Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
LET'S NOT LET THEM BE TOO SMALL
TO HELP WHILE OTHERS WILL ALLOW
BANKS TO BE TOO BIG TO FAIL.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA.
MR. CHAIR, AT THIS
TIME I YIELD 3 1/2 MINUTES TO
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, MR.
HENSARLING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS IS RECOGNIZED FOR 3 1/2
MINUTES.
THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR.
AGAIN, WE CANNOT LOSE SIGHT OF
THE FACT THAT OUR NATION IS
DROWNING IN A SEA OF RED INK.
IT IS A SEA OF RED INK THAT
CONTINUES TO HAMPER JOB
CREATION.
JOB CREATORS TODAY ARE
UNCERTAIN OF OUR FUTURE.
THEY KNOW, THOUGH, THEY KNOW
THAT HISTORIC LEVELS OF DEBT
LEAD TO HISTORIC LEVELS OF
TAXATION WHICH CAN ONLY LEAD TO
HISTORIC LEVELS OF
UNEMPLOYMENT.
THEY ARE LOOKING FOR SOME
SIGNAL FROM THIS BODY THAT WE
GET IT, THAT WE GET IT, THAT
WE'RE GOING TO STOP BORROWING
40 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR, MUCH OF
IT FROM THE CHINESE, AND
SENDING THE BILL TO OUR
CHILDREN AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN.
AGAIN, WHEN THE ANNUAL DEFICIT,
THE ANNUAL DEFICIT WAS $200
BILLION IN DROPPING AS OPPOSED
TO THE MONTHLY DEFICIT WHICH IS
NOW OVER $200 BILLION, BUT WHEN
THE ANNUAL DEFICIT WAS $200
BILLION, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MARYLAND, THE DEMOCRATIC WHIP
SAID THAT WAS FISCAL CHILD
ABUSE.
NOW, MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE AISLE ARE
INTRODUCING THE TERM
I DON'T KNOW.
MEAN-SPIRITED.
IS FISCAL CHILD ABUSE MEAN
MEAN-SPIRITED?
IT'S THEIR TERM, MADAM CHAIR.
I'LL LET THEM REFLECT ON THAT.
NOW, I HEAR THE RANKING MEMBER
TALK ABOUT FISCAL
RESPONSIBILITY, AND HE POINTS
TO ONE ITEM, COTTON.
WE HEARD COTTON THROUGHOUT THIS
DEBATE.
BUT I WOULD NOTE THAT THE
CHAIRMAN, THE RANKING MEMBER
APPARENTLY VOTED FOR THE
CONFERENCE REPORT ON THE FARM
BILL WHICH INCLUDES COTTON
SUBSIDIES THAT HE COMES TO THIS
FLOOR TO DECRY.
HE SPEAKS ABOUT A W.T.O.
DECISION, BUT IT'S THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION THAT SAYS THAT
COUNTERVAILING MEASURES WOULD
HAVE COST THIS COUNTRY MORE
THAN $800 BILLION.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
I WOULD
YIELD?
RECOMMEND THAT THE RANKING
MEMBER HAVE THE DEBATE WITH THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
BECAUSE THAT'S
WHERE WE GOT THIS INFORMATION.
I WILL YIELD TO THE RANKING
MEMBER.
THERE WERE TWO WAYS
WE COULD DO IT.
I DISAGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT.
WE COULD HAVE AVOIDED THAT BY
REDUCING AMERICAN COTTON
SUBSIDIES TO THE SAME AMOUNT AS
THEY DO IN BRAZIL.
SO WE COULD HAVE EITHER SAVED
$300 BILLION OR NOT.
RECLAIMING MY
TIME.
RECLAIMING MY TIME.
I WOULD JUST POINT OUT TO THE
RANKING MEMBER THAT WAS NOT THE
VOTE BEFORE US, AND IF THERE
WAS A CHANCE TO GET OUT THE
COTTON SUBSIDIES -- AND I MUST
ADMIT THAT BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE VOTED FOR THEM -- BUT THE
OPPORTUNITY WAS AT THE POINT ON
FARM BILL WHICH THE GENTLEMAN
THE CONFERENCE REPORT OF THE
FROM MASSACHUSETTS VOTED FOR.
BUT TO PUT THIS AGAIN IN A
LARGER CONTEXT, WE ON THIS SIDE
OF THE AISLE FEDERAL
RESERVENTLY BELIEVE THAT YOU
WILL NOT HAVE -- FERVENTLY
BELIEVE THAT YOU WILL NOT HELP
ANYTHING UNLESS YOU PUT THIS
COUNTRY ON A FISCAL PATH.
IF WE CAN'T DO IT ON THIS
PROGRAM WHAT PROGRAM CAN WE DO
IT ON?
I THINK IT'S IRONIC.
HOW MANY OF MY FRIENDS ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE WILL
COME TO THE FLOOR AND SAY, YOU
KNOW WHAT, THERE ARE PEOPLE IN
THIS NATION TRYING TO FORCE
LOANS ONTO PEOPLE WHO ARE
UNEMPLOYED, PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD
TO PAY IT BACK, IT'S PREDATORY
LENDING, AND NOW THEY WANT THE
GOVERNMENT TO DO THE SAME
THING.
CHAIR, I YIELD 30
ADDITIONAL SECONDS TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
WE HEARD
THROUGHOUT THE DEBATE THERE
NEEDS TO BE A CONSISTENCY, A
CONSISTENCY OF DEBATE.
LET ME GET THIS RIGHT, A PAYDAY
LENDER IS GUILTY OF PREDATORY
LENDING IF THEY LEND MONEY TO
SOMEBODY WHO IS UNDERWATER,
SOMEBODY WHO MAY BE STRUGGLING,
BUT IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
DOES IT IT'S SOMETHING ELSE.
IT'S NOBLE.
I DON'T SEE THE CONSISTENCY IN
THE DEBATE THERE, MADAM CHAIR.
BUT, AGAIN, MOST IMPORTANTLY
WHEN DOES THE DAY ARRIVE THAT
WE QUIT SPENDING MONEY WE DO
NOT HAVE?
I SAY TODAY IS THAT DAY.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
HOW MUCH TIME IS
REMAINING, MADAM CHAIR?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS HAS 3 1/2
MINUTES, AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ALABAMA HAS 9 1/2 MINUTES
REMAINING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
DO WE HAVE GENERAL
LEAVE?
YES.
THANK YOU.
I YIELD MYSELF THE REMAINING 3
1/2 MINUTES.
FIRST, THE LAST COMMENT WAS
CONTRADICTORY TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM TEXAS.
IF IT'S FORGIVENESS, THEN IT'S
A PREDATORY LOAN.
THE FACT THAT IT HAS VERY
GENEROUS LOANS, IT'S SCORED AT
84%, NOT 98%.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
CANNOT BE BOTH.
SELF-CONTRADICTORY BECAUSE IT
SECONDLY, AS TO AGRICULTURE, I
DID VOTE FOR A -- AN AMENDMENT
THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED IT BUT
THE GENTLEMAN -- SPECTACLE OF
MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HIDING
BEHIND OBAMA IS BIZARRE.
YOU COULD HAVE DONE WHAT WE
OFFERED WHICH WAS TO CUT THE
$150 BILLION FROM GOING TO
BRAZIL AND THEN CUT IT OUT OF
AMERICA.
BUT IT'S NOT THE ONLY ITEM I
MENTIONED.
I MENTIONED $1.2 BILLION THE
GENTLEMAN WANTED TO SEND TO THE
IRAQI FORCES.
THE $250,000 LIMIT THE
REPUBLICANS REJECTED ON
INDIVIDUAL ENTITIES.
SO, NO, THERE ARE BILLIONS IN
AGRICULTURE AND THE MILITARY.
I DIDN'T JUST MENTION ONE ITEM.
