[House Report 112-34]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     112-34

======================================================================

 
    PROVIDING 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; AND PROVIDING 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

                                _______
                                

   March 15, 2011.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 170]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 170, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 839, the 
HAMP Termination Act of 2011, under a structured rule. The 
resolution waives all points of order against consideration of 
H.R. 839. The resolution provides one hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. The 
resolution provides that the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services 
now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. 
The resolution waives all points of order against the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The resolution makes 
in order only those amendments to the committee amendment 
printed in Part A of this report. Each amendment made in order 
may be offered only in the order printed in Part A of this 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in Part A of 
this report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in Part A of this 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. The resolution waives all points of order against 
the amendments printed in Part A of this report. The resolution 
provides one motion to recommit H.R. 839 with or without 
instructions.
    The resolution also provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 861, the NSP Termination Act. The 
resolution waives all points of order against consideration of 
H.R. 861. The resolution provides one hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. The 
resolution provides that the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services 
now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. 
The resolution waives all points of order against the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The resolution makes 
in order only those amendments to the committee amendment 
printed in Part B of this report. Each such amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in Part B of this 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 Part B of this report, shall be considered as 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in Part B of 
this 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. The resolution waives 
all points of order against the amendments printed in Part B of 
this report. The resolution provides one motion to recommit 
H.R. 861 with or without instructions.

                         EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

    Although the resolution waives all points of order against 
consideration of H.R. 839 and H.R. 861, the Committee is not 
aware of any points of order against consideration. The waivers 
of all points of order against consideration are prophylactic.
    The waiver of all points of order against the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 839 includes a 
waiver of clause 7 of Rule XVI, prohibiting non-germane 
amendments. This waiver is necessary because the Committee on 
Financial Services adopted an amendment in committee markup 
that was not germane to the bill.
    The waiver of all points of order against the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 861 includes a 
waiver of clause 7 of Rule XVI, prohibiting non-germane 
amendments. This waiver is necessary because the Committee on 
Financial Services adopted an amendment in committee markup 
that was not germane to the bill.
    Although the resolution waives all points of order against 
the amendments printed in this report, the Committee is not 
aware of any points of order against the amendments. The 
waivers of all points of order against the amendments are 
prophylactic.

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion 
to report, together with the names of those voting for and 
against, are printed below:

Rules Committee record vote No. 50

    Motion by Mr. Hastings of Florida to report an open rule. 
Defeated: 2-7.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Majority Members                      Vote               Minority Members               Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sessions....................................          Nay   Mr. Hastings of Florida...........          Yea
Ms. Foxx........................................          Nay   Mr. Polis.........................          Yea
Mr. Bishop of Utah..............................          Nay
Mr. Woodall.....................................          Nay
Mr. Nugent......................................          Nay
Mr. Webster.....................................          Nay
Mr. Dreier, Chairman............................          Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rules Committee record vote No. 51

    Motion by Mr. Polis to amend the rule to make in order the 
following amendments to H.R. 839 and provide the appropriate 
waivers: Cardoza #1; McCarthy #2; Miller (NC) #8; and Miller 
(NC) #9. The motion would also amend the rule to make in order 
the following amendments for H.R. 861 and provide the 
appropriate waivers: Cardoza #1; Cicilline #5; Jackson Lee #13; 
and Jackson Lee #14. Defeated: 2-7.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Majority Members                      Vote               Minority Members               Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sessions....................................          Nay   Mr. Hastings of Florida...........          Yea
Ms. Foxx........................................          Nay   Mr. Polis.........................          Yea
Mr. Bishop of Utah..............................          Nay
Mr. Woodall.....................................          Nay
Mr. Nugent......................................          Nay
Mr. Webster.....................................          Nay
Mr. Dreier, Chairman............................          Nay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS IN PART A TO BE MADE IN ORDER

