[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4177-4185]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 839, HAMP TERMINATION ACT OF 2011; 
    AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 861, NSP TERMINATION ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 170 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 170

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 839) to amend the Emergency Economic 
     Stabilization Act of 2008 to terminate the authority of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to provide new assistance under the 
     Home Affordable Modification Program, while preserving 
     assistance to homeowners who were already extended an offer 
     to participate in the Program, either on a trial or permanent 
     basis. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Financial Services now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 861) to rescind the third round of funding for the 
     Neighborhood Stabilization Program and to terminate the 
     program. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Financial Services now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report (except that amendment number 9 and amendment number 
     10 may be offered only en bloc), may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

                              {time}  1230

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 170 provides for a 
structured rule designed and designated by the Rules Committee for 
consideration of H.R. 861 and H.R. 839. This rule allows the amendments 
submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order as long as they 
were not subject to a point of order and were germane to the

[[Page 4178]]

underlying text of H.R. 861 and H.R. 839.
  This rule provides for debate and amendment opportunities for members 
of the minority and the majority to change the legislative text of the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the two 
underlying bills. The first piece of legislation, the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program Termination Act, was introduced by my friend, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller) on March 1, 2011, and went 
through committee markup in the Financial Services Committee last week 
on March 9. The second bill, H.R. 839, the Home Affordable Modification 
Program Termination Act, was introduced by my dear friend, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) on February 28 and marked 
up last week as well.
  Both of these bills went through regular order, which allowed Members 
from both sides of the aisle the opportunity to offer amendments in the 
Financial Services Committee and in the Rules Committee yesterday.
  The chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier, has once again 
provided Members of this body a transparent and accountable structure 
under the rule that we are discussing today, allowing Members from both 
sides of this body to offer amendments and both sides to join in debate 
of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, last fall, Republicans pledged to the American people 
that we would stop the wasteful spending and put Americans back to 
work. These two bills that we're discussing today continue to roll back 
the abuse of taxpayer funds, the diminishment of jobs, and the creation 
of a proper government responsibility with any balance in the housing 
sector.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, we also said that we would make sure that we 
went through regular order and would allow Members time to read the 
bills. That is what Republicans bring forth to the floor today as we 
debate these two important aspects that have gone through regular order 
through the Financial Services Committee.
  H.R. 861, the NSP Termination Act, terminates the Neighborhood 
Stability Program and rescinds $1 billion in unobligated funds that was 
authorized in the Dodd-Frank bill last year.
  Congress has appropriated approximately $7 billion in three rounds of 
funding for this program. Eligible users for the funds include 
emergency assistance to State and local governments to acquire, 
develop, redevelop, or demolish foreclosed homes. So this doesn't stop 
or assist folks in getting through foreclosures. It gives money to 
lenders to fix up the houses to sell, while returning not one cent of 
the $7 billion back to the American taxpayer.
  The NSP has done little to resolve the root causes of the increase in 
foreclosures. In fact, the NSP continues to extend and further 
exacerbate the current housing downturn. This program represents a 
costly bailout for lenders, servicers, and real estate speculators who 
made risky bets on the housing market, all at the expense of the 
American taxpayer and our debt.
  While putting billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, we should 
understand that this is a program, two programs that must be halted. 
There should be an appropriate accountability and reporting, and this 
program lacks both. This is just another two examples, following up 
what we did last week with two other examples, of the Democrats' 
solution of throwing money at a problem rather than something that 
would work and be cost effective.
  Taxpayers from all over this Nation are struggling with their 
mortgage payments, keeping their jobs, and providing for their 
families. Allowing for a stable economy, a future, and reining in 
government spending by eliminating wasteful government spending will 
provide for more transparency and government accountability across 
economic markets. That is why we are eliminating these two programs 
today on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Let's be honest about this. Republicans are here to try and save jobs 
that are on the chopping block from what wasteful government spending 
has done for us the last 4 years of Democrat control. Today, 
Republicans are on the floor to stop wasteful Washington government 
spending, which says directly to the taxpayers we don't want 40 cents 
out of every dollar that we spend to be put on a credit card, a future 
debt that our children and our future will be put at risk by mortgaging 
our future. Republicans are not going to allow that. That is why we're 
on the floor of the House of Representatives. That is why we will 
encourage every Member of this body, Republican or Democrat, to make 
tough decisions today about not just today, but about our future.
  The second bill under this rule today, H.R. 839, rescinds the Home 
Affordable Modification Program known as HAMP. This is another 
unnecessarily and poorly managed housing program that wastes tens of 
billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars. Terminating this program would 
prevent the use of $29 billion of TARP funds, $29 billion of TARP funds 
we do not think should be spent.
  HAMP was established in February of 2009 with the goal of assisting 
with loan modifications for up to 4 million homeowners. Over the life 
of this program, only 521,306 loans have been permanently modified, and 
the redefault rate for these loans is very high.

