in a manner described in subsection (a) of such section.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment as the designee of 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, line 23, strike ``and''.
       Page 5, line 24, before the period insert the following: 
     ``, and Members and Veterans With Service-connected 
     Disabilities and Their Families''.
       Page 6, line 19, strike ``or''.
       Page 6, line 25, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
       Page 6, after line 25, insert the following:
       (D) such members and veterans of the Armed Forces who have 
     service-connected injuries, and survivors and dependents of 
     such members and veterans of the Armed Forces with such 
     injuries.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
  I offer this on behalf of my good friend from Minnesota (Mr. 
Paulsen). It is a good amendment. It would add military servicemembers 
and veterans who have service-related injuries, as well as survivors 
and dependents of such individuals, to be included in the study in this 
bill.
  These families often face new hardships. They will likely need 
modifications to their houses to help them get around, especially if 
the servicemembers are now disabled. There may be significant changes 
in their ability to move around and in the skills they are able to 
perform. This will ultimately have a significant impact on their 
livelihoods.
  It is my hope that we can gain a better understanding of how we can 
best provide for the families of those who have served our country and 
who have paid the ultimate price.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman from Texas who 
consecutively denounced this program for putting people in debt and for 
being a giveaway grant asked me whether it was designated as a loan or 
a grant. The answer is neither. The program is called the Emergency 
Mortgage Relief Program, meaning it leaves open what kind it would be. 
So that's the answer to his question, and that's why some of us were 
less confused than others of us.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I think the bill says that it's a loan, so as soon as 
that individual takes an advance in this program, it becomes the 
liability of that individual. Now, there are certain ways in this bill, 
either from forfeiture or through some of the provisions, where that 
indebtedness is forgiven; but I will tell you that the proper 
accounting is that the day that the individual payment is made on his 
behalf it becomes the liability of that individual.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman gets 
himself further and further in the hole when trying to explain his 
contradictory statements.
  The facts are very clear. He began by saying it was going to put them 
further and further in debt. That, of course, contradicted his 
colleagues who had said it was going to be too much of a subsidy. In 
fact, it does not say ``loan'' or ``grant'' in the title. It says 
``emergency relief,'' and it does provide for a loan and forgiveness.
  So I am sorry the gentleman got himself tongue-tied, but don't blame 
the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

[[Page 3825]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Waters

  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. 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 Emergency Mortgage Relief Program, 
     which would have provided unemployed homeowners with low-
     interest loans to assist them in paying their mortgage, has 
     been terminated. If you are unemployed and concerned about 
     not being able to pay your mortgage, please contact your 
     Member of Congress for assistance.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I rise to present my amendment, which I 
believe is a commonsense provision that provides transparency and 
clarity for distressed homeowners.
  Specifically, this amendment would require the Secretary of Housing 
and Urban Development to publish on HUD's Web site a statement 
indicating that the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program has been 
eliminated. The amendment explains that this program would have 
provided unemployed homeowners with low or no-interest loans to assist 
them in paying their mortgages.