    1. Hanna (NY): Would include findings detailing the Home 
Affordable Modification Program's (HAMP's) flaws and state that 
terminating HAMP would save taxpayers approximately $1.4 
billion. (10 minutes)
    2. Quigley (IL): Would include Congressional findings on 
various facts about the HAMP program, including cost and number 
of permanent modifications. (10 minutes)
    3. Canseco (TX): Would ensure that all taxpayer funds saved 
from elimination of the Home Affordable Modification Program 
(HAMP) are used to reduce the deficit. (10 minutes)
    4. Inslee (WA): Would direct the Secretary, upon 
termination of the Home Affordable Modification Program, to 
undertake a study of the use of the program by covered 
homeowners, and also of the effectiveness of the program in 
assisting these homeowners. Following completion of that study, 
the Secretary would be required to implement a new program to 
assist the same group of homeowners based on the study's 
findings. (10 minutes)
    5. Waters (CA): Would require the Secretary of the Treasury 
to send a letter to HAMP applicants that they will not be 
considered for a modification due to termination of the program 
and that they can contact their Member of Congress for 
assistance in negotiating with or acquiring a loan modification 
from their servicer. (10 minutes)
    6. Jackson Lee (TX): Would require a study and report 
submitted to Congress determining the successful aspects of 
HAMP, and legislative recommendations for a replacement loan 
modification program. (10 minutes)
    7. Matsui (CA): Would require mortgage lenders and services 
participating in the HAMP program to continue to publicly 
report basic loan modification information. (10 minutes)
    8. Maloney (NY): Would include a list of the number of 
trial and permanent modifications started under the HAMP 
program in each state as well as the number of seriously 
delinquent mortgages across the country that will not be able 
to be eligible for HAMP modifications because Congress is 
terminating the program. (10 minutes)
    9. Sanchez, Loretta (CA): Would add Sense of Congress 
language to the end of the bill that banks are encouraged to 
work with homeowners to provide loan modifications for those 
qualifying and assist homeowners and prospective homeowners 
with foreclosure prevention programs and information on loan 
modifications. (10 minutes)

             PART A--TEXT OF AMENDMENTS TO BE MADE IN ORDER


 1. An Amendment To Be Offered By Representative Hanna of New York or 
                 His Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Page 4, after line 6, insert the following new section (and 
redesignate the succeeding sections accordingly):

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

  The Congress finds the following:
          (1) According to the Department of the Treasury--
                  (A) the Home Affordable Modification Program 
                (HAMP) is designed to ``help as many as 3 to 4 
                million financially struggling homeowners avoid 
                foreclosure by modifying loans to a level that 
                is affordable for borrowers now and sustainable 
                over the long term''; and
                  (B) as of February 2011, only 607,600 active 
                permanent mortgage modifications were made 
                under HAMP.
          (2) Many homeowners whose HAMP modifications were 
        canceled suffered because they made futile payments and 
        some of those homeowners were even forced into 
        foreclosure.
          (3) The Special Inspector General for TARP reported 
        that HAMP ``benefits only a small portion of distressed 
        homeowners, offers others little more than false hope, 
        and in certain cases causes more harm than good''.
          (4) Approximately $30 billion was obligated by the 
        Department of the Treasury to HAMP, however, 
        approximately only $840 million has been disbursed.
          (5) Terminating HAMP would save American taxpayers 
        approximately $1.4 billion, according to the 
        Congressional Budget Office.
                              ----------                              


2. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Quigley of Illinois or 
                 His Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Page 4, after line 6, insert the following new section (and 
redesignate the succeeding sections accordingly):

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

  The Congress finds that--
          (1) the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) 
        was first announced in February 2009 and became active 
        in March 2009;
          (2) HAMP provides financial incentives to mortgage 
        servicers, borrowers, and investors to facilitate 
        mortgage modifications that lower borrowers' monthly 
        mortgage payments to no more than 31 percent of their 
        monthly income;
          (3) as of February 25, 2011, $1.04 billion of HAMP 
        funding has been disbursed;
          (4) as of January 31, 2011, there were 539,493 active 
        permanent modifications and 145,260 active trial 
        modifications, for a total of 684,753 currently active 
        modifications; and
          (5) each currently active modification has cost the 
        Department of Treasury approximately $1,518.80.
                              ----------                              


3. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Canseco of Texas or His 
                   Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Page 5, after line 3, insert the following new paragraph:
          ``(3) Deficit reduction.--
                  ``(A) Use of unobligated funds.--
                Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
                title, the amounts described in subparagraph 
                (B) shall not be available after the date of 
                the enactment of this subsection for obligation 
                or expenditure under the Home Affordable 
                Modification Program of the Secretary, but 
                should be covered into the General Fund of the 
                Treasury and should be used only for reducing 
                the budget deficit of the Federal Government.
                  ``(B) Identification of unobligated funds.--
                The amounts described in this subparagraph are 
                any amounts made available under title I of the 
                Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 
                that--
                          ``(i) have been allocated for use, 
                        but not yet obligated as of the date of 
                        the enactment of this subsection, under 
                        the Home Affordable Modification 
                        Program of the Secretary; and
                          ``(ii) are not necessary for 
                        providing assistance under such Program 
                        on behalf of homeowners who, pursuant 
                        to paragraph (2), may be provided 
                        assistance after the date of the 
                        enactment of this subsection.''.
  Page 5, line 4, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
  Page 6, line 13, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
                              ----------                              


4. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Inslee of Washington or 
                 His Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Page 5, line 6, before the period insert ``, Effectiveness of 
Program, and Replacement Program''.
  Page 5, line 8, before ``determine'' insert ``(i)''.
  Page 5, line 9, after ``by'' insert ``homeowners meeting the 
criteria under the terms of such Program for eligibility for 
assistance under such Program, the effectiveness of such 
Program, and the impact of such Program on such eligible 
homeowners, including the extent of usage by''.
  Page 5, line 11, before the period insert the following: ``, 
(ii) identify improvements to the Program and best practices 
under the Program, and (iii) determine the need, and 
appropriate guidelines and standards, for a mortgage 
modification program of the Secretary to replace the Home 
Affordable Modification Program that is (I) based on the 
guidelines and standards for such Program, with appropriate 
improvements as identified by the study, and (II) available to 
homeowners who meet the criteria under the terms of such 
Program for eligibility for assistance under such Program''.
  Page 5, lines 16 and 17, strike ``paragraph (1)'' and insert 
the following: ``subparagraph (A), identifying the improvements 
to and best practices under the Home Affordable Modification 
Program identified pursuant to the study, setting forth the 
Secretary's determination of the need for, the appropriate 
guidelines and standards for, the mortgage insurance program 
determined pursuant to the study,''.
  Page 5, line 21, before the period insert the following: 
``and to the mortgage insurance program identified and 
described pursuant to subparagraph (A)(iii)''.
  Page 6, after line 12, insert the following:
                  ``(D) Implementation.--Upon the expiration of 
                the 90-day period beginning upon the submission 
                to the Congress of the report required under 
                subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall, only to 
                the extent that amounts for such purpose are 
                provided in advance in appropriations Acts, 
                implement the mortgage insurance program 
                described in such report pursuant to 
                subparagraph (A)(iii) through issuance of 
                appropriate guidelines and standards set forth 
                in the report.''.
                              ----------                              


5. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Waters of California or 
                 Her Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Page 7, line 2, strike the last closing quotation marks and 
the last period.
  Page 7, after line 2, add the following:
          ``(5) Notification to hamp applicants required.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Not later than 30 days 
                after the date of the enactment of this 
                subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
                inform each individual who applied for the Home 
                Affordable Modification Program and will not be 
                considered for a modification under such 
                Program due to termination of such Program 
                under this subsection--
                          ``(i) that such Program has been 
                        terminated;
                          ``(ii) that loan modifications under 
                        such Program are no longer available;
                          ``(iii) of the name and contact 
                        information of such individual's Member 
                        of Congress; and
                          ``(iv) that the individual should 
                        contact his or her Member of Congress 
                        to assist the individual in contacting 
                        the individual's lender or servicer for 
                        the purpose of negotiating or acquiring 
                        a loan modification.''.
                              ----------                              


6. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Jackson Lee of Texas or 
                 Her Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Add at the end the following new section:

SEC. 3. STUDY.