                              {time}  1240

  So what we started with is trying to help 4 million people. Thus far, 
we have only helped 521,000, but it comes at a high cost to the 
taxpayer. Only $840 million of the $29 billion earmarked for this 
purpose has been used--only $800 million of the $29 billion.
  We need the money back, Mr. Speaker. We need the money back because 
this is another case in which the program actually made matters worse 
for many of the homeowners who were seeking to participate. The 
government is pushing a program which harms these homeowners. It 
creates a perverse incentive for borrowers to deliberately and 
willfully stop making their mortgage payments in the hopes that they 
can get government loans to reduce their payments.
  This program that the government has actually encourages people to 
quit making payments, which still add up, including the interest on 
what they owe. It harms their credit ratings and adds, what I think, is 
a further unfair circumstance in which the government is pushing 
``we're here to help you'' when, in fact, it doesn't know the rules of 
the game or whether a homeowner will even be able to qualify, making 
the homeowner wait months to then find out, ``Whoops. Sorry. You didn't 
qualify. Now you need to continue what you're doing.''
  A false hope, Mr. Speaker.
  The Washington Times, which is a great newspaper here in Washington, 
published an article on this program on March 1 of this year. It stated 
that in, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of cases, homeowners are far 
worse off after HAMP than they were before being talked into and 
getting involved with the program. Borrowers are typically not told all 
the potential consequences of falling behind on their mortgages. 
They're simply told that there's a government plan out there to help 
you when, in fact, they do fall behind on their mortgages.
  Services have repeatedly lost documentation and have provided false 
information to home borrowers who were in need of assistance and good 
discussion about how to pay their bills--instead, trying to talk them 
into participating in a government program and, in some instances, even 
pushing individuals into default, individuals who could have continued 
making their payments.
  In a report from the Inspector General of TARP to Secretary of the 
Treasury Geithner on March 25, 2010--that is 1 year ago--he notes: 
``Several aspects of the HAMP design make it particularly vulnerable to 
redefaults.''
  It is time to pull the plug. That is why Republicans are on the floor 
today to say straight up: We need to look at what is not working. We 
need to look at the $29 billion that has been spent on this program, 
and we need to be honest with ourselves, as has been noted in 
newspapers across the country, as to what the Democrats have

[[Page 4179]]

done. What this administration and this House have done has been 
adversarial in helping people who needed assistance. Today, we can save 
the taxpayers $28 billion that has not been spent on this program.
  Continued government intervention and the questionable use of 
taxpayer dollars only prolong our current economic crisis and ensure 
that the housing market will simply continue to struggle. The market 
needs to find its own footing free of government intervention and 
manipulation by this government so that we can get on with a full 
recovery. The deficit is expected to reach a record under President 
Obama: using his numbers, $1.65 trillion this year while our national 
debt is well over $14 trillion. The U.S. and its citizens cannot afford 
to spend billions of taxpayer dollars that will not be repaid, and it 
ends up, in many instances, harming the people it was intended to help.
  Job creation is the most effective foreclosure prevention tool. Job 
losses rather than unsustainable mortgage terms are now the driving 
force behind foreclosures and mortgage defaults. Eliminating these 
programs will not only save taxpayer dollars; it will encourage more 
responsible government spending by the Federal Government.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as no surprise to you, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on 
the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Here we are again. At a time when Americans are calling for more jobs 
to improve the economy, my Republican colleagues want to pass 
legislation that won't create a single job and that will hurt the 
middle class by further destabilizing our housing markets.
  Mr. Speaker, this week, we take up two more bills to continue 
weakening our housing markets and abandoning families who are working 
hard, struggling to stay in their homes, both of which show that my 
friends on the other side of the aisle continue to put partisan 
politics ahead of creating jobs and growing the economy.
  Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, when we had several Members there 
from both sides who were testifying, the question was asked: Are we in 
a housing crisis? Everybody there agreed--and I think most of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on my side of the aisle 
agreed as well--that we are in a housing crisis. So the answer is: What 
is and what should be the response?
  Now, this response is what we have.
  My colleague from Dallas said that the current program, HAMP, lacks 
accountability. Well, it seems like the logical answer to that would be 
to create accountability for the program, not to eliminate the program. 
We are talking about repeal without replace. We are talking about 
ending rather than mending. If there is truly a housing crisis, as I 
believe Members across both sides of the aisle agree there is, it calls 
for a public policy response. Rather than talking about what we 
shouldn't do, I think it would be more constructive to talk about what 
we should do.
  We are leaving nothing in the wake if this proposed repeal moves 
forward. At a time when our economy is finally beginning to show signs 
of strong, sustained growth, we need to do everything we can to put 
people back to work and create jobs. Instead, here we have legislation 
after legislation that will increase burdens on already struggling 
middle class families. Rather than improving and building upon or even 
replacing programs that keep families in their homes, the Republicans 
have chosen to eliminate these four programs that keep families in 
their homes, and they have no plan to strengthen the housing market or 
to help the families who will, quite literally, be left on the street 
as a result.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 839 will eliminate one of the last lifelines 
available to many homeowners. According to Treasury Secretary Geithner, 
ending the HAMP program would cause a huge amount of damage to a very 
fragile housing market and would leave hundreds and hundreds of 
thousands, if not millions of Americans, without the chance to take 
advantage of mortgage modifications that would allow them to stay in 
homes that they can afford.
  Now, we could go into how we got into this mess in the first place, 
and we all know, Mr. Speaker, that there is plenty of blame to go 
around. Yes, people who got in over their heads with mortgages they 
couldn't afford deserve some of the blame. So do the brokers who 
shouldn't have sold them on those mortgages. So do the banks that 
underwrote those mortgages. So does Wall Street for packaging those 
mortgages and creating derivative products--and yes, so does the 
government for being asleep at the regulatory switch. There is plenty 
of blame to go around.
  When the bankers needed help, they came to the government, and the 
government helped them. When the regulators needed help, they came to 
the government, and we passed financial regulatory reform last year. 
Well, the people who are most affected, the people who literally risk 
being tossed out on the street, rely on these programs to help them. 
How in good conscience can this Congress even consider bailing out Wall 
Street and bankers and not help mainstream America stay in their homes?
  Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around. Believe me, many of these 
people facing this situation, who are barely able to make their 
mortgages, are not being rewarded for their bad decisions. They would 
much rather spend half as much on homes and not be under water, 
suffering as they are today. Yet the least we can do as a country to 
help them is to acknowledge that, yes, personal responsibility and 
blame don't just fall on their shoulders.
  My Republican colleagues will argue that this is a failed government 
program and that this program hasn't helped the 3 million to 4 million 
homeowners it was originally projected to help. What they fail to 
mention is that HAMP, A, has helped to stabilize the housing market and 
that, B, it has helped over half a million families. Yes, that's not 
the 3 million or 4 million, and yes, our side of the aisle would be 
very open to suggestions about improving this program, whether it's the 
accountability of this program, the scale of this program, how it's 
delivered, or whether it's replacing it with another program to help 
those who are barely able to make their mortgage payments.