THE GENTLEMAN DOES UNDERSTAND
THEY'RE VULNERABLE SO THEY
BLAME OBAMA.
THEY ARE BOTH WRONG SENDING
MONEY TO BRAZIL.
I HOPE IN HIS FINAL TIME THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA WILL
ADDRESS IT.
IN THE FIRST PLACE, ON TWO OF
THESE PROGRAMS, THE HAMP
PROGRAM, WHICH WE WILL DEAL
WITH NEXT WEEK ON THE FLOOR,
AND THE F.H.A. REFI, THE MONEY
DOESN'T COME FROM THE TREASURY.
THEY KEEP SAYING IT BUT THEY
ARE WRONG.
AND IGNORING A FACT DOESN'T
MAKE IT GO AWAY.
THOSE ARE FUNDS THAT COME FROM
TARP.
IN THE FINANCIAL REFORM BILL WE
REINFORCED AN EARLIER
IT TO THE RECORD.
PROVISION, AND I WILL SUBJECT
I'LL PUT IT IN THE RECORD.
IT SAYS THE FDIC IS AUTHORIZED
TO CONDUCT RISK-BASED
ASSESSMENTS ON FINANCIAL
COMPANIES TO PAY FOR THIS, THE
MONEY THAT'S LEFT IN THE TARP.
WE HAVE A MANDATE TO THE FDIC
SO THAT WHEN THE TARP IS
FINISHED, LARGE FINANCIAL
COMPANIES WILL HAVE TO PAY
THIS, NOT THE TREASURY.
SO I KNOW THAT TROUBLES PEOPLE
ON THE OTHER SIDE.
THEY ARE SOLICITOUS OF THESE
LARGE FINANCIAL COMPANIES, BUT
WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ADDING TO
THE DEFICIT THEY'RE WRONG.
IT'S STATUTORILY REQUIRED THAT
THIS WILL COME OVER THEIR
OBJECTION FROM THE LARGE
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, AND AS
TO THE OTHER TWO PROGRAMS,
INCLUDING THE ONE TODAY, WE HAD
SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN OUR BILL TO
DO THAT.
IT WAS REJECTED BY THE
REPUBLICANS BECAUSE WE NEEDED
TO GET 60 VOTES IN THE SENATE.
SO, YES, FOR NOW, THAT $840
MILLION WILL COME OUT OF THE
TAXPAYER.
IF WE HAD OUR WAY AND THE
REPUBLICANS HAD NOT BEEN
SUCCESSFUL IN FRUSTRATING US,
IT WOULD ALSO COME FROM GOLDMAN
SACHS AND FROM MORGAN STANLEY
AND THE OTHER LARGE
INSTITUTIONS, AND I WILL GIVE
THEM ANOTHER CHANCE.
SO THE FACT IS THE BULK OF THIS
MONEY DOES NOT COME FROM THE
TREASURY.
IT IS MANDATED THAT IT WILL BE
REPAID BACK TO THE TARP, AND I
HOPE THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA
WILL ADDRESS THAT IN HIS FINAL
REMARKS.
IS HE FOR REPEALING THAT?
DOES HE BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOT,
AS WE HAVE SAID WE WOULD TWICE
LEGISLATIVIVELY ASSESS THE
LARGE -- LEGISLATIVELY ASSESS
THE LARGE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS AND TAKE IT OFF?
BECAUSE IF HE DOESN'T IT MAY
REDUCE THE BONUSES AT SOME OF
THE LARGE FINANCIAL FIRMS, IT
MAY REDUCE THE DIVIDENDS AT
SOME OF THE LARGE FINANCIAL
FIRMS BUT THAT DOES NOT REDUCE
THE DEFICIT.
AS TO THE OTHER MONEY, THE
STABILIZATION PROGRAM AND FOR
THIS PROGRAM, IF THEY WILL COME
BACK WITH US AND JOIN THAT ALSO
WILL COME FROM THE LARGE
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
SO LET'S DROP THE PHONY
ARGUMENT ABOUT THE DEFICIT.
IF YOU WANT TO PROTECT THE
LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS BE
HONEST ABOUT SAYING SO.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA.
MADAM CHAIR, I
CLAIM THE REMAINING TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
HAVE SENT US HERE TO TELL THE
TRUTH, AND THE TRUTH IS THERE
ARE TOO MANY GOVERNMENT
PROGRAMS THAT DO NOT WORK AND
ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS WORSE.
AND THESE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
ARE PAID FOR BY THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
YOU CAN SAY THAT IT'S NOT FROM
THE TREASURY OR THAT IT'S FROM
THE TREASURY, IT'S FROM TARP,
IT'S NOT FROM TARP, BUT THE
FACT REMAINS THAT IT'S FROM THE
AMERICAN TAXPAYER.
IN FACT, THE TARP FUND, WHICH
THE GENTLEMAN AT ONE TIME SAID
IT COMES OUT OF THE TREASURY.
THEN HE SAID IT COMES FROM TARP
, BUT THE PROMISE IN 2008 WAS
IT WOULD GO BACK TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, IT WOULD GO
BACK IN THE NATIONAL TREASURY,
AND IN FACT IT DOES NOT AND
I'LL ADDRESS WHERE IT GOES AND
I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WOULD BE WHEN THEY FIND OUT
WHERE IT GOES UNDER THIS
PROGRAM THEY ARE GOING TO BE
EVEN MORE UPSET.
AND I DON'T THINK THEY'LL BE
SURPRISED BECAUSE I THINK
THEY'VE COME TO REALIZE THAT
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF WILL IN
WASHINGTON TO PROTECT THEM, THE
TAXPAYERS.
BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ALREADY
KNOW THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY
EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
THAT COST TOO MUCH.
AND THIS IS A POSTER CHILD FOR
THOSE PROGRAMS.
IF YOU CAN'T CUT THIS PROGRAM
I'M NOT SURE YOU CAN CUT ANY.
AND WHEN WE FIND SUCH PROGRAMS
WE AS THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE PEOPLE HAVE A DUTY AND A
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE TAXPAYERS
TO END THESE PROGRAMS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING
THIS MORNING.
WE ARE GOING TO END THIS
PROGRAM.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
WE ARE IN THIS LEGISLATION BY
MR. HENSARLING WE STOP A $1
BILLION FAILED SPENDING
PROGRAM.
THAT'S A WELL-INTENTIONED
PROGRAM.
BUT JUST AS THE ROAD TO HELL IS
PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS SO
IS THE ROAD TO HIGHER DEFICITS
AND A RECORD-BREAKING DEBT, A
DEBT THAT OUR CHILDREN AND OUR
GRANDCHILDREN WILL HAVE TO PAY.
YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
THE TAXPAYERS ULTIMATELY FUND
THIS PROGRAM, WHEN WE BORROW 42
CENTS OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR IT'S
OUR CHILDREN AND OUR
GRANDCHILDREN THAT WILL HAVE TO
PAY FOR THESE PROGRAMS.
WE'RE CHARGING SOMETHING AND
WE'RE TELLING THEM TO PAY THE
BILL.
TODAY WE HAVE AN UNTHINKABLE
DEBT OF $14 TRILLION.
TRILLION.
A DEBT THAT IMPOSES A BIRTH TAX
ON EVERY CHILD BORN IN AMERICA.
IT'S $45,000 TODAY.
JUST LAST YEAR IT WAS $35,000.
IT'S GROWN BY $10,000.
EVEN WORSE THIS DEBT OR BIRTH
TAX IS GROWING EVERY DAY
BECAUSE OUR GOVERNMENT IS
SPENDING SOME DAYS $5 BILLION,
SOME DAYS $8 BILLION MORE THAN
IT TAKES IN.
AND ADDING TO WHAT OUR CHILDREN
AND GRANDCHILDREN WILL HAVE TO
PAY.