  (a) In General.--Not later than the end of the 60-day period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of the Treasury shall begin a study to identify what 
aspects of the Home Affordable Modification Program were 
successful and most effectively carried out the original 
purpose of the Program.
  (b) Report.--Not later than the end of the 6-month period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall issue a report to the Congress containing--
          (1) all findings and determinations made in carrying 
        out the study required under subsection (a); and
          (2) legislative recommendations for a new mortgage 
        modification program that could more successfully and 
        effectively achieve the original purpose of the Home 
        Affordable Modification Program.
                              ----------                              


7. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Matsui of California or 
                 Her Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Add at the end the following new section:

SEC. 3. CONTINUED REPORTING ON MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONS.

  Section 110 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
2008 (12 U.S.C. 5220) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
  ``(e) Continued Reporting on Mortgage Modifications.--
          ``(1) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
                  ``(A) the data on mortgage modifications 
                collected from mortgage servicers and lenders 
                and made available to the public pursuant to 
                the guidelines of the Home Affordable 
                Modification Program has been a valuable tool 
                for increasing transparency; and
                  ``(B) that the public would be served by 
                having such servicers and lenders continue to 
                report information on mortgage modifications.
          ``(2) In general.--Each mortgage servicer and 
        mortgage lender who participated in the Home Affordable 
        Modification Program shall, monthly, disclose on a 
        World Wide Web site owned by such servicer or lender, 
        the following information:
                  ``(A) The number of requests for mortgage 
                modifications that the servicer or lender has 
                received.
                  ``(B) The number of requests for mortgage 
                modifications that the servicer or lender has 
                processed.
                  ``(C) The number of requests for mortgage 
                modifications that the servicer or lender has 
                approved.
                  ``(D) The number of requests for mortgage 
                modifications that the servicer or lender has 
                denied.
          ``(3) Report to the congress.--At the time a mortgage 
        servicer or mortgage lender discloses information 
        pursuant to paragraph (1), such servicer or lender 
        shall also issue a report to the Congress containing 
        such information.
          ``(4) Rulemaking.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall issue such regulations as may be necessary to 
        carry out this subsection, including regulations for 
        the protection of the privacy interest of those 
        individuals seeking mortgage modifications with the 
        servicer or lender, including the deletion or 
        alteration of the applicant's name and identification 
        number.''.
                              ----------                              


8. An Amendment To Be Offered By Representative Maloney of New York or 
                 Her Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Add at the end the following new section:

SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

  The Congress finds the following:
          (1) As of January 2011, active trials and permanent 
        Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) 
        modifications had been initiated in all 50 States and 
        the District of Columbia, including--
                  (A) 4036 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Alabama;
                  (B) 291 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Alaska;
                  (C) 32159 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Arizona;
                  (D) 1527 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Arkansas;
                  (E) 161181 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in California;
                  (F) 9349 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Colorado;
                  (G) 8604 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Connecticut;
                  (H) 1166 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in the District of Columbia;
                  (I) 2130 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Delaware;
                  (J) 82230 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Florida;
                  (K) 25120 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Georgia;
                  (L) 2656 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Hawaii;
                  (M) 2640 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Idaho;
                  (N) 36907 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Illinois;
                  (O) 6785 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Indiana;
                  (P) 1761 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Iowa;
                  (Q) 1639 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Kansas;
                  (R) 2622 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Kentucky;
                  (S) 3774 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Louisiana;
                  (T) 1925 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Maine;
                  (U) 22028 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Maryland;
                  (V) 17039 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Massachusetts;
                  (W) 22716 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Michigan;
                  (X) 12108 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Minnesota;
                  (Y) 2641 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Mississippi;
                  (Z) 7284 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Missouri;
                  (AA) 764 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Montana;
                  (BB) 917 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Nebraska;
                  (CC) 17860 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Nevada;
                  (DD) 3175 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in New Hampshire;
                  (EE) 22105 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in New Jersey;
                  (FF) 2190 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in New Mexico;
                  (GG) 30955 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in New York;
                  (HH) 12663 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in North Carolina;
                  (II) 116 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in North Dakota;
                  (JJ) 15379 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Ohio;
                  (KK) 1624 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Oklahoma;
                  (LL) 7452 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Oregon;
                  (MM) 14302 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Pennsylvania;
                  (NN) 3539 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Rhode Island;
                  (OO) 6526 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in South Carolina;
                  (PP) 273 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in South Dakota;
                  (QQ) 7124 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Tennessee;
                  (RR) 17961 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Texas;
                  (SS) 6405 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Utah;
                  (TT) 565 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Vermont;
                  (UU) 16738 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Virginia;
                  (VV) 13387 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Washington;
                  (WW) 1040 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in West Virginia;
                  (XX) 6793 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Wisconsin; and
                  (YY) 349 active trials and permanent HAMP 
                modifications in Wyoming.
          (2) As of January 2011, 1,493,107 additional trial 
        modifications were started under the HAMP Program.
          (3) As of January 2011, 607,607 additional permanent 
        modifications were started under the HAMP Program.
          (4) By voting to terminate the Home Affordable 
        Modification Program without a suggested replacement, 
        the Congress is voting to terminate a program that may 
        have helped to modify an additional 2,867,420 
        delinquent mortgages in the United States.
                              ----------                              