                              {time}  1250

  But what we are talking about today is to eliminate the tool that has 
kept one-half million American families in their homes, Mr. Speaker.
  There is no doubt that many folks on the other side of the aisle are 
also calling this program a waste of taxpayer money. According to the 
CBO, the average cost per assisted homeowner in HAMP is $13,000. Now, 
that is a small price and actually a sound investment. It is far 
smaller than the $60,000 that it has been estimated to cost Freddie, 
Fannie, and large banks to foreclose on a home. So $13,000 to prevent 
the banks from foreclosing on a home, keeping that family in a home, 
allowing them to go to work and make their payments and pay back what 
is due; or, $60,000 to foreclose on that home and leave that family on 
the streets. The money for this program is well spent.
  If an individual shows they can't stay current on their programs, 
they are removed from HAMP at no cost to taxpayers. In fact, of the 
homeowners that have had their trial modifications cancelled through 
the end of 2010, only 5.1 percent have been foreclosed on, and only 
14.9 percent are at all in the foreclosure process.
  Mr. Speaker, the program keeps families in their homes. Mortgages 
that have been modified under HAMP have a sustainability rate of 85 
percent. Yes, we can do better. Yes, we would love to bring this 
program or others to keep 3 million to 4 million families in their home 
and stabilize housing prices. But what the bill before us does is 
repeal one of the only tools we have to help keep American families in 
their homes.
  I understand the program hasn't reached the initial projections that 
the Obama administration put forward. But there is no question, talking 
to

[[Page 4180]]

some of the families that this program has benefited, that it does work 
for them. With our help, the Treasury can continue to take steps to 
improve the effectiveness of this program and increase compliance from 
banks and borrowers.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 861 would rightly be titled the ``Illegal Trade 
Commercial Real Estate Act.'' The majority seeks to undermine the 
efforts of our Nation's mayors, city councils, and real estate 
developers and ensure that areas which have suffered due to economic 
downturn remain safely in control of those who do damage to 
communities. This is a critical program to help reform our communities.
  The Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which I remind my colleagues 
was established and signed into law by President Bush, was designed to 
turn a crisis into an opportunity. In 2008, almost $4 billion was 
appropriated and helped 307 State and local agencies acquire, 
rehabilitate, and sell abandoned and foreclosed properties, exactly 
what is most needed now not only to revitalize our blighted areas but 
to help prevent the housing crisis and commercial real estate crisis 
from getting worse. I remind my colleagues that every dime of this 
program that is not spent by the sunset of this program will already, 
under statute, be returned to the Treasury.
  By creating a mechanism for communities to acquire, rehabilitate, and 
sell back to the private market abandoned and blighted properties, we 
give local governments a very powerful tool for economic growth and 
fighting crime and keeping our communities safe.
  In the midst of our ongoing liquidity crisis, where many developers 
are having a tough time finding financing for many of their prime 
projects, it is a matter of public safety and critical economic 
importance that we continue this vehicle by which blighted properties 
are returned to being productive economic engines, particularly in our 
Nation's most troubled neighborhoods.
  I also want to point out that this program isn't limited to 
commercial property. In my district in Adams County, Colorado, which 
like other areas of the country was devastated by the wave of 
foreclosures, we have used this program to revitalize residential 
neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program allows local 
governments to build communities with home rehabilitation, down payment 
and closing cost assistance for low- and middle-income families. By 
using these Federal dollars to leverage local efforts, many struggling 
families have been able to find and keep a home, and a modest Federal 
investment has been magnified severalfold by private investment, city 
investment, and county investment.
  Mr. Speaker, I think most people in this country agree, yes, there is 
a housing crisis and, yes, there is plenty of blame to go around and, 
yes, we need a public policy response. These programs aren't perfect. 
We hope to work in a bipartisan way with our colleagues across the 
aisle on improving these programs, coming up with new market-oriented 
programs to help end the crisis in real estate. But the answer is not 
to simply repeal one of the only instruments that we have to keep 