                              {time}  1050

  Further, my amendment directs unemployed homeowners to contact their 
Members of Congress directly since the Emergency Mortgage Relief 
Program is no longer available.
  If you listen to the recent debate, you can understand why this is 
important. First of all, we need transparency in what we do and in the 
public policy that we make. We need to be able to communicate better 
and clearly with our constituents.
  And so they have been told and started to get involved with this 
program that would assist unemployed homeowners to be able to stay in 
their homes. As you know, this program was specifically developed so 
that it could deal with the high unemployment rates and the fact that 
people who had been working--some of them all of their lives--are now 
unemployed or underemployed or have medical conditions that cause them 
not to be able to pay their bills in the way that they had been paying 
them in the past. And so now that we are coming along just since this 
program has started and saying, oh, sorry, the program is eliminated, 
we need to be able to communicate that, and this is what this amendment 
would do.
  American homeowners deserve our assistance and they deserve our help. 
We have just experienced a recession, almost a depression, where small 
businesses and big businesses alike had to close their doors or to 
downsize, and it has left us with some of the highest unemployment 
rates that we have experienced in many, many years. And still the 
unemployment rates are unacceptably high, still hovering around 9 
percent, and in some communities it's even worse than that. It goes up 
to 15 and 20, and in some communities even 30 percent. And so our 
American citizens have turned to government and said, What can I do? 
Can you help?
  This is but one of four programs that was designed to help them. 
Unfortunately, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have 
decided that not only are they going to eliminate this program, the 
Emergency Mortgage Relief Program for unemployed homeowners, but they 
have decided they are going to eliminate the HAMP program, that is the 
Home Affordable Modification Program.
  Yesterday, they voted off this floor the FHA program that would 
assist homeowners in refinancing. And don't forget, this FHA program 
was really for middle class citizens who paid their bills, who were not 
in default, had not lost their homes yet but their homes were 
underwater and they were trying to stay in them by reducing the 
mortgage. This legislation under the FHA would have helped them to do 
that.
  You're going to hear more about the NSP program that my friends on 
the opposite side of the aisle are eliminating also.
  But today, this is the most sensitive that we're doing now. This is 
the most sensitive because we have seen in Pennsylvania, as was 
described by my friend Mr. Chaka Fattah from that State, how this 
program has worked well for the last 20 years in assisting unemployed 
homeowners. We will set the regulations for how this is done. And of 
course they will look at these individuals in terms of how long they've 
been unemployed, how they've paid their bills, and whether or not they 
believe they're capable of not only utilizing the program but repaying 
these loans at some point. I don't think it's too much to ask of us to 
be of assistance.
  I notice that my colleague from Texas referred to it as ``these 
people.'' These people are our people. These people are American 
citizens. These are constituents who vote and send us here to make good 
public policy. It has been said over and over again that we bailed out 
the too-big-to-fail institutions, that we were generous in our loans to 
them, billions of dollars that went into those too-big-to-fail 
institutions.
  So I would simply ask for an ``aye'' vote on this very simple 
amendment that would bring some transparency to what we're doing.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I want to read a portion of this amendment filed by 
the gentlewoman from California. It says, ``The Emergency Mortgage 
Relief Program, which would have provided unemployed homeowners with 
low interest rate loans to assist them in paying their mortgage, has 
been terminated. If you are unemployed and concerned about not being 
able to pay your mortgage, please contact your Member of Congress.''
  You see, that's what is so confusing about the arguments by my 
colleagues on the other side. They can't decide if this is a loan or a 
grant--one time it's a loan, one time it's a grant--but, in fact, the 
program says it's a loan. In fact, HUD, the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, the title of their rule is Emergency Homeowners Loan 
Program.
  The other reason I rise in opposition to this is that we're 
terminating a program that has had zero customers. So it seems 
ambiguous here to have the Federal Government go through a process here 
where we're going to notify homeowners of a program that never was 
instituted, never was used, that it does not exist anymore. That seems 
a little wasteful and I think in many ways could be misleading. 
Obviously, when you look at the way that the program is structured, it 
becomes a grant program. And so we're misrepresenting that in the sense 
that, well, it says it's a loan, but it's really not a loan. It's a 
grant.
  And so I think this is something that is one of the things that the 
American taxpayers are really kind of tired of is the government out 
there misrepresenting or creating confusion to homeowners that may be 
seeking assistance. So I would just say that at this particular time 
this is not necessary and that we should not put a confusing piece of 
information out there on the Web site.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding. I 
need to clarify this.
  I'm a freshman here in Washington, D.C. I was not here for the 
creation of this program, but it's my understanding--and I'm hoping to 
hear some clarification from you--that there has not been a single 
application that has even been put in, much less denied or accepted, 
because this program has not had the regulations promulgated. That is 
correct; right? I mean, it strikes me

[[Page 3826]]

that it's like giving a job layoff notice before you've even hired 
anybody. And that really is the issue, it seems to me, that we need to 
make sure that we are getting people back to work. That is the best 
protection that we can possibly give to any program out there for 
people to make sure that they can make their payments is by giving them 
a job.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and I 
think he makes a great point. In fact, it is a program that has not had 
an application, has not been promulgated. And so there is a reason why 
we feel like this is not necessary, and I encourage my colleagues to 
vote against this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act.
  This legislation, like the other war on affordable housing bills 
being brought to the floor by our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, seems to terminate a much needed Federal program that helps 
struggling homeowners. To be clear, shutting down a badly needed 
foreclosure mitigation assistance program is not a solution to Federal 
deficits and will simply hurt homeowners and the current economic 
recovery.
  Rather than turning our backs on homeowners, we should be working 
together to improve and expand programs to help the millions of 
Americans and communities affected by the housing crisis all over our 
Nation.
  For several years now, many Americans have struggled with 
foreclosures, underwater mortgages, and abandoned and blighted 
properties. For local towns and cities, this crisis has also decimated 
their tax base, leading to a ripple-up effect producing funding 
shortfalls for basic services like police, firefighters, and teachers. 
This creates deficits at every level of government.
  I keep hearing from my Republican colleagues that the debt is 
crushing Americans and we must act now. Well, what about the crushing 
debt of negative equity facing almost a quarter of all homeowners in 
this country? Nearly one-fourth of all Americans owe more on their 
mortgages than their homes are now worth. There are nearly 11 million 
families who feel trapped in their homes, unable to sell or move if 
they wanted to, or even to refinance to lock in a better interest rate. 
And the statistics in my home State of Florida are far more staggering 
than the national average. Forty-five percent of all mortgages in 
Florida are underwater.