ONE QUESTION THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE OFTEN CONFRONT IS, ARE
THEY BETTER OFF THEIR PARENTS
AND WILL THEIR CHILDREN BE
BETTER OFF THAN THEY WILL AND
THEIR GRANDCHILDREN?
IT'S INTERESTING THAT -- IN
SURVEY AFTER SURVEY, POLL AFTER
POLL, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SAY
WE'RE BETTER OFF -- WE WERE
BETTER OFF THAN OUR PARENTS.
OUR PARENTS FOUGHT FOR OUR
FREEDOM, THEY PRESERVED IT IN
NUMEROUS WARS, THEY SAVED THEIR
MONEY, THEY WATCHED THEIR
MONEY, THEY WORKED HARD AND
THEY LEFT US IN GOOD SHAPE.
BUT WHEN THAT SAME QUESTION IS
A LITTLE DIFFERENT QUESTION, DO
YOU THINK YOUR CHILDREN OR
GRANDCHILDREN WILL BE BETTER
OFF, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THEY
KNOW, THEY INSTINCTIVELY KNOW.
NO IS THE ANSWER SADLY, AND
THAT'S BECAUSE OF OUR NATIONAL
DEBT AND DEFICIT.
IN FACT, BOTH OUR SECRETARY --
BOTH OUR JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
AND ROBERT GATES HAS SAID THAT
IT'S A NATIONAL SECURITY
PROBLEM.
OUR DEBT THREATENS OUR VERY
.
?
EXISTENCE AS A COUNTRY.
WASHINGTON SPENDING BINGE IS
DRIVING OUR COUNTRY RIGHT OFF A
CLIFF.
WE HAVE SEEN THE EFFECT OF
OVERSPENDING ON OUR ECONOMY
TODAY.
THE GOVERNMENT ABSORBS SO MUCH
MONEY FROM OUR CITIZENS THAT
IT'S HARD TO CREATE PRIVATE
JOBS.
EACH DOLLAR OUT OF THE ECONOMY
IS A JOB THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR
CAN'T CREATE.
NOW, ACTUALLY GOVERNOR --
PRESIDENT REAGAN AND PRESIDENT
CLINTON BOTH REALIZE THIS AND
THEY GREW THE ECONOMY.
AND THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO
YEARS WITH A GROWING ECONOMY.
AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING EITHER
LEVEL OR GOING DOWN.
THAT'S THE ONLY TIME IN OUR
COUNTRY WE HAD A SURPLUS.
THEY BOTH REALIZED THAT IT WAS
THE PRIVATE SECTOR THAT WOULD
SEE US OUT OF THIS.
SO THIS GROWTH, GROWTH IN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND SPENDING
IS HAMPERING JOB CREATION.
AND THAT'S WHAT THESE HOMEOWNERS
NEED.
THEY NEED A JOB.
LET'S LOOK AT THIS PROGRAM.
AND THIS IS FROM THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, THIS IS THEIR
BUDGET THAT WAS JUST FILED.
HERE'S WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
NEED TO KNOW.
WHAT DOES THIS PROGRAM DO?
IT OFFERS A LOAN OF $50,000, UP
TO $50,000 TO PAY ALL ARREARAGES
TO HOMEOWNERS ON THEIR FIRST
$50,000.
MORTGAGE.
AND THEN TO PAY UP TO 24
CONSECUTIVE MONTHS OF MORTGAGE
PAYMENTS.
24 MONTHS OF THEIR MORTGAGE
PAYMENTS.
NOW, BOTH THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS KEPT TALKING ABOUT
.
THE LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
THAT'S WHO IS OWED THE MONEY.
AND IN FACT WE ARE NOT GETTING
THIS MONEY FROM THE LARGE
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, JUST THE
CONTRARY, WE ARE PAYING THEM.
BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT
HOLD THIS MORTGAGE.
SO WHEN THE TAXPAYERS WRITE A
$50,000 CHECK UNDER THIS PROGRAM
TO PAY A REARAGES ON THE
MORTGAGE, WHO DO YOU THINK IT
GOES TO?
IT GOES TO BANK OF AMERICA, IT
GOES TO MORGAN CHASE, IT GOES TO
CITIGROUP.
AND IT'S SHOCKING THAT THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
WOULD ACTUALLY SAY THAT THIS
MONEY IS COMING FROM THE VERY
INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO
RECEIVE THIS MONEY.
THIS BILLION DOLLARS IS NOT
GOING TO HOMEOWNERS.
IT'S GOING TO THESE LARGE
FINANCE IGS TUESDAY THE --
INSTITUTIONS.
HE SAYS THEY ARE THE ONE THAT IS
OUGHT TO BE PAYING THIS NOT THE
HOMEOWNERS OR NOT THE TAXPAYERS.
WE ALWAYS THOUGHT THE HOMEOWNERS
WERE SUPPOSED TO PAY THEIR
MORTGAGES, BUT I THINK WE COULD
ALL AGREE, I THINK WE COULD ALL
AGREE THAT IT'S NOT THE
TAXPAYER.
IT'S JUST AN ASTOUNDING THING.
AND HE SAYS THAT FLIP WILSON, IF
FLIP WILSON TOLD US TO VOTE FOR
SOMETHING, WE WOULD.
IT WASN'T FLIP WILSON.
IT WAS RON KIRK.
AND WOULD DID HE TELL US?
LISTEN, IF I WERE CHAIRMAN
FRANK, I WOULD TALK ABOUT
ANYTHING BUT THIS FAILED
PROGRAM.
I MEAN I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY
HAVE TALKED ABOUT EVERYTHING BUT
THIS FAILED PROGRAM.
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
BECAUSE IT WAS RON
KIRK THAT TOLD US THAT OUR
AUTOMOBILE SECTOR WOULD SUFFER,
OUR PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR WOULD
SUFFER.
HE SAID THAT THIS WOULD COST
JOBS AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT,
ELECTRONICS, TEXTILES, WHEAT,
FRUIT, NUTS, COTTON.
HE DID INCLUDE COTTON.
HE SAID $60 BILLION WORTH OF
EXPORTS WERE AT RISK.
DO THE MATH.
7,000 JOBS FOR EACH BILLION
DOLLARS WORTH OF EXPORTS, THAT'S
420,000 JOBS.
DO YOU WANT TO VOTE AGAINST
SOMETHING THAT WOULD PUT 420,000
AMERICANS OUT OF JOBS?
AND THEN THEY WOULD ALL LINE UP
FOR ANOTHER GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.
THAT THE MINORITY WOULD DESIGN.
THE OTHER THING, THIS IS THE
LAST THING I'LL SAY, THEY KEEP
SAYING THAT TAXPAYERS WILL GET
PAID BACK.
THIS IS FROM THE OBAMA
WELL, LET ME INTRODUCE THIS.
ADMINISTRATION, THIS IS THEIR
SAME BUDGET FOR THE PHYSICAL --
FISCAL YEAR 2012.
IT ESTIMATES THE LOSSES ON THIS
PROGRAM, THEY HAVE ACCUSED US OF
MAKING UP THESE FIGURES, 97.72,
THAT'S THE LOSS ON THIS PROGRAM.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR.
IT'S TIME TO END THIS FAILED
PROGRAM.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
ALL TIME FOR GENERAL DEBATE HAS
EXPIRED -- HAS EXPIRED.
PURSUANT TO THE RULE, THE
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE F A --
OF A SUBSTITUTE PRINTED IN THE
BILL SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS
ORIGINAL BILL FOR THE PURPOSE OF
AMENDMENT UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE
RULE.
NO AMENDMENT TO THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A
SUBSTITUTE IS IN ORDER EXCEPT
THOSE RECEIVED FOR PRINTING IN
THE PORTION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD DESIGNATED FOR THAT
PURPOSE IN A DAILY ISSUE DATED
MARCH 9, 2011, OR EARLIER AND
EXCEPT PRO FORMA AMENDMENTS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DEBATE.