families in their homes with only the vaguest of assurances that 
someday, somehow Congress might think up a better plan.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments 
about our being here today on the floor in a bipartisan way with a bill 
that went through regular order with an opportunity for any Member that 
would choose that has any ideas that are germane to the issue and that 
fall within the rules to be included. And you are going to see where 
there are a bunch of amendments today.
  Mr. Speaker, the conversation that the gentleman and I were having 
should further extend, and that is the common sense that is related to 
why we are on the floor today, the discussion about whether we should 
make it better or simply repeal it. And I would quote from the IG of 
the TARP fund in his report to Secretary Geithner:
  ``Although in the final analysis it is up to the policymakers in the 
administration and the Congress to determine whether it is worth 
spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on a program that is 
assumed at its outset to fail ultimately for 40 percent of the 
participants, several aspects of HAMP's design make it particularly 
vulnerable to redefaults.''
  I think the IG has said it best. When any objective person looked at 
what the Democrat Congress passed, they would have to question whether 
it was worth spending tens of billions of dollars on a program at the 
outset we should have known would fail for 40 percent of the 
participants. I think that is good reason to say, common sense should 
say, let's stop the plan, not continue it.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the chairwoman of the 
Financial Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. 
Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of House Resolution 170, the rule 
for consideration of H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, 
NSP, Termination Act, and H.R. 839, the Home Affordable Program (HAMP) 
Termination Act. H.R. 861 would end NSP and rescind 1 billion taxpayer 
dollars that would otherwise be spent to continue this troubled 
program.
  In total, Congress has already spent $7 billion for NSP. And instead 
of stabilizing neighborhoods or helping people whose mortgages are 
underwater, the program allows lenders and servicers to offload their 
bad investments onto taxpayers and delay market recovery. Even more 
disturbing is that critics warn that NSP creates incentives for banks 
and other lenders to foreclose on troubled borrowers, worsening the 
crisis and kicking families out of their homes.
  This program is not about helping homeowners. They have already lost 
their house to foreclosure. They are not involved in this. This is help 
for lenders and bankers to take the money and build more homes through 
the counties, through the States, through not-for-profits, and then to 
sell these homes and reap the benefits of the money. There is no place 
in this bill to tell us where that money goes. It probably is in a 
slush fund.
  The GAO, the inspector general for HUD, and other auditors have noted 
the program is plagued with problems, including lax reporting 
requirements and poor accountability. There is little evidence to 
suggest that the funds spent through NSP are producing cost-effective 
results.
  Finally, the program lacks any requirement that remaining NSP funds 
are returned to taxpayers when a sponsored property is sold. Instead, 
the money is treated like a fund, somewhere, never to be returned.
  The other bill approved by our committee is H.R. 839. This bill would 
terminate HAMP, which has become the poster child for failed 
foreclosure mitigation programs. According to the CBO, this bill would 
save $1.4 billion over 10 years.
  Announced by the Obama administration in February of 2009, the HAMP 
program to date has spent $840 million out of the $30 billion in TARP 
funds that were set aside for the program. For this extraordinary 
investment, the administration predicted that up to 4 million 
homeowners would receive help. Instead, only 580,000 homeowners have 
received mortgage modifications.
  Sadly, a failure to meet expectations is the least of the program's 
troubles. Of those who were promised help, 740,000 homeowners have had 
their modifications cancelled. In many cases, these homeowners were 
strung along on a false hope, only to end up in worse financial straits 
than if they had never heard of HAMP.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a statement from a March 2 
subcommittee hearing during which Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector 
General for the TARP program, or SIGTARP, exposed the most hazardous 
failings of the program. He said that there had been countless 
published reports on HAMP participants who wound up worse off, having 
engaged in a false attempt. Failed modifications often leave borrowers 
with more principal outstanding on their loans.