                              {time}  1100

  In Broward County, where I live, that number is more than 50 percent. 
Yes, over half. More help is needed, not less.
  However, what is offered today is a ``repeal and abandon'' approach, 
leaving homeowners with few or no options. This is simply unacceptable. 
For 10 weeks now, the House Republican leadership has failed to bring 
to the floor a single piece of legislation to create jobs despite 
making occasional casual references to jobs.
  What they've done instead is push legislation that will destroy 
jobs--just like the spending bill we pushed through the House a few 
weeks ago that would cost our economy 700,000 jobs. These housing bills 
risk further injury to our economic growth.
  Now, I can appreciate the arguments that the current housing programs 
have not done enough to help homeowners, and I agree. But that's why I 
support legislation offered by Congressman Cardoza to require Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac to refinance underwater mortgages so homeowners 
struggling to stay out of foreclosure can better afford to stay in 
their homes.
  And that's why I support taking a hard look at how we can improve the 
current Federal programs so more homeowners receive assistance.
  But my Republican colleagues have no plan to helping make housing 
more affordable or keeping people in their homes--nor will they. That's 
because they believe the lending industry will take care of it. For 
those with short memories, that's the same laissez faire approach that 
caused the Wall Street meltdown in the first place.
  The Republican leadership began the 112th Congress with a lot of 
fanfare by reading the Constitution on the floor of the House. Well, 
it's not enough to simply read the Constitution, but to abide by it and 
carry out its charge. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution vests 
the Congress with a duty to provide for the general welfare and to 
regulate commerce.
  However, over the decade leading up to this housing crisis, the 
Congress simply abandoned its duty to the American public. Lax Federal 
regulations and oversight led to an ``anything-goes'' attitude. Banks 
were making subprime loans people couldn't really afford and then 
bundling these loans and selling them off, eventually becoming toxic 
assets that crashed our financial markets.
  We owe more to our constituents than Speaker Boehner's ``so be it'' 
attitude. We must do more than just stand by and say the lending 
industry will take care of this crisis. A foreclosure has a devastating 
effect on each and every homeowner and tears at the very fabric of the 
family.
  Saying you support family values is mere lip service unless you take 
actions to value the family by striving to keep families intact with a 
roof over their heads.
  That is why I support the amendments offered by many of my Democratic 
colleagues--most of which have been ruled non-germane because, as far 
as I can tell, they propose helping too many homeowners. Apparently, 
any Federal effort that would help more than zero homeowners is simply 
too broad and unacceptable to the authors of this legislation.
  Perhaps this boils down to a fundamental disagreement of our role in 
looking out for our constituents and assisting at the Federal level.
  The Democratic minority remains committed to our goals for the 112th 
Congress--to create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and responsibly 
reduce the deficit. We will continue to judge each of your bills by 
this standard.
  The legislation before us today fails on all three counts, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. WOMACK. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOMACK. Madam Chair, hundreds of times since I took the oath of 
office just a few weeks ago, I've heard references to ``kicking the can 
down the road.''
  This kicking of the can, the ``can'' being the deficit and the debt, 
has come to the end of that road. In fact, we have used this term so 
many times, America has a chronic case of turf toe.
  Washington is in a state of denial. We continue to give away taxpayer 
dollars--correction, borrowed dollars--to people who can't afford to 
pay it back. Our friends from the other side want you to believe that 
we don't have a heart, that we're insensitive to the plight of those 
who are struggling because they've lost jobs and can't afford their 
mortgages.
  Well, let me tell you what Americans understand. Americans understand 
that we cannot continue to live in this irresponsible way--giving away 
borrowed money, program after program, knowing that it's going down a 
rat hole. Just another kick at the proverbial can. If you can't cut an 
expensive, irresponsible program like this one, then what can you cut?
  Look, we're all about job creation. Job creation is the preferred way 
to deliver us from this financial plight that we happen to be in. But 
the problem with job creation right now is that there is a dark, dark 
cloud hanging over America as we know it with a huge deficit, a record 
deficit, and a mounting debt, a debt so large that very soon in this 
very Chamber we'll be taking up the issue of a debt ceiling increase.
  That dark cloud includes higher taxes, that dark cloud includes 
burdensome regulation, and that dark cloud certainly includes deficits 
and debt.

[[Page 3827]]