EACH AMENDMENT SHALL RECEIVE MAY
BE OFFERED OVERWHELM BY THE
MEMBER WHO CAUSED IT TO BE
PRINTED AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED
AS READ IF PRINTED.
THE THE CLERK WILL DESIGNATE
SECTION 1.
BE IT ENACTED,
SECTION 1, SHORT TITLE.
ARE THERE KNITS
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES DOES HE
RISE?
MADAM CHAIRMAN, I
HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
SECTION 1 IS
CURRENTLY PENDING.
AND THE GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT IS
TO SECTION 2.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE
THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I YIELD FOR
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
MADAM CHAIRWOMAN,
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO REVISE AND
BILL.
EXTEND ON MY OPPOSITION TO THIS
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
THANK YOU, VERY
MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
IT'S VERY STRANGE CONGRESS.
AT A TIME WHEN WALL STREET HAS
BEEN BAILED OUT, BANKS HAVE BEEN
BAILED OUT, BANKS BAILED OUT WHO
KICKED PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR
HOMES, A LOT OF PROGRAMS THAT
HAVE BEEN CREATED TO HELP KEEP
PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES, THESE
PROGRAMS ARE GOING TO BE
CANCELED BY THE MAJORITY.
WHICH OF COURSE WILL CAUSE
PEOPLE TO LOSE THEIR HOMES TO
THE BANKS.
SO THE BANKS IN AMERICA HAVE
PEOPLE COMING AND GOING.
AND THEY KEEP GETTING MORE AND
MORE MONEY.
MADAM CHAIR, MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS ARE FACING OR WILL
FACE FORECLOSURE IN THE COMING
MONTHS.
THE HOLD ON THEIR HOMES HAS BEEN
ENDANGERED BY UNEMPLOYMENT OR
PREDATORY LOAN TERMS OR FALLING
HOUSE VALUES.
WE ARE IN THE WORST CRISIS
FACING HOMEOWNERS IN THE HISTORY
OF THIS CONTRY.
AND THE FACTS ARE WELL-KNOWN, NO
ONE IN THE HOUSE CAN FEIGN LACK
OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE MISERY THAT
HAS GRIPPED AMERICAN HOMEOWNERS,
YET TODAY THIS HOUSE TAKES UP A
BILL TO TERMINATE A PROGRAM
INTENDED TO ASSIST DISTRESSED
BORROWERS.
NEXT WEEK THE HOUSE WILL
CONSIDER MORE BILLS TO ELIMINATE
TWO OTHER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
WHAT MESSAGE IS THIS CONGRESS
SENDING?
IF YOU ARE A DISTRESSED BORROWER
OR RELATIVE WHO IS IN TROUBLE OR
NEIGHBOR IN DISTRESS, THE
MESSAGE OF THIS HOUSE IS TOUGH
LUCK.
WHAT ABOUT LOSING YOUR HOUSE?
TOUGH LUCK.
GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO
DISTRESSED BORROWERS SHOULD BE
EFFECTIVE.
I CAN AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES
ON THAT.
I SHARE THE BELIEF THAT SOME OF
THE PROGRAMS INTENDED TO ASSIST
DISTRESSED BORROWERS DO NOT HELP
ENOUGH PEOPLE.
BUT IS THAT AN ARGUMENT TO JUST
END THE PROGRAMS?
YOU KNOW PEOPLE NEED HELP.
THE PROGRAMS AREN'T EFFECTIVE.
JUST SAY, WELL, WE ARE GOING TO
END THE PROGRAM.
HOW DOES THAT HELP PEOPLE STAY
IN THEIR HOMES?
IT DOESN'T.
I SUBMIT THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL
PROBLEM WITH THESE PROGRAMS,
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM IS THEY
DEPENDED ON THE VOLUNTARY
PARTICIPATION OF THE VERY BANKS
AND SERVICE THAT IS CREATED THE
HOUSING CRISIS IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
SO THE PROGRAMS ARE SET UP WHERE
YOU NEED THE BANKS TO
PARTICIPATE, BANKS DON'T WANT TO
PARTICIPATE OR THEY SLOW WALK
THE APPLICATIONS AND BEFORE YOU
KNOW IT PEOPLE ARE JUST LEFT IN
A DESPERATE STRAIT WHERE THEIR
HOMES ARE BEING LOST.
NOW, WHEN THE BANKS WERE IN
RUSHED FORWARD.
TROUBLE, TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE WAS
I VOTED AGAINST THE BAILOUTS.
NOW THAT THE BANKS HAVE EMERGED
FROM A CRISIS, UNFORTUNATELY OUR
FRIENDS IN THE MAJORITY ARE
DETERMINED TO DISMANTLE THE FEW
LEGAL EFFORTS THAT ARE THERE TO
PRESERVE AND PROTECT HOMEOWNERS.
PROGRAMS.
WE SHOULD BE REFORMING THESE
NOT DISMANTLING THEM.
IF THE HOUSE APPROVES THE BILL
BEFORE US TODAY, H.R. 836,
CONGRESS WILL BE TURNING ITS
BACK ON PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES HAVE
BEEN WRECKED BY A CRISIS CREATED
BY IRRESPONSIBLE BANKING
PRACTICES.
SO I'M URGING A NO VOTE ON THE
BILL, MADAM CHAIR, BUT I ALSO
HOPE THAT WE TAKE A VERY COLD
AND SOBER LOOK AT WHAT WE ARE
DOING HERE.
WE ARE ATTACKING THE VERY
VICTIMS OF THIS HOUSING CRISIS.
WE ARE GIVING COMFORT TO THOSE
WHO CREATED THE CRISIS.
YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
OHIO YIELDS BACK.
ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS TO SECTION
1?
IF NO FURTHER AMENDMENT, THE
CLERK WILL DESIGNATE SECTION 2.
CLIP SECTION 2, RESCISSION OF
FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY MORTGAGE
RELIEF PROGRAM.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS RISE?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
THE CLERK WILL
AT THE DESK.
DESIGNATE.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 5,
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD, OFFERED BY MR. CANSECO
OF TEXAS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MINUTES.
TEXAS IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIRMAN.
I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE AN
FRIEND FROM TEXAS, MR.
HENSARLING, FOR OFFERING THE
BILL TO TERMINATE THE EMERGENCY
MORTGAGE RELIEF PROGRAM.
THE AMENDMENT I'M OFFERING WILL
ENSURE EVERY PENNY OF SAVINGS
THAT COMES FROM TERMINATING THE
EMERGENCY HOMEOWNER RELIEF
PROGRAM WILL GO BACK TO THE
TREASURY'S GENERAL FUND IN ORDER
TO REDUCE THE DEBT OF OUR
COUNTRY.
WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A
SPENDING DRIVEN FISCAL CRISIS.
TODAY EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE
UNITED STATES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
MORTGAGE THAN 45,000 -- $45,000
OF THE DEBT.
IF WE DON'T STOP SPENDING AND
PUT OUR NATION BACK ON A
SUSTAINABLE FISCAL PATH, WE WILL
ENSURE THAT THE FUTURE OF OUR
CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN DROWN
IN A SEA OF RED INK.
THE TOTAL DEBT OF OUR NATION IS
ON TRACK TO EQUAL THE ENTIRE
SIZE OF OUR ECONOMY.
THE DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC
TODAY IS $10.43 TRILLION, THAT
REPRESENTS 69.4% OF G.D.P.
PER HOUSEHOLD, THIS IS $89,007.
THE GROSS DEBT ACCORDING TO THE
MONTHLY TREASURY STATEMENT
THROUGH FEBRUARY, OUR GROSS DEBT
IS $14.194 TRILLION WHICH IS
$94.41% OF G.D.P., OR $121,128
PER HOUSEHOLD.