 9. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Sanchez of California 
               or Her Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Add at the end the following new section:

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

  The Congress encourages banks to work with homeowners to 
provide loan modifications to those that are eligible. The 
Congress also encourages banks to work and assist homeowners 
and prospective homeowners with foreclosure prevention programs 
and information on loan modifications.
                              ----------                              


          SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS IN PART B TO BE MADE IN ORDER

    1. Ellison (MN): Would list state-by-state funding 
allocations of Neighborhood Stabilization Programs Round Three 
potentially at risk under H.R. 861. (10 minutes)
    2. Hurt (VA): Would ensure that all unobligated balances 
rescinded by the bill should be retained in the Treasury's 
General Fund for the purpose of deficit reduction. (10 minutes)
    3. Ellison (MN): Would provide findings for the need for 
and efficacy of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. (10 
minutes)
    4. Sanchez, Loretta (CA): Would add a new section with 
Congressional findings that if the rescinded and canceled 
amounts were instead made available for NSP, the Congress could 
have rebuilt U.S. neighborhoods. (10 minutes)
    5. Richardson (CA): Would amend the effective date of H.R. 
861 to the sooner of: (1) 5 years from the date of enactment; 
or (2) the date when the national average of underwater 
mortgages on 1- to 4-family residential properties is 10 
percent or less and the percentage of underwater mortgages 
relating to such properties in the state with the highest 
percentage of underwater residential properties is 15 percent 
or less. (10 minutes)
    6. Waters (CA): Would require the Secretary of HUD to send 
a notice to NSP grantees that would have received funding under 
NSP that the program has been terminated. (10 minutes)
    7. Waters (CA): Would require the Secretary of HUD to study 
the number of homes that will not be mitigated in each 
Congressional district as a result of the funding rescission, 
and report findings to Congress. (10 minutes)
    8. Maloney (NY): Would list the number of homes in each 
state that have been vacant for 90 days or more and which would 
be eligible for rehabilitation under the program. Would also 
state that by voting to terminate this program, these units may 
not be able to be rehabilitated using NSP funds. (10 minutes)
    9. Castor (FL): Would require the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study within 90 days 
of the bills enactment of the future economic impact the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Round Three would have on 
communities around the United States. (10 minutes)
    10. Castor (FL): Would require the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study within 90 days 
of the bills enactment of the economic impact the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program Rounds One and Two have had on 
communities around the United States.