  This program must be eliminated. The savings must go to deficit 
reduction.
  We have come to the end of the road. We can no longer kick this can 
any further. My colleagues and I are demonstrating leadership in this 
arena, something this Congress has lacked for several years.
  I encourage support of H.R. 836.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. It amazes me that somebody could 
say that homeowners, American homeowners, losing their homes and us 
trying to help them to stay in them is like throwing money down a rat 
hole. I might suggest that we might look at Afghanistan or the war in 
Iraq where we're spending $2 billion a week as a place where we could 
find the money to balance our budget.
  But at this moment, Madam Chair, I would like to yield to my good 
colleague from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the statements that were just made by 
the new gentleman from Arkansas, the one who claims that he and others 
are providing legitimate leadership for the first time. I would like to 
be in opposition to the fact that he describes what we're doing as 
``pouring money down a rat hole.''
  Let me just be very clear about my opposition. I do not like the 
American people being referred to that way. One of the other gentlemen 
on the opposite side of the aisle this morning referred to our citizens 
as ``these people.'' Now I hear our citizens being referred to as 
people who are receiving funds that are going down a rat hole.
  The American citizens are not rats. The money that we are 
appropriating through good public policy is not money that's going down 
a rat hole. As a matter of fact, he knows, if he knows anything about 
this crisis that we're confronted with, that not only have we bailed 
out the biggest institutions in America that are too big to fail with 
billions of dollars that we loaned to them--and I didn't hear anybody 
talking about that money ``going down a rat hole'' or ``those people'' 
or ``these people.''
  Let us be a little bit more respectful as representatives of the 
people in the way we describe our public policy here.
  I don't consider that credible leadership, Madam Chair, and I would 
ask the gentleman to refrain from referring to the citizens of this 
country in that way.
  And I would ask the Members of Congress to reject those arguments and 
to look at what we are doing and to understand, as the gentlelady from 
California has said, if they want to be credible in how they reduce the 
deficit, they should look at the money that we're spending on a war 
that we can't win--money, the billions that we're putting into 
Afghanistan. But no, they choose not to do that.
  They choose to attack the most vulnerable in our society, people who 
have worked all of their lives who are asking their government for a 
little assistance because now they're underemployed or unemployed or 
they have medical conditions that don't allow them to meet their 
obligations.
  I stand with the people. I stand with the citizens. The people on 
this side of the aisle generated the public policy under these four 
programs to help American citizens. And for those who don't want to 
help people whose homes are underwater, who don't want to help people 
whose neighborhoods are being decimated by these boarded-up properties, 
who don't want to help hardworking citizens who have worked all of 
their lives, who don't want to rise to the occasion of this crisis in 
our economic system, let them continue to identify themselves.
  I have an amendment here that says, okay, if that's how you feel, 
then let's post on the HUD Web site exactly what we're doing. We're 
eliminating this program. And let the citizens call us so that we can 
tell them, yes, we have a program. They would like to say this program 
has not been started. It has. As a matter of fact, we started to get 
calls right after the Dodd-Frank bill was signed into law with people 
asking about the program, wanting to get in the program, being thankful 
that we had somehow come up with ways to help them.

                              {time}  1110

  It's not a program that has not begun; it has begun. And this 
amendment that I have before this floor would simply say: Tell the 
people that you are eliminating the program. Let them know that it no 
longer exists. Clear up any confusion about whether or not we stand 
with the people or we are going to work against the people.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, everybody needs to understand 
a little history here, all right?
  This program was put first in place in 1975. I was 6; all right? This 
vital program has been in existence since 1975. I understand some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle may have been here for either 
the creation or shortly thereafter, but this vital program for 36 years 
remained unused, unfunded, and ineffective because it didn't exist. Now 
we hear that it's a vital program. We hear that we cannot continue to 
protect the homeowners of America without this program. It is 
absolutely nonsensical that we are going to put people further in debt 
and call that helping them.
  Here is what happened the last time government started going in and 
demanding that credit be eased and all these other things. And I have 
some experience in this. I was a former Realtor, licensed Realtor in 
Michigan. I can also tell you I have done housing development. My 
family is involved in construction.
  It used to be, not that long ago, it used to be that you either had 
to own your lot or you had to have 20 percent down to go get a mortgage 
and a loan. Well, that 20 percent quickly became 15 percent, which 
quickly became 10 percent, which became 7, which became 5, which became 
2 percent, which became zero down, which became 120 percent loan-to-
value because we needed to get people in homes. Well, that was not 
because the private sector and the free market was dictating that. It 
was because this body and others were directing them to do that.
  We have an opportunity here to unwind some things that have been 
done. As I said, I wasn't here for the creation of this well-
intentioned but crazy initiative, but I am here for the unwinding of 
that program, as are many of my other new colleagues, and it's about 
time we do that.
  Madam Chair, how we realize we can really truly help people, how we 
are going to help homeowners, is we are going to get them a job. We are 
going to create an atmosphere, not a government program. We are going 
to create an atmosphere that's going to allow the private sector to go 
out and be productive.
  Prosperity is created by the private sector, not the public sector. 
The public sector receives the dollars that it gets from us, taxpayers, 
from me as a small business owner, from my employees. It's not a 
government program that's going to create that prosperity; it's the 
private sector. It's our job to create an atmosphere that's going to 
allow that private sector job creation to happen.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I have to respond to what I 
just heard because it simply isn't true. The notion that the government 
directed people to make these loans is not true. I don't understand 
what directive the gentleman is referring to. I would be glad to yield 
to him.
  What policy of the Federal Government, what law directed people to 
make loans of 120 percent loan-to-value?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I appreciate the opportunity from the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.

[[Page 3828]]