NO NATION IN HISTORY HAS EVER
SURVIVED A DEBT BURDEN THE SIZE
TOWARDS WHICH WE ARE HURLING.
AS I TRAVEL ACROSS THE 23RD
DISTRICT OF TEXAS, OVER AND OVER
I HEAR OF EVERY VERY REAL
CONCERNS MY CONSTITUENTS HAVE
OVER OUR OUT-OF-CONTROL
WASHINGTON SPENDING AND OUR
EXPLODING DEFICITS AND DEBT.
THE FACTS ARE REALLY
FRIGHTENING.
THERE'S OVER $14 TRILLION OF
DEBT ON THE BACKS OF THE
AMERICAN FAMILIES.
WE HAVE HAD TWO STRAIGHT YEARS
OF TRILLION DOLLAR-PLUS
DEFICITS.
THE C.B.O. PROJECTS THAT THE
DEFICITS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
WILL BE $1.5 TRILLION, AND THE
PRESIDENT'S RECENTLY RELEASED
FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET PROJECTS
MORE THAN $1 TRILLION IN
DEFICITS.
ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN, CHAIRMAN OF
THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, HAS
WARNED THAT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
THREAT TO OUR NATION AND ITS
SECURITY IS OUR DEBT.
THESE ARE DIRE FACTS.
AND ARE MORTGAGE THAN JUST --
MORE THAN JUST NUMBERS ON A
LEDGER, THEY REPRESENT A REAL
THREAT TO OUR ECONOMY AND OUR
SECURITY AND JOB CREATION.
YESTERDAY, MOODY'S ANNOUNCED
THAT THEY HAD DOWNGRADED THE
DEBT OF SPAIN.
ANOTHER COUNTRY IN A LONG LINE
OF DOWNGRADES IN EUROPE.
WELL, THE DEFICITS AND DEBTS
REALIZATION, YOU CANNOT SAY THAT
.
WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN AMERICA.
SPAIN IS EXPECTED TO HAVE A
BUDGET DEFICIT OF 15% IN 2011
WHILE AMERICA IS EXPECTED TO
RUN A DEFICIT OF 9% OF G.D.P.
IN 2011.
WITHOUT A CHANGE IN OUR COURSE
WE ARE ON TRACK TO BECOME THE
NEXT SPAIN, THE NEXT GREECE.
THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL.
WE ARE HEADED FOR FISCAL AND
ECONOMIC NIGHTMARE IF NOTHING
IS DONE.
THIS IS AN UNSUSTAINABLE PATH
THAT WILL END ONE OF TWO WAYS.
EITHER WE HAVE THE COURAGE TO
TACKLE OUR NATION'S PROBLEMS OR
WE CONTINUE THROWING MONEY AT
WASTEFUL PROGRAMS AND REVERT TO
THE STATUS OF A THIRD WORLD
COUNTRY.
MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE
HAVE MADE CLEAR WHICH OPTION
THEY WOULD CHOOSE.
THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO CREATE
WASTEFUL PROGRAMS HOPING THAT
THE MAGIC ONE WILL COME ALONG
AND FIX ALL OF OUR PROBLEMS.
WE HAVE TO STOP KIDDING
OURSELVES.
THIS IS THE WAY TO CREATE JOBS
AND ECONOMIC PROSPERITY.
NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO REDUCE OUR DEBT
FOR THE SAKE OF OUR ECONOMY BUT
WE HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO
OUR CHILDREN AND TO OUR
GRANDCHILDREN TO LEAVE THIS
COUNTRY TO THEM BETTER THAN WE
HAVE FOUND IT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S NOT THE
CASE RIGHT NOW UNLESS WE ACT.
THIS CONGRESS HAS A CLEAR
MANDATE FROM THE PEOPLE WHO
SENT US HERE TO DO OUR JOB.
CUT THE SPENDING, REDUCE THE
DEBT.
WITH THIS BILL AND MY AMENDMENT
WE WILL DO BOTH, AND I URGE
PASSAGE OF THIS AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA
RISE?
I RISE TO STRIKE THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF WORDS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FIVE MINUTES.
PENNSYLVANIA IS RECOGNIZED FOR
WE HEARD JUST THE
OTHER DAY THE LEADER OF OUR
GREAT ALLY, AUSTRALIA, IN THIS
CHAMBER TALK ABOUT THE
GREATNESS OF OUR NATION AND HOW
IT IS THE BELIEF THAT WE CAN
ACHIEVE ANYTHING.
THIS LACK OF CONFIDENCE
ILLUSTRATED IN THE RHETORIC
HERE ON THE FLOOR TODAY ABOUT
THE GREATNESS OF AMERICA, MAYBE
WE NEED TO WALK BACK A MINUTE
AND LOOK AT HOW WE REINVESTED
AND REBUILT JAPAN AND GERMANY
AFTER THE WAR, HOW WE BAILED
OUT MEXICO OVER $40 BILLION.
HOW TODAY, THIS DAY ALONE,
WE'RE SPENDING $2 BILLION THIS
WEEK IN AFGHANISTAN AND WE HAVE
PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD
TRYING TO ASSIST OTHERS.
WE WILL BE ONE OF THE FIRST
NATIONS RUSHING TO HELP THOSE
AFFECTED BY THE TSUNAMI THIS
MORNING IN JAPAN.
THIS IS A GREAT NATION.
WE COME TODAY, HOWEVER, TO SAY
TO LAW-ABIDING, TAX-PAYING
CITIZENS WHO LOST THEIR JOB
BECAUSE OF THE SHENANIGANS ON
WALL STREET THAT EVEN THOUGH WE
WERE ABLE TO HELP THE BANKS TO
THE TUNE OF TRILLIONS OF
DOLLARS THAT WE CAN'T PROVIDE A
SMALL LOAN TO HELP A HOMEOWNER
WHO HAS BEEN PAYING THEIR
BILLS, ABIDING BY THE LAW AND
HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY BECAUSE OF
THE ACTIONS OR INACTIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND WALL STREET.
NOW, THIS IS NOT A NEW PROGRAM
BUILT ON HOMES AND DREAMS.
THIS IS A REPLICATION OF A
PROGRAM THAT HAS BEEN OPERATING
IN PENNSYLVANIA FOR 20 YEARS.
IT ACTUALLY HAS A HISTORY IN
WHICH THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
PUT IN $235 MILLION AND GOT
BACK $250 MILLION, IN WHICH
440,000 HOMEOWNERS HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO SECURE THEIR HOMES OVER
A SMALL INTERRUPTION IN THEIR
EMPLOYMENT BY GETTING HELP OVER
24 MONTHS.
THIS -- YES, I'LL BE GLAD TO
YIELD?
FROM WHAT PARTY THE
GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS
COME IN THIS PERIOD?
THIS STARTED UNDER
A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR, GOVERNOR
THORNBERG.
I STARTED THIS AS A YOUNG
LEGISLATOR WITH NO GRAY HAIR,
AND IT'S WORKED VERY WELL IN
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA AND I
OFFERED IT HERE IN THIS
CHAMBER.
IN 2007 WE HIT A 50-YEAR HIGH
IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES.
IT MAKES NO SENSE TO MOVE
SOMEONE OUT OF THEIR HOME, RUIN
THEIR CREDIT FOR A DECADE, HAVE
THEIR FAMILY BE HOMELESS.
FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA INCIDENCE,
FOR LESS THAN $7,000 ON AVERAGE
YOU CAN HELP THEM OVER A PERIOD
OF DIFFICULTY.
SO HERE IS A REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY.