             PART B--TEXT OF AMENDMENTS TO BE MADE IN ORDER


1. An Amendent To Be Offered by Representative Ellison of Minnesota or 
                 His Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Page 5, line 4, before ``Effective'' insert ``(a) 
Rescission.--''.
  Page 5, after line 10, insert the following new subsection:
  (b) Identification of Amounts Subject to Possible 
Rescission.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
        Development has allocated funding to the States, 
        including city, county, and municipal governments, 
        under the 3rd round of funding for the Neighborhood 
        Stabilization Program, as set forth in paragraph (2). 
        Amounts from the allocations set forth in paragraph (2) 
        of this subsection will be subject to possible 
        rescission and cancellation, to the extent provided in 
        subsection (a).
          (2) Allocation.--The allocations set forth in this 
        paragraph for the following States are the following 
        amounts:
                  (A) Alaska: $5,000,000.
                  (B) Alabama: $7,576,151.
                  (C) Arizona: $45,377,073.
                  (D) Arkansas: $5,000,000.
                  (E) California: $149,308,651.
                  (F) Colorado: $17,349,270.
                  (G) Connecticut: $9,322,756.
                  (H) District of Columbia: $5,000,000.
                  (I) Delaware: $5,000,000.
                  (J) Florida: $208,437,144.
                  (K) Georgia: $50,421,988.
                  (L) Hawaii: $5,000,000.
                  (M) Iowa: $5,000,000.
                  (N) Idaho: $5,000,000.
                  (O) Illinois: $30,143,105.
                  (P) Indiana: $31,509,101.
                  (Q) Kansas: $6,137,796.
                  (R) Kentucky: $5,000,000.
                  (S) Louisiana: $5,000,000.
                  (T) Massachusetts: $7,387,994.
                  (U) Maryland: $6,802,242.
                  (V) Maine: $5,000,000.
                  (W) Michigan: $57,524,473.
                  (X) Minnesota: $12,427,113.
                  (Y) Missouri: $13,110,604.
                  (Z) Mississippi: $5,000,000.
                  (AA) Montana: $5,000,000.
                  (BB) North Carolina: $5,000,000.
                  (CC) North Dakota: $5,000,000.
                  (DD) Nebraska: $6,183,085.
                  (EE) New Hampshire: $5,000,000.
                  (FF) New Jersey: $11,641,549.
                  (GG) New Mexico: $5,000,000.
                  (HH) Nevada: $43,314,669.
                  (II) New York: $19,834,940.
                  (JJ) Ohio: $51,789,035.
                  (KK) Oklahoma: $5,000,000.
                  (LL) Oregon: $5,000,000.
                  (MM) Pennsylvania: $5,000,000.
                  (NN) Puerto Rico: $5,000,000.
                  (OO) Rhode Island: $6,309,231.
                  (PP) South Carolina: $5,615,020.
                  (QQ) South Dakota: $5,000,000.
                  (RR) Tennessee: $10,195,848.
                  (SS) Texas: $18,038,242.
                  (TT) Utah: $5,000,000.
                  (UU) Virginia: $6,254,970.
                  (VV) Vermont: $5,000,000;
                  (WW) Washington: $5,000,000.
                  (XX) Wisconsin: $7,687,949.
                  (YY) West Virginia: $5,000,000.
                  (ZZ) Wyoming: $5,000,000.
                              ----------                              


2. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Hurt of Virginia or His 
                   Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Page 5, line 10, after the period add the following: ``All 
such unobligated balances so rescinded and permanently canceled 
should be retained in the General Fund of the Treasury for 
reducing the budget deficit of the Federal Government.''.
                              ----------                              


3. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Ellison of Minnesota or 
                 His Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Page 4, after line 25, insert the following new section:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  The Congress finds that--
          (1) the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has 
        assisted local governments across the United States in 
        alleviating many of the impacts of abandoned and 
        foreclosed properties, including the increased code 
        enforcement, maintenance, and demolition costs 
        resulting from abandoned and/or foreclosed properties;
          (2) the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has 
        assisted local governments across the United States in 
        alleviating many of the impacts of abandoned and 
        foreclosed properties, including the decreased property 
        tax revenues due to unpaid property taxes on abandoned 
        and/or foreclosed properties;
          (3) the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has 
        supported 93,000 jobs nationwide and impacted over 
        100,000 properties across the country;
          (4) the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, including 
        the third round of funding made available by section 
        1497(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
        Consumer Protection Act, provides funding for State and 
        local governments to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed 
        homes; and
          (5) by voting to terminate the Neighborhood 
        Stabilization Program under this Act without a 
        suggested replacement, the Congress is eliminating an 
        effective program that has been used to provide 
        affordable housing, create jobs, leverage private 
        investment, and improve communities.
  Page 5, line 1, strike ``SEC. 2.'' and insert ``SEC. 3.''.
  Page 5, line 11, strike ``SEC. 3.'' and insert ``SEC. 4.''.
  Page 6, line 17, ``SEC. 3.'' and insert ``SEC. 5.''.
                              ----------                              