  Fannie and Freddie. We had Fannie and Freddie that were allowed to go 
do that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reclaim my time.
  Understand the difference, ``directed'' and ``allowed.'' Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac never originated a loan. They could not have directed 
anybody to do anything. They were the secondary market. Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac could only get into action if some private entity made the 
loan in the first place. Beyond that, during the period when we had the 
increased subprime loans, which some of us were trying to ban, Fannie 
and Freddie were in a declining percentage.
  But I will yield again to the gentleman to tell me who directed the 
private sector to make these loans.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I appreciate that.
  It was an encouragement that happened, and it was allowed.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reclaim my time.
  I want to say to the gentleman, we are here in the House of 
Representatives making policy. You have got to be precise. I would say 
to Members about what you say, ``directing'' and ``allowed'' are two 
very different things. It is one thing to allow it.
  By the way, when you were talking from the perspective of the private 
sector, it's a very big difference. And there are many things that the 
government allows that I wouldn't direct. There are things it allows 
that I wish people wouldn't do. But the gentleman didn't say 
``allowed''; he said ``directed.'' That's simply wrong. I asked 
because--and he didn't say this, and I acknowledge that, but there were 
some who tried to blame the Community Reinvestment Act.
  I should note that in the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, three 
of the four Republican appointees, including Bill Thomas, our former 
colleague here, chair of the Ways and Means Committee, and Douglas 
Holtz-Eakin, who was the chief economic adviser to Mr. McCain, 
specifically repudiated the notion that the CRA had caused this. So we 
ought to be very clear.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I will be the first one to acknowledge that 
occasionally Republicans make mistakes as well. So thank you very much.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I was not talking about Republicans 
making mistakes. I have no idea what that's supposed to contribute to 
the debate. I was citing two responsible and thoughtful Republicans, 
the former chair of the Ways and Means Committee and Mr. McCain's chief 
budget adviser, plus all of the financial regulators under both Bush 
administrations who said CRA wasn't the problem.
  Now, the gentleman didn't say that it was. Some people have said 
that, because CRA did have some kind of more mandatory position, but it 
wasn't for those subprime loans. In fact, with regard to the loans the 
gentleman is legitimately complaining about, it was those of us on the 
Democratic side who tried to ban them. Beginning in 2004, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt), I joined them a little bit later, tried to outlaw those 
loans. And we were blocked by people who said, No, that's a mistake.
  In fact, in 2007, when this House, when we became the majority, 
finally did make illegal many of those loans in a bill, The Wall Street 
Journal denounced us and said we had created a Sarbanes-Oxley 
restriction for housing.
  So I just want to make it clear that there was no direction by any 
entity of the Federal Government. The gentleman appears to acknowledge 
that when he said, well, Fannie and Freddie allowed it. That's a long 
way from saying that it was directed.
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Thank you. I appreciate that. I am curious, 
though, how, getting back to this particular amendment and this 
particular bill, as we are removing this program, why is this program 
so vital if it was authorized in 1975, and in 1995 the Clinton 
administration under HUD used this language?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. You've got to move quickly. I have only 
got 5 minutes here.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. The language that they said is they wanted 
to remove this outdated, obsolete, and underutilized program.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am reclaiming my time. The gentleman is 
using it up with the papers.
  Here's the deal: 1975 is when it happened in Pennsylvania, not in 
America, if he had been listening carefully. Secondly, in 1995 we 
didn't have this foreclosure crisis. Third, as to was this just a new 
program, in fact, this program for the 32 States where it will operate 
is based on the program which operated in 18 other States, so we have 
had experience with it.
  By the way, the gentleman from Alabama's Governor praised this 
program in his State where it operated. The Governor of New Jersey, Mr. 
Christie, praised this program.
  So this is a new program for these 32 States, but it is modeled on a 
program that has worked successfully in these other 18 States. In 1975, 
it was Pennsylvania, not the United States.
  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. Loretta Sanchez of California

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. 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. 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 first date occurring after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act on which the Current Population Survey (CPS) of 
     the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor, as 
     released monthly, identifies that the unemployment rate for 
     the United States is equal to 7.5 percent or less.

  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order against this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment 
to H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act. My 
amendment would simply delay implementation of H.R. 836 until the 
unemployment rate is at 7.5 percent nationally or lower.

                              {time}  1120

  Why 7.5 percent? Because if my Republican colleagues really want to 
terminate this program, focus on what people in America really want, 
jobs.
  Ten weeks into this Congress and not one single bill has come from 
our Republican colleagues with respect to jobs. We haven't even had a 
chance to see how this program can be beneficial to the people we 
represent, to our neighborhoods, to the economy.
  I know that shortly after the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act the phone was ringing off the hook in my 
offices as people were trying to find out how they could get some help 
to stay in their homes.
  The Emergency Homeowner Loan Program was designed to assist 
homeowners who have experienced a significant reduction in income--in 
income, not because they got into a bad loan; because they have lost 
their jobs, because they have found another job but it doesn't pay 
enough, because they are underemployed, because they have found a part-
time job which doesn't give them benefits so they have to use

[[Page 3829]]