THEY SAY, LOOK, WE CAN'T FIND
IT WITHIN US AS A NATION, EVEN
THOUGH WE TELL PEOPLE ALL
ACROSS THE GLOBE TO ACTUALLY
PAUSE FOR A MINUTE FOR A PUTRY
SUM AND HELP A CITIZEN IN OUR
-- PUTRY SUM AND HELP A CITIZEN
IN OUR COUNTRY WITH A BURDEN.
WE SHOULD REJECT THIS.
WE SHOULD REJECT THE NOTION
THAT WE ARE SO MUCH IN DEBT
THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD OUR OWN
CITIZENS.
THE FACT IS WE ARE THE
WEALTHIEST COUNTRY IN THE
WORLD.
WHAT WE SHOULD KNOW IS THAT
STORY OF HOW WE HAVE A FEW
YESTERDAY WE SHOULD READ A
BILLIONAIRES THAT HAVE
TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT LAST
WEEK ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE
"USA TODAY" WE HAD A STORY
SAYING THAT FOR A QUARTER OF A
MILLION DOLLARS SEATS ONBOARD
OF THE DIRECTORS WERE GOING
WANTING IN OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE
THEY WEREN'T BEING PAID ENOUGH
FOR $6 MILLION A YEAR.
WE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY OUR
BILLS.
THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY SAYS
LET'S CUT 1.5% OF WHAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO
SPEND THIS YEAR IN THE FACE OF
A $1.5 TRILLION DEFICIT.
IF THEY WANT TO BALANCE THE
BUDGET THEY SHOULD STEP FORWARD
WITH A MUCH MORE AGGRESSIVE
PLAN.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT BALANCING THE
BUDGET.
IT WON'T GET ANYWHERE CLOSE TO
BALANCING THE BUDGET.
THIS IS ABOUT SOMEHOW BEING
WILLING TO HELP BIG BANKS WHEN
PRESIDENT BUSH STEPPED FORWARD
AND SAID WE HAD TO DO TARP.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO HELP A
HOMEOWNER MEET THEIR OBLIGATION
SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO DO LESS THAN
OUR BEST AS A NATION.
THIS IS NOT THE AMERICA THAT
HAS COME TO HAVE GOOD ALLIES
LIKE THE LEADER OF AUSTRALIA
WHO SPOKE FROM THAT PODIUM WHO
SAID WE CAN DO ANYTHING AND HOW
THE WHOLE WORLD LOOKS AT US AS
A BEACON OF HOPE.
WE SHOULD THINK AGAIN.
THIS IS ILL-ADVISED AND I HOPE
THAT THIS HOUSE REJECTS THIS
BILL AND TODAY STANDS UP FOR AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO NEEDS A
LITTLE HELP.
I YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE
MINUTES.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS -- MR. --
THE FLAW IN THIS PROGRAM IS THE
LEVEL OF DEBT THAT THEY HAVE IS
THEIR PRIMARY PROBLEM.
AND IT'S THE SAME MENTALITY
THAT'S KIND OF GOTTEN OUR
COUNTRY THE JAM THAT IT'S IN
THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A
VOTE IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS TO
RAISE THE DEBT CEILING.
THE REASON THAT INDIVIDUALS AND
COMPANIES AND GOVERNMENTS
AROUND THE WORLD ARE
OVERLEVERAGED.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THE
WAY TO FIX SOMEONE'S PROBLEM
THAT HAS TOO MUCH DEBT IS FOR
THEM TO TAKE ON MORE DEBT.
IT'S ABSURD TO THINK THAT IT'S
GOOD FOR THESE BORROWERS.
I'D LIKE TO YIELD SUCH TIME AS
HE MAY CONSUME TO MY GOOD
FRIEND FROM TEXAS, MR. CANSECO.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, SIR.
THANK YOU FOR YIELDING TIME.
--
I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS.
I THINK WE NEED TO
FOCUS ON WHAT THIS AMENDMENT
DOES AND THE PURPOSE OF IT.
THE PURPOSE OF IT IS TO BRING
BACK THOSE FUNDS THAT ARE
ALLOCATED TO THIS FAILED
PROGRAM AND BRING THEM BACK
INTO THE TREASURY SO THAT THE
TREASURY CAN USE THOSE FUNDS IN
ORDER TO REDUCE THE DEBT THAT
WE HAVE.
IT IS BUT A SMALL RETURN INTO
THE TREASURY BUT IT GOES A LONG
WAY INTO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE ON THAT
PATH AND REDUCE THAT BUDGET.
NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE PROGRAM
ITSELF THAT THIS BILL OR THIS
AMENDMENT ADDRESSES, WE HAVE TO
REALIZE THAT THIS PROGRAM
SPENDS AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF
TAXPAYER MONEY THAT CAME OUT OF
DODD-FRANK, A $1 BILLION H.U.D.
EMERGENCY HOMEOWNER RELIEF
PROGRAM WHICH PROVIDES LOANS OR
CREDIT ADVANCES TO UNEMPLOYED
BORROWERS.
AND THIS PROGRAM WOULD SPEND 98
CENTS PER EVERY DOLLAR THAT
DOES NOT COME BACK.
THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO
REALIZE THAT THESE FUNDS ARE
TAXPAYER FUNDS THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE GO AS A GRANT TO THE
BORROWER, NOT ANY REPAYMENT
PROGRAM BUT GRANTS TO THE
BORROWER THAT DOES NOT GET
REPAID.
SO WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS.
I YIELD.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE
OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
RISE?
TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FIVE MINUTES.
MASSACHUSETTS IS RECOGNIZED FOR
MAKE WILL HE CORRECT
THE WHOLLY CONTRADICTORY
STATEMENT BY MR. NEUGEBAUER.
ONE, THIS IS TOO LAVISH A
SUBSIDY TO THE HOMEOWNER AND,
TWO, THAT IT WILL FURTHER
INDEBT THE HOMEOWNER.
MEMBERS DO UNDERSTAND THAT IT
POSSIBLY BOTH CAN'T BE TRUE.
THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF SUBSIDY
HERE.
AND PAY OFF THOSE MORTGAGES
AND THOSE WHO TAKE THIS MONEY
WILL GET A SUBSIDY SO THEY WILL
NOT BE FURTHER IN DEBT.
THE ARGUMENT IS WHOLLY WITHOUT
ANY BASIS.
THE ARGUMENT THAT IT IS A MORE
GENEROUS ONE IS A MORE ACCURATE
ONE.
PAYING THEM BACK WITHOUT LATE
FEES AND INTEREST HELPS THEM
OUT.
SO THE NATION -- I WILL YIELD
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
WELL, THE
RANKING MEMBER KNOWS IT'S BEEN
BUILD AS A LOAN PROGRAM.
WHAT WE'RE SAYING IT'S A GRANT
PROGRAM.
I TAKE BACK MY TIME.
NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE
GENTLEMAN IS SAYING.
THE GENTLEMAN IS COMPLETELY
CONTRADICTING HIMSELF.
HE SAID IT'S A GRANT PROGRAM.
HE JUST SAID BEFORE THAT --
FIRST, HE WAS CONTRADICTING THE
OTHER THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
NOW HE'S CONTRADICTING HIMSELF.
HE SAID IT'S A GRANT PROGRAM.
WELL, IF IT'S A GRANT PROGRAM
WHY DID THE GENTLEMAN SAY IT'S
GETTING PEOPLE FURTHER IN DEBT?
THE GENTLEMAN HAS BEEN CAUGHT
WITH A TOTALLY CONTRADICTLY
ARGUMENT.
HE SAID IT WAS GETTING FURTHER
IN DEBT.
WILL THE
GENTLEMAN YIELD?
YES.
IT POINTS OUT
HOW TERRIBLE THIS PROGRAM IS.
SORRY.
I'LL YIELD IF YOU WANT TO
CLARIFY WHAT YOU SAID.
YOU HAD YOUR FIVE MINUTES.