[[Page 4181]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to yield the gentlewoman an additional 
minute.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Numerous oversight bodies, including the GAO, have 
cited the Treasury for failing to respond to recommendations to 
increase the transparency, accountability, and consistency of the 
program. Americans for Tax Reform called the program ``a costly 
failure.''
  Out-of-control spending has left us with a $14.1 trillion national 
debt that is damaging our recovery and harming job growth. Economists 
agree that reducing government spending will create a more favorable 
environment for private sector jobs; and that is what Americans need, a 
job and a paycheck, not more failed experiments and taxpayer-funded 
housing.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today really troubled because I am opposed to 
terminating the HAMP program and the Neighborhood Stabilization 
Program. But I am troubled because these programs have actually been 
very troubled. They are not perfect. They haven't helped every 
homeowner that we want, but we shouldn't be in a position of just 
destroying the programs.
  The Neighborhood Stabilization Program in particular was established 
to help communities acquire, rehabilitate, and resell abandoned and 
foreclosed properties as a result of the growing foreclosure crisis. 
There are so many economists across this country who tell us every 
single day that until we get the housing market straight, we will not 
get this economy straight. So I believe in theory in these programs.
  Declining home values in my community have led to lower tax revenues 
for our local jurisdictions that are already suffering from the impacts 
of the economic downturn. The statewide foreclosure crisis has hit 
particularly hard in my district and the counties that I represent, in 
Prince George's and Montgomery Counties, in Maryland. They have the 
first and third highest number of foreclosures in our State and account 
for 40 percent of the foreclosures statewide.
  Through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Montgomery County 
received $2 million and Prince George's County nearly $12 million in 
funding. This has helped in these communities. I would urge the 
majority to look at the benefits, and let's try to fix the programs.
  At the beginning of this crisis, sure, there were bad loans. There 
were bad actors all over the place. But we also know that people have 
lost their jobs and that has contributed to foreclosures, and these 
families should not be punished because we can't seem to get it 
straight. Neighborhood stabilization does stabilize communities. It 
doesn't do any good to have homes that are empty and in decline and 
neighborhoods that will never bring the market back.
  So while I am concerned about some of the programs and would like to 
work to try to fix these, it is not right for us to simply throw them 
out and minimize the impact of helping 521,000 families to stay in 
their homes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. 
McHenry), the author of one of the pieces of underlying legislation.
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill that I am sponsoring is the HAMP Termination 
Act, and it is a bill that will protect at-risk homeowners across the 
country from a government program that has proven to be an abysmal 
failure.
  The Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, was originally 
supposed to help as many as 3 million to 4 million struggling 
homeowners avoid foreclosure by modifying loans to a level that is 
affordable to borrowers now and sustainable over the long term. That 
was the intention. However, nearly 800,000 of the 1.4 million 
homeowners who enrolled in this program have subsequently been rejected 
or terminated.
  In his most recent testimony to Congress, the Special Inspector 
General for TARP, Neil Barofsky, stated: ``It is just not working. The 
Home Affordable Modification Program has to date been a failure.'' ``A 
failure,'' in the words of the independent individual to oversee this 
program. A failure.
  Now, there is no doubt that people of good will created this program. 
There is no doubt about that. The intention was to help those that are 
facing foreclosure. That was the intention.
  Unfortunately, the design of this program has led to more people 
being harmed than actually helped. Understand that. We have a 
government program that harms more people than it was designed to help 
because it strings them along with a so-called verbally modified change 
to their payments, and so it drains their savings. At the end of the 
day, the majority of the people enrolled in this program are kicked 
out, and they are left not only with their savings depleted, which is 
bad enough that a government program strings people along for that, but 
it also ruins their credit rating, because this government program only 
verbally modifies their loan terms.
  In the end, you have folks that have depleted their savings, ruined 
their credit, and lost their house. And this is a Federal Government 
program paid for by the American people's tax dollars. It is an abject 
failure. Worse than that, it is destroying people's lives.
  I would ask my colleagues to vote for this rule. It allows for a 
number of amendments, some of which are wise, others that I think are 
very flawed from my colleagues across the aisle.
  But this HAMP program, we have to come to a consensus on it. All the 
folks that oversee this, nonpartisan, bipartisan, have all looked at 
this and described it as a failure.
  So if we can't eliminate this government program, then I ask my 
colleagues, What government programs can we eliminate? Vote for the 
rule; and, please, I ask my colleagues to vote for the HAMP Termination 
Act as well.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Clarke).
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. You are right, it is all about debt. Debt. 
Our homeowners, they are very concerned about debt. It may not be the 
Federal debt that their grandchildren may have to pay decades from now, 
but it is definitely that mortgage payment that is due next month. That 
is the debt that our homeowners cannot afford to pay.
  So here is what I am asking this Congress to do: hold off on cutting 
back on these foreclosure initiatives before we directly help our 
homeowners. And we can help them in a way that won't cost much more 
money.
  As a matter of fact, let's give homeowners something that they 
typically don't have when they are facing foreclosure, and that is 
time. Time. Time to find a home buyer to pay off their mortgage; time 
to get more income to pay off their bills; and, most importantly, the 
time and the leverage to voluntarily negotiate with a mortgage servicer 
that typically will keep losing their loan modification papers until 
the homeowner runs out of time. Time.
  I am asking this Congress to first do this: freeze all foreclosures 
to those homeowners who deserve the help and who can afford to stay in 
their homes and maintain their homes. That is the best way to stop our 
property values from dropping, from providing the revenue that our 
police officers and firefighters and emergency medical providers 
definitely need; and, finally, that is the best way to help save family 
homes, by providing time to our homeowners.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).
  Ms. HIRONO. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for the time.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program Termination Act, NSP.