 4. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Sanchez of California 
               or Her Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Page 4, after line 25, insert the following new section:

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

  The Congress finds that, if the amounts that are rescinded 
and canceled under section 2 of this Act were instead made 
available under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 
authorized under the provisions of law specified in subsections 
(a) and (b)(2) of section 3 of this Act, the Congress could 
have helped to rebuild neighborhoods throughout the United 
States where foreclosures on home mortgage loans are common.
  Page 5, line 1, strike ``SEC. 2.'' and insert ``SEC. 3.''.
  Page 5, line 11, strike ``SEC. 3.'' and insert ``SEC. 4.''.
  Page 6, line 17, ``SEC. 3.'' and insert ``SEC. 5.''.
                              ----------                              


     5. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Richardson of 
          California or Her Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this Act 
shall take effect on, and any reference in this Act to the date 
of the enactment of this Act shall be construed to refer to, 
the earlier of the following dates:
          (1) The date of the expiration of the 5-year period 
        beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
          (2) The first date occurring after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act on which both of the following 
        conditions exist:
                  (A) The percentage of existing mortgages on 
                1- to 4-family residential properties located 
                in the United States and under which the 
                outstanding principal balance exceeds the value 
                of the property subject to the mortgage is 10 
                percent or less.
                  (B) In the case of the State that, on such 
                date, has the highest percentage, among all 
                States, of existing mortgages on 1- to 4-family 
                residential properties located in the State and 
                under which the outstanding principal balance 
                exceeds the value of the property subject to 
                the mortgage, such percentage for such State is 
                15 percent or less.
                              ----------                              


6. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Waters of California or 
                 Her Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 5. NOTIFICATION TO NSP GRANTEES REQUIRED.

  (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development shall inform each covered entity (as such term is 
defined in subsection (b)) in writing--
          (1) that the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has 
        been terminated;
          (2) of the name and contact information of such 
        entity's Member of Congress that represents its 
        district; and
          (3) that such entity should contact such Member of 
        Congress directly for assistance in mitigating 
        foreclosed properties.
  (b) Covered Entity Defined.--For purposes of this section, 
the term ``covered entity'' means any nonprofit, government, or 
other organization that--
          (1) received or was scheduled to receive funding 
        pursuant to section 2301 of the Housing and Economic 
        Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-289; 122 Stat. 
        2850) or title XII of division A of the American 
        Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
        5; 123 Stat. 218) through the Neighborhood 
        Stabilization Program; and
          (2) as a result of the rescission of funding under 
        section 2 and termination of the Neighborhood 
        Stabilization Program under section 3, will have 
        funding for the entity made available under the 
        provision of law specified in section 2 rescinded and 
        canceled.
                              ----------                              


7. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Waters of California or 
                 Her Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 5. STUDY ON IMPACTS REQUIRED.

  (a) In General.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development shall conduct a study to determine the approximate 
number of foreclosed and abandoned properties that will not be 
purchased or rehabilitated with amounts appropriated or 
otherwise made available under section 2301 of the Housing and 
Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-289; 122 Stat. 
2850; 42 U.S.C. 5301 note) in the district of each Member of 
Congress as a result of the rescission and termination of 
funding under sections 2 and 3 of this Act.
  (b) Report.-- Not later than the expiration of the 60-day 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report setting forth 
the results of the study under subsection (a).
                              ----------                              


8. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Maloney of New York or 
                 Her Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  Add at the end the following new section:

SEC. 5. FINDINGS.