I WILL NOT YIELD FOR GENERAL --
I WILL NOT YIELD FOR -- I'M
IT'S MY TIME.
SORRY.
I WAS YIELDING IF THE GENTLEMAN
THOUGHT I WAS MISINTERPRETTING
HIM.
FOR HIM TO REPEAT WHAT HE
ALREADY SAYS TAKES TIME THAT I
DON'T WANT TO GIVE HIM.
HE DID CONTRADICT HIMSELF
COMPLETELY.
FIRST IT WAS A PROGRAM THAT WAS
DEBT.
GOING TO PUT PEOPLE FURTHER IN
NOW IT'S A GRANT PROGRAM.
HE CAN DECIDE WHICH IT IS.
I WANT TO GO BACK AND MAKE MY
CENTRAL POINT WHICH IS THE ONLY
REASON THIS HAS ANY IMPACT ON
THE TAXPAYER IS THAT THE
REPUBLICANS INSISTED ON
PROTECTING THE LARGE
INSTITUTIONS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA SAID
ALL THIS MONEY IS GOING TO THE
LARGE INSTITUTIONS.
WELL, THAT'S NOT TRUE BECAUSE
IT DOES GO TO PAY OFF LOANS TO
KEEP PEOPLE FROM PAYING OFF
LOANS.
SOME GO TO CREDIT UNIONS.
SOME TO BANKS.
UNDER OUR PROPOSAL WHICH THE
REPUBLICANS TEMPORARILY BOUGHT,
I HOPE THEY'LL REPENT, ALL OF
THE FUNDING WILL COME FROM THE
LARGE INSTITUTIONS AND THE
MEMBERS DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS
THAT.
UNDER OUR PROPOSAL IN THE BILL
THAT PASSED, AND WE HAD TO
AMEND IT.
WE'LL TRY TO COME BACK AND
CHANGE IT AGAIN.
EVERY SINGLE PENNY THAT WILL BE
EXPENDED HERE WILL COME FROM
INSTITUTIONS OF MORE THAN $50
BILLION IN ASSETS AND HEDGE
FUNDS OF MORE THAN $10 BILLION
IN ASSETS.
SO IF YOU DO IT OUR WAY, NOT A
PENNY WILL COME FROM THE
TAXPAYER.
IT WILL COME FROM THE LARGE
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
AND, YES, IT WILL BE A HELP TO
THESE INDIVIDUALS.
SOME WILL PAY IT BACK BUT THEY
WON'T HAVE LATE FEES AND, YES,
THE GENTLEMAN WAS CORRECT WHEN
HE SAID THE SECOND TIME AROUND
IT COULD BECOME A GRANT
PROGRAM.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT CAN
BE A GRANT PROGRAM AND
SOMETHING THAT GETS PEOPLE
FURTHER IN DEBT.
I YIELD TO HIM.
DO YOU THINK
THIS IS A LOAN PROGRAM OR GRANT
PROGRAM, WHICH DO YOU THINK IT
IS?
I UNDERSTAND -- I
THINK IT'S GOING TO BE
PRIMARILY -- SORRY.
IT'S MY TIME.
I WILL NOTE YOU DON'T WANT TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
I AM BEING CONSISTENT.
YEAH, I THINK IT WILL WORK OUT
AS PRIMARILY A GRANT PROGRAM.
MAYBE 4%.
I POINT OUT THAT THE GENTLEMAN
IS TRYING TO COVER HIS OWN
EMBARRASSMENT BECAUSE HE MADE
THE ARGUMENT WITHOUT ANY BASIS
THAT IT'S GOING TO PUT PEOPLE
FURTHER IN DEBT.
HE THEN ACKNOWLEDGES IT'S A
GRANT PROGRAM.
PEOPLE DO NOT BECOME FURTHER
INDEBTED WHEN THEY RECEIVE
GRANTS.
SO, YES, IT WILL WORK OUT FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE AS
TO A GREAT EXTENT A GRANT
PROGRAM.
BE SPENT.
THAT'S WHY C.B.O. SAYS 84% WILL
THAT 84% IN OUR BILL, WHICH WE
DID IT, WHICH COMES FROM THE
LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
I DON'T WANT IT TO COME FROM
THE TAXPAYERS.
AND WHILE TEMPORARILY IT NOW
DOES WE WILL BE OFFERING A BILL
-- I HOPE THE COMMITTEE OF
WHICH THE GENTLEMAN IS AN
ACTIVE MEMBER WILL GIVE US THE
CONSIDERATION AND WE CAN AMEND
THE LAW UNDER WHICH THIS
PROGRAM IS IN ORDER SO EVERY
PENNY, WHETHER IT'S LOANS OR
GRANTS, IN SOME COMBINATION IT
WILL BE PRIMARILY GRANTS, WILL
COME FROM THE LARGE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS AND NOT A PENNY
FROM THE TAXPAYER.
NOW I YIELD.
DOES THE
GENTLEMAN THINK THAT THE
LANGUAGE IN THE LEGISLATION AS
IT'S WRITTEN NOW SAYS --
REPRESENTATIVES -- REPRESENTS
AS A LOAN OR A GRANT?
A GRANT.
I'M STRUCK BY THE GENTLEMAN
FROM TEXAS.
HE SAID IT WAS AN EXCESSIVE
LOAN PROGRAM AND GRANT PROGRAM.
HE MADE TWO ENTIRELY
INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS IN A
VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
EVEN FOR A POLITICIAN THAT'S A
RECORD FOR SELF-CONTRADICTION.
WILL THE
GENTLEMAN YIELD?
NO.
I'M FINISHING TALKING TO ONE
GENTLEMAN.
I CAN'T TALK TO TWO NO MATTER
HOW FAST I TALK.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
IT WILL BE A LOAN
THAT WILL PRIMARILY BE A GRANT.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLELADY FROM
CALIFORNIA RISE?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
--
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY
SAYING AYE.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
.
THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS UNDER
SECTION 2?
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS RISE?
I OFFER AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 AS
THE DESIGNEE FOR THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MICHIGAN -- MINNESOTA, MR.
PAULSEN.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
SECTION 3?
TEXAS OFFERED AN AMENDMENT UNDER
I OFFER
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 AS THE
DESIGNEE FOR THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MINNESOTA.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3,
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD, OFFERED BY MR.
NEUGEBAUER OF TEXAS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MINUTES.
TEXAS IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIRMAN.
I OFFER THIS ON BEHALF OF MY
GOOD FRIEND, MR. PAULSEN, FROM
MINNESOTA.
THIS IS A GOOD AMENDMENT.
IT WOULD ADD MILITARY SERVICE
MEMBERS AND VETERANS WHO HAVE
SERVED -- SERVICE RELATED
INJURIES AS WELL AS SURVIVORS'
AND DEPENDENTS OF SUCH
INDIVIDUALS TO BE INCLUDED IN
THE STUDY IN THIS BILL.
THESE FAMILIES OFTEN FACE
HARDSHIPS.
THEY WILL LIKELY NEED
HELP THEM GET AROUND.
MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR HOUSES TO
ESPECIALLY IF THE SERVICE MEMBER
IS DISABLED.
THERE MAY BE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
IN THE ABILITY TO MOVE AROUND
AND THE SKILLS THAT THEY ARE
ABLE TO PERFORM.
THIS WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THEIR
LIVELIHOOD.
IT'S MY HOPE THAT WE CAN GAIN A
BETTER UNDERSTANDING HOW WE CAN
BEST PROVIDE FOR THE FAMILIES OF
THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED OUR
COUNTRY AND PAY THE ULTIMATE
PRICE.
WITH THAT I RESERVE MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN MAY NOT
RIFF THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME
UNDER THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN YIELD BACK?
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
RISE?
TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
I DIDN'T GET --
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
FIVE MINUTES.