[[Page 4182]]

  We keep hearing from the other side about wasteful government 
spending. Nothing represents wasteful government spending more than the 
continuing billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money that we 
give to Big Oil, which is making record profits. This bill continues 
the Republican assault on the middle class and the working people.
  For the sake of our communities, we cannot afford to terminate NSP. 
By redeveloping foreclosed and abandoned properties, this program is 
stabilizing neighborhoods nationwide. This not only increases property 
values but also reduces the number of foreclosures. NSP provides a 
lifeline to struggling families who are trying to secure affordable 
housing or simply stay in their homes.
  Like the rest of the country, Hawaii has a foreclosure crisis. We 
rank 10th in the Nation in the rate of foreclosures. The $19.6 million 
in NSP funding that Hawaii received is helping our communities in the 
greatest need throughout my State. The City and County of Honolulu will 
use these funds to redevelop vacant properties and build two affordable 
rental housing projects in Ewa and Waianae. In Hawaii County, an 
affordable rental housing project will be built on vacant property in 
Kailua-Kona. In the counties of Maui and Kauai, NSP funds will be used 
to buy and rehabilitate abandoned or foreclosed homes and residential 
properties throughout both counties.
  So you can see that this is money that is not represented as wasteful 
spending. Our communities need our help. Vote against this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as we began this week, there were 15 million unemployed 
Americans looking for this Congress to work together to try to get 
something done for entrepreneurs and small businesses to create jobs. 
What has the Congress done? Yesterday, the majority managed, only with 
the help of a few dozen Democrats, to keep the government running for 
the next 3 weeks because they couldn't agree among themselves as to 
what to do with the budget. Today, they're taking up this bill that, 
rather than fixing a flawed program, they rip it up from the roots and 
throw it out. Tomorrow, they're going to pull the plug on National 
Public Radio.
  Now, I would suggest if you're like some of those 15 million 
Americans who are spending the day at the public library in front of 
Monster.com or looking at the want ads in the newspapers, wearing out 
your shoe leather to figure out where your next job is going to come 
from, this has not been a great week. Eleven weeks the majority has 
been in control--no jobs bill, no jobs plan, no jobs idea. Not one 
word, not one bill, not one minute.
  The priorities of this majority are wrong.
  Republicans and Democrats should come together, work together to 
create an environment where small businesses and entrepreneurs can 
create jobs for the American people. Eleven weeks--no jobs, no sense of 
priorities. That's the record of this majority.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I was just reminded by the gentleman, Mr. 
Mica, the favorite son of Florida, who's the chairman of our 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) had referred that we've done nothing about 
jobs. But the gentleman, Mr. Mica, as chairman of the committee 
reminded me that this House passed just 2 weeks ago a transportation 
bill that had been lagging, waiting since 2009, that will add a 
substantial number of jobs. And that was a good jobs bill.
  So I wouldn't expect to get credit for anything, necessarily, on the 
floor, but at least we need to be honest about this. The Republicans 
did pass a bill that was adding jobs as opposed to this massive 
undertaking that we are trying to save jobs that are at risk as a 
result of the outlandish spending and wasteful government spending 
taking place here.
  Secondly, the gentleman said, Why are Republicans now trying to get 
rid of this? Why didn't we do something to fix the program? But I would 
remind the American people that this is a report that went to the 
Secretary of the Treasury over a year ago. And I would ask the 
question: Why did the Democrats, why did this administration continue a 
failed program? Why did they continue it? That's because they were 
happy with it. In fact, as we've already read, a 40 percent failure 
rate and thousands of more people harmed. That's why Republicans are 
trying to fix this--because we have tried to work.
  Today, we're going to pass this on the floor. It's a great bill. And 
we're going to ask every single person to be able to vote for this 
opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend.
  I want to agree with my friend from Texas that investing in 
transportation construction creates jobs. We agree with him. And I 
would ask the gentleman if he would support our Build America bill that 
offsets the deficit by cutting job outsources and creates more 
transportation construction jobs. Would he agree to put that on the 
floor?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SESSIONS. As soon as it's on the floor, I'll consider that.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, we'll give the gentleman a chance on 
the previous question motion, perhaps tomorrow.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would point out that the one bill that the gentleman from Texas has 
pointed to as a jobs bill is one bill that contained many, many 
earmarks from previous sessions. Also included is continuing funding 
for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. So if this is the best jobs bill 
that a Republican Congress can bring forward, I think the American 
people deserve better.
  It is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
  Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 861, which 
would terminate all funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. 
The program has really helped families and communities in Alabama's 
Seventh Congressional District tremendously.
  Our Nation is recovering from one of the worst recessions experienced 
in our lifetime, and in my district, the economic downturn happened 
long before the rest of the Nation began to experience it. The 
foreclosure rate in my district has reached 8 percent. These 
foreclosures have devastated homeowners. The foreclosures have had a 
debilitating effect on the neighborhoods, leading to blight, decay, and 
reduced property values.
  The NSP program provides States and hard-hit cities with program 
funding to help them recover from the effects of foreclosures, 
abandoned properties, and declining property values. The City of 
Birmingham, the City of Bessemer, Jefferson County, and the State of 
Alabama have received funding from this program. In my district, the 
NSP program has revitalized 259 homes, relocated 69 families, and has 
saved at least nine distressed neighborhoods.
  In speaking recently with the mayor of the City of Birmingham, Mayor 
Bell, about the effectiveness of this program, he informed me that the 
program has benefited greatly distressed neighborhoods in Birmingham. 
I've also heard from families whose neighborhoods have been improved 
because of this funding.
  My colleagues across the aisle want to terminate NSP, but I 
respectfully disagree. There's still much work to be done for our 
families and our communities. Without a doubt, we must reduce our 
national budget and Congress must work together to make the tough cuts. 
However, such cuts cannot be made on the backs of our communities, 
families, and seniors.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.

[[Page 4183]]


  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker and my friends on both sides of the aisle, 
we could very easily come up with money to save this program if we 
would just put a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.
  I'm here today to point out the critical importance of the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program and to urge my fellow Members to 
vote against cancelling it.
  Over the past decade, the people of my State in Ohio, and my district 
in particular, have weathered a terrible storm of foreclosures, 
devastating entire communities. While some neighborhoods in my district 
have been hollowed out by the effects of this storm, the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program funds have made neighborhoods and communities 
safer. Those communities faced the constant risk of crime and vandals 
taking advantage of empty structures, and Neighborhood Stabilization 
funds have been used to demolish hundreds of abandoned homes in the 
neighborhood, to help protect existing home values, and prevented 
neighborhoods from falling apart.
  But the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has not just financed 
demolition of abandoned structures. In Cuyahoga County alone, this 
program funded the creation of 237 units of affordable rental housing 
and 25 single-family home renovations and neighborhood green space 
improvements.