COBRA, and they have to pay for their health care simply because they 
have less money right now during this time when you all have not been 
able to help us create jobs.
  This would provide as many as 30,000 distressed homeowners with loans 
until they are able to find better jobs or find jobs. Assistance 
terminates when the borrower's income is restored to 85 percent of 
their pre-crisis level, and the assistance is limited to 24 months or 
$50,000, whichever occurs first.
  You know, unexpected situations, they occur in our lives. Many people 
who are unemployed today or are underemployed today didn't expect to 
lose their jobs. They went every day. They worked hard every day. As 
people were losing jobs, they worked harder, they stayed longer. They 
became more productive and still, because of decisions made by other 
people other than those who were working hard, they lost their jobs, or 
a medical problem came up. You get cancer, you have got to go to the 
doctor, you have got to do chemotherapy. Your employer says, don't need 
you around because you are out.
  You have got bills piling up, and you have no job, and you are 
working and you can't work. And now you are going to lose your home. 
You are going to put people who have cancer and other serious problems 
like that, health problems, out of their home?
  This is a program to help those kinds of people. I don't know. The 
last time I checked, Americans cared about each other. If we can even 
save one family in their home, then it is worth it.
  The banks have proven that working to keep our neighbors in their 
homes is not a top priority for them. Don't join them. Don't join them 
in sending the message to America's workers, to America's families, to 
America's homeowners that you, too, do not think that they are a 
priority.
  I urge you to allow this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I would note that the gentlelady from 
California's economic program known as the stimulus has helped another 
3 million of our fellow citizens lose their jobs.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, I make the point of order that the 
amendment violates clause 10 of rule XXI known as the cut-go rule.
  I have been advised by the chair of the Committee on the Budget that 
the amendment would cause a net increase in mandatory spending relative 
to the bill in the period specified in the rule.
  Accordingly, the point of order lies, and I ask for a ruling from the 
Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I wish to be heard, Madam Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I think this is directly related 
to what is going on. I don't understand how people don't understand 
what is going on here. Because we have this program, the Republican 
side says let's eliminate this program and then, if you want to help 
people, you need to find more money and cut another program.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentlewoman from California wish to 
address the point of order?
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I do believe it's germane, Madam 
Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Texas makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California violates clause 10 of rule 
XXI by proposing an increase in mandatory spending over a relevant 
period of time.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XXI and clause 4 of rule XXIX, the 
Chair is authoritatively guided by estimates from the chair of the 
Committee on the Budget that the net effect of the provisions in the 
amendment would increase mandatory spending over a relevant period as 
compared to the bill.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and the amendment is 
not in order.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Chair, as I sat here and I listened to all of 
this, there are some things that are missing from this discussion which 
I think we are forgetting. And that, you know, sometimes I think that 
we forget that this is America.
  This is a country that has gained its power through its moral 
authority, not necessarily by its military might. And we have heard 
discussions this morning about kicking the can down the road, putting 
money into a rathole. You know, the more I think about it, Madam Chair, 
I think it is a very sad day when somebody from a State with high 
foreclosures can get up and talk about destroying a program that will 
help his own neighbors. There is something wrong with that picture.
  President Barack Obama uses a term that I wish I had invented. He 
says that we have an empathy deficit in our country.
  And I wonder what it's going to feel like on Sunday when my 
colleagues go to church, read from the same Bible that I read from, and 
can brag about the fact that they were able to kill a program that 
would allow some 30,000 people to stay in their own homes while at the 
same time, when I go to church, I will have to explain to them why they 
did it.
  We are better than that. We are better as a Nation. We are better, 
and it's easy for people to go home. You will go home tonight, you will 
fly home. You will have a nice, warm house.
  But let me tell you about the other America, the America that has 
come to five foreclosure prevention events that I have held in my 
district, 40 miles away from here. They come in with papers in hand 
because they simply want some relief. They have lost their jobs, duh, 
through no fault of their own.
  They come in with tears running down their faces. They are black, 
they are white, they are Hispanic, they are Asian. They are Americans.
  So you say to them, the taxpayer, the dollars that you pay, I don't 
want to use them to help you stay in your house and their houses. They 
are the same Americans that I used to see get on the early bus, the 
early bus, and then go to work. But now they have no jobs, in part 
because of the same kinds of efforts we see over and over again about 
saying getting rid of regulations, the regulations that were not 
adhered to, the ones that were not in place are the very ones that got 
us where we are. That's why many of them don't have jobs and are now 
losing their homes. We are better than that.
  That's why I was one of the authors of this revision. I am tired of 
seeing my fellow citizens come in, your neighbors and my neighbors, 
people that look like your mother and my mother, people that look like 
your son and my son. Tears running down their faces, simply wanting a 
break. They are not looking for a handout. They are looking for a 
bridge.
  And so it is when you go to church on Sunday, when they ask you, what 
did you do this week? What did you achieve?
  You could say to them, stick your chest out and say, yeah, I stopped 
some 30,000 people from staying in their homes, Americans.

                              {time}  1130

  And then there's another argument that bothers me, Madam Chair. They 
act like we cannot create jobs and keep people in their homes at the 
same time. We can do better than that.
  And so I hope that when you go back and you talk to your neighbors 
and you say, a $1 billion program. A billion dollars. We were trying to 
get a little bit more, but even in the conference committee, the 
Republicans cut that down. And now they're back at it again.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, we can do better than trillions of 
dollars of debt that is borrowed from the Chinese and the bills are 
sent to our children and grandchildren. When the annual deficit was 
$200 billion and falling,

[[Page 3830]]

another gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished Democratic whip, 
said it was fiscal child abuse. Now we have a monthly deficit equaling 
that annual deficit.
  So I listened carefully to this gentleman from Maryland. And when I 
go to church on Sunday, I'm going to be very glad in my heart, in my 
head, that I did not commit an act of fiscal child abuse on my children 
or anybody else's children or grandchildren. We have got to stop 
spending money we don't have.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Waters