  The Congress finds the following:
          (1) The Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds have 
        the potential to rehabilitate housing units in all 50 
        states:
                  (A) There are 13369 homes in Alabama that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (B) There are 974 homes in Arkansas that have 
                been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (C) There are 52511 homes in Arizona that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (D) There are 92186 homes in California that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (E) There are 20671 homes in Colorado that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (F) There are 8501 homes in Connecticut that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (G) There are 224 homes in the District of 
                Columbia that have been vacant 90 or more days 
                and could be eligible to receive funding under 
                the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (H) There are 549 homes in Delaware that have 
                been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (I) There are 203882 homes in Florida that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (J) There are 92950 homes in Georgia that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (K) There are 754 homes in Hawaii that have 
                been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (L) There are 2609 homes in Iowa that have 
                been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (M) There are 375 homes in Idaho that have 
                been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (N) There are 49043 homes in Illinois that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (O) There are 74100 homes in Indiana that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (P) There are 2311 homes in Kansas that have 
                been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (Q) There are 1191 homes in Kentucky that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (R) There are 2439 homes in Louisiana that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (S) There are 7331 homes in Massachusetts 
                that have been vacant 90 or more days and could 
                be eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (T) There are 1878 homes in Maryland that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (U) There are 167 homes in Maine that have 
                been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (V) There are 120365 homes in Michigan that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (W) There are 13937 homes in Minnesota that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (X) There are 20084 homes in Missouri that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (Y) There are 4431 homes in Mississippi that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (Z) There are 172 homes in Montana that have 
                been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (AA) There are 4510 homes in North Carolina 
                that have been vacant 90 or more days and could 
                be eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (BB) There are 7 homes in North Dakota that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (CC) There are 2911 homes in Nebraska that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (DD) There are 155 homes in New Hampshire 
                that have been vacant 90 or more days and could 
                be eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (EE) There are 10859 homes in New Jersey that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (FF) There are 41297 homes in Nevada that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (GG) There are 16422 homes in New York that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (HH) There are 116325 homes in Ohio that have 
                been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (II) There are 2961 homes in Oklahoma that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (JJ) There are 32 homes in Oregon that have 
                been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (KK) There are 847 homes in Pennsylvania that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (LL) There are 3142 homes in Rhode Island 
                that have been vacant 90 or more days and could 
                be eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (MM) There are 11172 homes in South Carolina 
                that have been vacant 90 or more days and could 
                be eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (NN) There are 18141 homes in Tennessee that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (OO) There are 33982 homes in Texas that have 
                been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (PP) There are 85 homes in Utah that have 
                been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (QQ) There are 5638 homes in Virginia that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (RR) There are 71 homes in Washington that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
                  (SS) There are 5413 homes in Wisconsin that 
                have been vacant 90 or more days and could be 
                eligible to receive funding under the 
                Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
          (2) Congress finds that by voting to terminate the 
        Neighborhood Stabilization Program these housing units 
        may not be able to be rehabilitated and may remain 
        vacant.
                              ----------                              


 9. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Castor of Florida or 
                 Her Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

  At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 5. GAO STUDY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ROUND 3 NSP FUNDING.

  The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a 
study to determine the economic impacts that providing 
assistance under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, using 
the funding identified in section 2, would have on States and 
communities in the United States, if such funding were not 
rescinded and canceled under such section, but remained 
available and was used in accordance with the provisions of law 
applicable to such amounts as in effect immediately before the 
repeal under section 3(a). Not later than the expiration of the 
90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Congress a 
report setting forth the results and conclusions of the study 
under this section.
                              ----------                              


 10. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Castor of Florida or 
                              Her Designee

  At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

SEC. 5. GAO STUDY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ROUNDS 1 AND 2 NSP FUNDING.

  The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a 
study to determine the economic impacts that providing 
assistance under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has had 
on States and communities in the United States. The study shall 
identify such impacts resulting from the funding under the each 
of the provisions of law specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
of section 3(b)(2). Not later than the expiration of the 90-day 
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Comptroller General shall submit to the Congress a report 
setting forth the results and conclusions of the study under 
this section.

                                  