                              {time}  1320

  It has also been used to leverage non-Federal money to fund the 
innovative Land Bank, a public entity that buys vacant and abandoned 
land and puts ownership of that land back in the hands of the public so 
that it can be used again, often in conjunction with private 
development, to renew and revitalize communities. Anyone who has ever 
spent any time in blighted communities knows that they cry out for 
innovative solutions like the Land Bank.
  When NSP was first being developed, I held hearings to find out how 
specifically HUD planned to allocate the funds. I convinced them of the 
wisdom of using U.S. Postal Service and census tract data on 
residential home vacancies. Because of that, they adopted a need-based 
formula for allocating the money to neighborhoods and communities that 
needed it most.
  Vote against this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are facing a CR of $61 
billion in cuts causing the loss of 800,000 jobs. What is more precious 
to America than the opportunity to own a home?
  The Neighborhood Stabilization Program has gone into inner city and 
urban areas and recaptured neighborhoods, giving them a boost of energy 
that they needed. There is always the opportunity for reform, Mr. 
Speaker, but I would simply raise the question: Let's mend it, don't 
end it. Let's not leave cities abandoned with broken down, ramshackle 
homes that would in fact create more blight, more gang opportunities, 
more dangerous conditions.
  And, yes, HAMP needs reform. But what does it mean to eliminate a 
program? Of course the HAMP has a grandfather provision. But all 
America wants is to get these programs to work. Neighborhood 
stabilization works. HAMP can work. Now you're letting banks off the 
hook, so that every day a homeowner calls, they can hear the sound 
``foreclosed.'' At least the intervention allowed those hardworking 
Americans to keep their home and to provide for their family and to 
keep jobs will be lost if these bills are passed. Vote no.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to the bill to end the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program. It is time for Americans to seriously question 
the Republican leadership's dedication to job creation. After 11 weeks 
in Congress, they've offered no jobs plan, no jobs bill.
  What's worse, by their own expert witness's testimony, the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program, or NSP, supports 93,000 jobs 
nationally. In light of this estimate, I submitted an amendment to the 
NSP Termination Act that would require the Congressional Budget Office 
to study and report to Congress the impact of this legislation on job 
creation or job loss. However, my friends on the other side of the 
aisle prevented consideration of my amendment on the floor of the 
House.
  Last week, the Republicans waged an attack on American homeowners by 
voting to eliminate foreclosure mitigation programs that help 
underwater homeowners refinance their mortgage as well as assist 
temporarily unemployed Americans to remain current on their mortgage; 
all of this in the midst of one of the worst housing crises in the 
history of America. And now the Republicans are putting our most 
vulnerable communities at even greater risk. Terminating the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program will damage our neighborhoods, 
devastate home values, and will slow our economic recovery.
  Now is the time to protect our most vulnerable neighborhoods, 
families who are struggling, and now is the time to invest in the 
future of our communities and help to restore the American dream of 
homeownership, recognizing that stabilization of our housing market is 
key to our economic recovery.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the termination of this program. 
I've seen it work in Rhode Island. It's worked well. It's making a 
difference.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again, my friends and colleagues are 
talking about a no jobs bill, nothing about jobs. But at least there's 
a purist on the floor and, that is, there was one Democrat in the House 
who voted against the Republican jobs bill, transportation bill. That 
was the gentleman, Mr. Polis. So I would think that he would have great 
standing on saying we've never had a bill that added jobs, but 
everybody else I would have to question that because they voted for the 
bill, because, in fact, it's a good jobs bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  With regard to the jobs bill, I acknowledge that that was the bill 
that my colleague from Texas cited as the one jobs bill the Republicans 
have brought before us. This was a bill that had dozens and dozens of 
earmarks, which is why, in standing with President Obama, I opposed 
that bill, including an indefensible earmark on which we proposed an 
amendment on the floor, which was voted down, I might add, without a 
single Republican vote, to eliminate funding for what I thought there 
was broad consensus we should eliminate funding for; namely, a $300 
million bridge in Alaska. There was a $70 million bridge to an island 
with 50 people, and an additional project that is another bridge.
  This is an example of earmarks at their worst, of pork barrel 
politics at their worst. I'm beginning to think if the Republicans do 
come up with a job bill, we need to ask at what price jobs? Is it going 
to be so filled up with Republican pork that we have to either take it 
or leave it? That's a choice the American people don't want to face.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit that we can improve HAMP. 
We can improve the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. There's no doubt 
about that. I would advance that we should be doing exactly that. My 
colleague from Michigan (Mr. Clarke) had some excellent ideas about 
improving these programs. I am a cosponsor of a bill to provide for a 
capital gains tax exemption for investment in community banks to help 
them shore up their balance sheets. Why not look at, for instance, 
allowing investment properties to have the same mortgage deductibility 
as primary residences? There's a number of great ideas that I'm sure 
Members on both sides of the aisle could discuss and agree upon to 
address

[[Page 4184]]

our housing crisis. But what the answer isn't is to repeal one of the 
only tools we have and to replace it with silence.
  It is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman.
  I just want to use an example here from a district in northeast Ohio, 
an old industrial district. We've had chronic foreclosures for 30 
years. The census just came out. The city of Youngstown went from 
180,000 people down to about 65,000 people. The tax base has been 
eroded. And in the last few years, Youngstown has been cited as one of 
the top 10 best cities to start a business by Entrepreneur magazine. 
Site Selection magazine says it's one of the top 10 places to start or 
grow a business.
  In part, the renaissance of Youngstown is because of Federal 
investments like this that help us downsize and shrink our community. 
And I find it ironic that our friends who are trying to reduce 
government spending, we're trying to get rid of dilapidated housing 
where it increases crime, prostitution, drug use. This all puts more 
pressure on the safety services within a town like Youngstown.
  This bill to repeal this money is actually going to cost cities and 
rural areas more money because you're not allowing us to reinvest into 
these places, downsize them, shrink them, make them more manageable 
and, over time, reduce the tax burden on the local taxpayer. These are 
critical investments that are needed in the United States of America. 
This should have been $5 billion, not just $1 billion.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if it worked that way, we'd be for it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman to 
respond.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would invite the gentleman to Youngstown, Ohio. 
He can see it for himself.
  Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado who serves on the Financial Services Committee, Mr. 
Perlmutter.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank my friend from Colorado.
  I would invite my friend from Texas to come to Aurora, Colorado, 
where we've actually, with the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, had 
tremendous successes. This country was on its back financially 2 years 
ago, 2\1/2\ years ago. We're just now getting back on our feet, and my 
friends from the Republican side of the aisle want to just pull the rug 
right back out. You've got to get strong before you can do away with 
some of these programs.
  So let's talk about Aurora, Colorado. They got $4.7 million to go and 
buy homes that were vacant because there had been foreclosures which 
were causing blight and lots of property devaluation. They went in, 
fixed the homes, and sold them to good families. The neighborhood 
starts growing again. Aurora has taken that $4.7 million and turned it 
into $7.8 million by the sales of these properties, so that the 
neighborhoods get strengthened, families are helped, and we stop this 
cycle of foreclosure in tough neighborhoods.