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on the amendment on which further proceedings were 
postponed.
  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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 237, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 172]

                               AYES--185

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     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
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     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
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     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
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     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
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     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
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     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)
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Akin
     Engel
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Reyes
     Smith (WA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Wu

                              {time}  1155

  Messrs. WALDEN, BARTON of Texas, and Mrs. SCHMIDT changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. RYAN of Ohio and RUPPERSBERGER changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  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. Miller of Michigan, 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. 836) to rescind the unobligated funding for the Emergency 
Mortgage Relief Program and to terminate the program, and, pursuant to 
House Resolution 151, 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. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I am, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Connolly of Virginia moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
     836, to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions 
     to report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:

[[Page 3831]]

       In section 3(b), before ``shall continue'' insert the 
     following: ``, and any amounts made available for use under 
     such Program pursuant to subsection (d),''.
       In section 3, strike subsection (d) and insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (d) Continuation of Program for Members of the Armed 
     Forces, Veterans, and Gold Star Recipients.--
       (1) Identification of amounts for assistance for eligible 
     homeowners.--Not later than the expiration of the 180-day 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall--
       (A) determine, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the amount 
     necessary to provide assistance under title I of the 
     Emergency Housing Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) to 
     eligible homeowners (as such term is defined in paragraph (3) 
     of this subsection); and
       (B) submit notice of such determination to the Congress 
     that specifies such amount.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--Effective upon the 
     submission to the Congress by the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development of the notice required under paragraph (1), 
     there is authorized to be appropriated, for assistance under 
     the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program under the provisions of 
     law referred to in subsection (a) of this section only for 
     eligible homeowners, the amount identified in such notice.
       (3) Eligible homeowner.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term ``eligible homeowner'' means a homeowner who is--
       (A) a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on 
     active duty or the spouse or parent of such a member;
       (B) a veteran, as such term is defined in section 101 of 
     title 38, United States Code;
       (C) eligible to receive a Gold Star lapel pin under section 
     1126 of title 10, United States Code, as a widow, parent, or 
     next of kin of a member of the Armed Forces person who died 
     in a manner described in subsection (a) of such section; or
       (D) such a member or veteran of the Armed Forces who has a 
     service-connected injury, or a survivor or dependent of such 
     a member or veteran of the Armed Forces with such an injury.

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this final amendment, which I 
submit with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), who led this 
battle in committee, protects our men and women in uniform who risk 
their lives to keep us safe in our homes by protecting theirs. It would 
continue providing emergency mortgage assistance to servicemembers, 
veterans, and Gold Star families, amending the underlying bill that 
would otherwise strip away such vital assistance to homeowners in 
distress through no fault of their own.
  Whether it is the result of being laid off or a severe medical 
condition or emergency, Congress has not turned its back on our 
Nation's veterans when they are in need, and now is no time to start.
  As my colleagues are well aware, the foreclosure crisis has affected 
millions of American families. Sadly, our military families have 
suffered some of the worst brunt of this impact. Last year, 20,000 
active-duty Reservists and veterans lost their homes, the largest 
number in recent history. Did you know the foreclosure rate around our 
Nation's military installations is four times higher than the national 
average? From 2007 to 2008, the rate of foreclosure in towns within 10 
miles of a military facility swelled by 217 percent compared with 59 
percent in the rest of the country.

                              {time}  1200

  Right here in our own backyard--in my district, in the community of 
Woodbridge, Virginia--the foreclosure rate spiked an astounding 414 
percent around the Quantico Marine Corps Base. Why is that? Because the 
unemployment rate for our military heroes who served in Iraq and 
Afghanistan is 15 percent higher than the national average. We all know 
how difficult the transition back into civilian life can be, 
particularly for the disabled as they try to find work.
  Congress has repeatedly singled out veterans for additional 
assistance, whether it is workforce training or small business 
assistance. In fact, the House, itself, initiated a Wounded Warrior 
Program to place veterans in our Member offices; but even with that 
assistance, the men and women who so bravely fought on behalf of our 
Nation find difficulty succeeding back home. That's why we had more 
than 75,600 homeless veterans in 2009.
  I know a young man in my district who returned home with a severe 
disability from a tour of duty in Iraq. Thankfully, the modest 
financial support he currently receives has enabled him to remain in 
his home, but barely, and he is only one adverse event away from 
foreclosure. What if his situation worsens? What if he suffers the loss 
of unemployment or develops a catastrophic illness? How am I supposed 
to tell him or his family, not to mention the thousands of others like 
him in many of our communities, that we are turning our backs on them?
  Rather than continuing to provide for the needs of our veterans when 
they need us the most, this legislation patronizes them by calling for 
yet another study to tell us what we already know: that our military 
families suffer disproportionately from foreclosures. We don't need a 
study to tell us the right thing to do.
  In a sincere attempt to honor their memories, many of my colleagues 
post pictures outside their offices of local servicemembers who have 
made the ultimate sacrifice. Those men and women fought and died 
protecting our homes. How can we now tell their families that we're not 
going to fight to protect theirs?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this final amendment and 
to help preserve the American Dream for those who are out there 
protecting that dream for each of us.
  With that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is about our veterans. I 
have but 1 minute, so please allow me to speak on behalf of our 
veterans for 1 minute.
  This is a moment of truth for us. Our veterans have been there for 
us. We had the courage of our convictions to send them to war. They 
have done their jobs, but many of them are returning home to properties 
that are being foreclosed upon. That will be abated. This is an 
opportunity for us to spend 0.859 percent of the $1.6 trillion that we 
have spent in Iraq and Afghanistan to help our veterans retain their 
homes. They have been there for us. The question is: Will we be there 
for them today?
  Don't you take up time to make sure that the veterans don't get what 
they deserve. Veterans have worked hard for us. We sent them to war. 
Let's now make sure that we take care of them in peace. Let's take care 
of our veterans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman.
  We are talking about our soldiers, our veterans. What do they do? 
They fight for our freedom, for our national defense. What is the 
greatest threat to our country now? What is the greatest threat to our 
national security? It is the debt. Don't take my word for it.
  Admiral Mullen said just 2 months ago: The most significant threat to 
our national security is our debt.
  Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently said on CNN: The country's 
dire fiscal situation and the threat it poses to American influence and 
credibility around the world will only get worse unless the United 
States Government faces its financial crisis.
  We can start representing our soldiers and our veterans and those 
they defend by cutting out this worthless $1 billion program where 98 
cents out of every dollar is never repaid. Let's move today. Let's 
defend our country. Let's start cutting our debt.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the distinguished

[[Page 3832]]

chairman of the Financial Services Committee brought to our attention 
something that, I believe, every veteran now knows, which is that the 
biggest threat to our national security is our national debt.
  I am not a veteran. My brother was. He fought during the Cold War. My 
father was. He fought during Korea. My grandfather was. He fought 
during World War II. So I know veterans, Mr. Speaker, and there are no 
citizens in our country who are more passionate about the preservation 
of our national security than our veterans. There is no veteran I know 
of who would not put country before self. There is no veteran I know of 
who wants to mortgage our Nation's future to China. There is no veteran 
I know of who wouldn't be ashamed and embarrassed to have China 
foreclose on our Nation because of the national debt that has been run 
up by our friends on the other side of the aisle.
  If we want to have a secure Nation, if we want jobs, if we want to 
save America from bankruptcy for our children, we've got to quit 
spending money we don't have. Veterans put country before self.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the distinguished chairman of 
the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Members, what we are talking about is trying 
to eliminate a program that is duplicative, a program that has been 
wasteful over the last few years.
  I think the colleagues who are speaking against what we are trying to 
do don't quite understand how the VA home loan program works. Veterans 
have their own program that they can go to and borrow money. They are 
not being disadvantaged by our doing away with the program that we are 
talking about today.
  In fact, if VA individuals have loans that are guaranteed by the VA 
and their homes are under water, they can go back to the VA and, in 
some instances, get those loans refinanced without appraisals, 
including all the fees, including all the closing costs--I will remind 
you again--even if the homes are worth less than what the original 
loans were all about.
  Just a moment ago, we heard of the large increases in the number of 
foreclosures. Let me tell you what the number is in regards to 
foreclosures with VA loans. The foreclosure rate is 2.5 percent. Why? 
Because the VA works with the people who have these loans to make sure 
that they don't get into serious delinquencies, which is being more 
than 90 days in arrears, so that they can stay in their homes; and if 
something happens when they have problems, the VA has a program to take 
care of that, too.

                              {time}  1210

  But here we have our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in 
some instances--some of my colleagues may not have heard this--
questioning what we do in church on Sunday because we're not committed 
as the Lord requires us to do to other people. That's not right. Both 
sides of the aisle are committed to what we think is right, and what we 
think is right is not mortgaging our country on the backs of our 
children and our grandchildren anymore.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas has 
expired.
  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. CONNOLLY of Virginia. 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 182, 
noes 238, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 173]

                               AYES--182

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     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)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     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.
     Jones
     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)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     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
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--238

     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
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     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
     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
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     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
     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
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

[[Page 3833]]


     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     DeLauro
     Ellison
     Engel
     Fattah
     Giffords
     Green, Gene
     Harper
     Polis
     Reyes
     Smith (WA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)

                              {time}  1227

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 173, had I 
been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, on March 11, 2011, I inadvertently missed 
rollcall vote No. 173, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  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. HENSARLING. 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 177, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 174]

                               AYES--242

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     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
     Costa
     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
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     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
     Labrador
     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
     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
     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)

                               NOES--177

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     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
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bilbray
     Brady (TX)
     Engel
     Giffords
     Granger
     Lujan
     Meeks
     Polis
     Reyes
     Smith (WA)
     Stutzman
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute left in 
the vote.

                              {time}  1233

  Ms. BASS of California changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make known that I 
was unable to cast a ``yes'' vote on Final Passage of H.R. 836, the 
Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act. I am in favor of 
this legislation and would like the Record to reflect my support.

                          ____________________