                              {time}  1330

  My friends on the Republican side of the aisle are blaming all sorts 
of things for the debt that have nothing to do with it and are taking 
away things that are really helping middle America. I'd urge them to 
rethink this whole bill, and I know my friend from Colorado has seen 
these same things, the benefits of these programs.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will assure the gentleman I will be in 
Aurora, Colorado, and I'll be pleased to be there this year and 
probably next year, also.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some items on the 
schedule for the gentleman from Dallas during his visit to Colorado as 
well.
  I'm the last speaker for my side, and I would like to inquire if the 
gentleman has any further requests for time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman's asking. I have no further 
requests for time, and I appreciate the collegiality the gentleman has 
extended me.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you a few stories from constituents 
in my district that the HAMP program has helped. My office has helped a 
number of constituents with this program, and I'm not alone in doing 
that.
  Last year, I had a local artist who ran her own small business 
contact my office asking for help with her mortgage. Her income had 
declined significantly and unexpectedly due to the tough economy. She 
tried to find a second job but it wasn't enough. With the help of a 
HAMP loan modification, she's still in her home today.
  We also helped a truckdriver who had become ill and needed dialysis. 
Although he still receives Social Security, he couldn't afford his 
mortgage payments without his old salary. He had nowhere else to turn, 
but with the HAMP modification, he was able to lower his interest rate 
by 2 percent and convert his loan from an adjustable rate to a 30-year 
fixed and stay in his home.
  Mr. Speaker, the stories don't end there. HAMP has proven that it can 
save families on the brink of foreclosure and keep them there for the 
long haul. It's not the ideal program. It hasn't reached the 3 million 
families that were initially projected, but you ask any of those 
500,000 families that HAMP has helped keep in their home and they will 
agree that this program works for them.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be focusing on jobs. Last month, I'm proud to 
say, our economy added over 150,000 private sector jobs, and instead of 
working to increase that number, we've been passing legislation that 
threatens to reverse the progress that has been made by creating 
additional uncertainty within the real estate sector and leaving more 
families at risk of losing their homes.
  Republicans promised to promote job creation and economic growth with 
their new majority. Instead of delivering on these promises, they've 
already used their majority to raise taxes on middle class Americans, 
to attack the middle class, and promote their own social agenda. This 
is not the change that the American people asked for.
  It is time to get our fiscal house in order. I'd like to make it 
clear that this is not the way to solve our budget problems, by 
repealing a program that helps keep middle class families in their 
home. Mr. Speaker, the best way to get our deficit under control is 
through creating jobs, not through cutting the safety net of 
hardworking Americans and preventing our cities and counties from 
revitalizing their blighted neighborhoods.
  Most distressing, however, is that through these bills the promise of 
job creation is broken yet again. I ask my colleagues to join me and 
vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation so we 
can keep our promise to help all of our communities rebuild and 
succeed, and work in a bipartisan fashion to get the very best ideas on 
the table about what our proper public policy response should be with 
regard to the housing crisis and the jobs crisis that this Nation 
faces.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Colorado for not only engaging in a spirited debate here on floor but 
also for his collegiality in that endeavor.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation is being overrun still by too high a 
taxation, borrowing, and spending, and just last month, we hit a record 
deficit, $223 billion in 1 month. That is simply unacceptable. With the 
debt looming at over $14 trillion and unemployment hovering still 
around 9 percent, Americans want solutions, not handouts. And that is 
why we are here on the floor today, to protect the taxpayer and the 
integrity, I think, of the government, rather than creating more 
problems, at least trying to alleviate some of those and give the 
taxpayer back some money. The American people asked Congress to rein in 
spending and for efficiency, and that is what Republicans are here to 
do today.

[[Page 4185]]

  We did this in an open process where every single Member of this body 
had a chance through regular order to prepare themselves and to come to 
the floor today. Since Republicans have gained the majority in January 
we have cut $1.2 trillion worth of spending, first of all, by repealing 
ObamaCare; secondly, by cutting $61 billion in H.R. 1, $8 billion last 
week in additional unnecessary government housing programs, and another 
$30 billion with this rule today. We're getting our job done.
  By gaining control of government spending and eliminating wasteful 
government handouts, the private sector can, again, gain confidence in 
our economy and the direction of the future of this country to begin 
investing in jobs and our economic future. After all, we finally 
decided last year that what we would do is extend tax cuts which will 
help save jobs and grow our economy.
  I applaud my colleagues for introducing the bills we are discussing 
here today. In just a few minutes, you will see the chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee or his designee lead that discussion 
through lots of amendments, lots of ideas by Members.
  I want to thank the young chairman of the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from California, David Dreier, for providing us such a great, 
open, and transparent process. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule 
and perhaps, more importantly, on the resolution before us today.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 180, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 181]

                               YEAS--241

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--180

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Costa
     Crowley
     Giffords
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Lee (CA)
     McHenry
     Nadler
     Waters

                              {time}  1359

  Messrs. FARR and DAVID SCOTT of Georgia changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ALTMIRE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________