MASSACHUSETTS IS RECOGNIZED FOR
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS WHO SIMULTANEOUSLY -- NOT
SIMULTANEOUSLY BUT CONSECUTIVELY
DENOUNCED THIS PROGRAM FOR
PUTTING PEOPLE IN DEBT AND BEING
A GIVE AWAY GRANT ASKED ME
WHETHER IT WAS DESIGNATED A LOAN
OR GRANT.
THE ANSWER IS NEITHER.
THE PROGRAM IS CALLED THE
EMERGENCY MORTGAGE RELIEF
PROGRAM.
SO IT LEAVES OPEN WHAT KIND IT
WOULD BE.
QUESTION.
THAT'S THE ANSWER TO HIS
THAT'S WHY SOME OF US WERE LESS
CONFUSED THAN OTHERS.
WOULD THE
GENTLEMAN YIELD?
YES.
THE BILL SAYS
IT'S A LOAN.
AS SOON AS THAT INDIVIDUAL TAKES
AN ADVANCE IN THIS PROGRAM, IT
BECOMES A LIABILITY OF THAT
INDIVIDUAL.
THERE ARE CERTAIN WAYS IN THIS
BILL EITHER FROM FORFEITURE OR
THROUGH SOME OF THE PROVISIONS
IN THIS BILL THAT INDEBTEDNESS
IS FORGIVEN, BUT I WILL TELL YOU
THE PROPER ACCOUNTING IS THAT
TODAY THE INDIVIDUAL PAYMENT IS
MADE ON THEIR BEHALF, IT BECOMES
A LIABILITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL.
I TAKE BACK MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN GETS HIMSELF
FURTHER AND FURTHER IN THE HOLE
TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS.
THE FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR.
HE BEGAN BY SAYING HE WAS GOING
TO PUT THEM FURTHER AND FURTHER
IN DEBT.
THAT CONTRADICTED HIS COLLEAGUES
MUCH OF A SUBSIDY.
WHO SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE TOO
IN FACT IT DOES NOT SAY LOAN OR
GRANT IN THE TITLE.
IT SAYS EMERGENCY RELIEF AND IT
DOES PROVIDE FOR A LOAN AND
FORGIVENESS.
I AM SORRY THE GENTLEMAN GOT
DON'T BLAME THE BILL.
HIMSELF TONGUE TIED.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS.
SO MANY AS ARE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
AYES HAVE IT.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR, THE
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
AT THE DESK.
NUMBER 4.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 4
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD OFFERED BY MS. WATERS OF
CALIFORNIA.
THE GENTLELADY FROM
CALIFORNIA IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MADAM SPEAKER.
I RISE TO PRESENT MY AMENDMENT
WHICH I BELIEVE IS A COMMONSENSE
PROVISION THAT PROVIDES
TRANSPARENCY AND CLARITY FOR
DISTRESSED HOMEOWNERS.
SPECIFICALLY THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO
PUBLISH TO H.U.D.'S WEBSITE A
STATEMENT INDICATING THAT THE
EMERGENCY MORTGAGE RELIEF
PROGRAM HAS BEEN ELIMINATED.
THE AMENDMENT EXPLAINS THAT THIS
PROGRAM WOULD HAVE PROVIDED
UNEMPLOYED HOMEOWNERS WITH LOW
OR NO INTEREST LOANS TO ASSIST
THEM IN PAYING THEIR MORTGAGE.
FURTHER, MY AMENDMENT DIRECTS
UNEMPLOYED HOMEOWNERS TO CONTACT
THEIR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
DIRECTLY SINCE THE EMERGENCY
MORTGAGE RELIEF PROGRAM IS NO
LONGER AVAILABLE.
AND IF YOU LISTEN TO THE RECENT
DEBATE, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY
THIS IS IMPORTANT.
FIRST OF ALL, WE NEED
TRANSPARENCY IN WHAT WE DO AND
THE PUBLIC POLICY THAT WE MAKE.
WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO
COMMUNICATE BETTER AND CLEARLY
WITH OUR CONSTITUENTS.
AND SO THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD AND
STARTED TO GET INVOLVED WITH
THIS PROGRAM THAT WOULD ASSIST
UNEMPLOYED HOMEOWNERS TO BE ABLE
TO STAY IN THEIR HOMES.
AS YOU KNOW, THIS PROGRAM WAS
SPECIFICALLY DEVELOPED SO THAT
IT COULD DEAL WITH THE HIGH
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES AND THE FACT
THAT PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN
WORKING, SOME OF THEM ALL OF
THEIR LIVES, WERE NOW UNEMPLOYED
OR UNDER EMPLOYED, OR HAD
MEDICAL CONDITIONS THAT CAUSED
THEM NOT TO BE ABLE TO PAY THEIR
BILLS IN THE WAY THAT THEY HAD
BEEN PAYING THEM IN THE PAST.
AND SO NOW THAT WE ARE COMING A
LONG JUST AS THIS PROGRAM HAS
STARTED AND SAYING, OH, SORRY,
THE PROGRAM IS ELIMINATED, WE
NEED TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE
THAT AND THIS IS WHAT THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD DO.
AMERICAN HOMEOWNERS DESERVE OUR
ASSISTANCE.
AND THEY DESERVE OUR HELP.
AND WE HAVE JUST EXPERIENCED A
RESESSION, ALMOST A DEPRESSION
WHERE SMALL BUSINESSES AND BIG
BUSINESSES ALIKE HAD TO CLOSE
THEIR DOORS OR TO DOWNSIZE AND
IT HAS LEFT US WITH SOME OF THE
HIGHEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATES THAT
WE HAVE EXPERIENCED IN MANY,
MANY YEARS.
AND STILL THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
ARE UNACCEPTABLY HIGH.
STILL HOVERING AROUND 9%.
AND IN SOME COMMUNITIES IT'S
EVEN WORSE THAN THAT.
IT GOES UP TO 15% AND 20% AND
SOME COMMUNITIES EVEN 30%.
AND SO OUR AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE TURNED TO GOVERNMENT AND
SAY WHAT CAN I DO?
CAN YOU HELP?
THIS IS THE ONE OF FOUR PROGRAMS
THAT WAS DESIGNED TO HELP THEM.
UNFORTUNATELY MY FRIENDS ON THE
OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE
DECIDED THAT NOT ONLY ARE THEY
GOING TO ELIMINATE THIS PROGRAM,
THE EMERGENCY MORTGAGE RELIEF
PROGRAM, FOR UNEMPLOYED
HOMEOWNERS, BUT THEY HAVE
DECIDED THEY ARE GOING TO
ELIMINATE THE HAMP PROGRAM, THAT
IS THE HOME AFFORDABLE
MODIFICATION PROGRAM, YESTERDAY
THEY VOTED OFFER THIS FLOOR THE
F.H.A. PROGRAM THAT WOULD ASSIST
HOMEOWNERS IN REFINANCING.
DON'T FORGET, THIS F.H.A.
PROGRAM WAS REALLY FOR MIDDLE
CLASS CITIZENS WHO PAID THEIR
BILLS WHO WERE NOT IN DEFAULT,
HAD NOT LOST THEIR HOMES YET BUT
THEIR HOMES WERE UNDER WATER.
AND THEY WERE TRYING TO STAY IN
THEM BY REDUCING THE MORTGAGE
AND THIS LEGISLATION UNDER THE
F.H.A. WOULD HAVE HELPED THEM TO
DO THAT.
YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR MORE ABOUT
THE N.S.P. PROGRAM THAT MY
FRIENDS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF
THE AISLE IS ELIMINATING ALSO.
BUT TODAY PERHAPS THIS IS THE
MOST SENSITIVE THAT WE ARE DOING
NOW.
THIS IS THE MOST SENSITIVE
BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN IN
PENNSYLVANIA AS WAS DESCRIBED BY
MY FRIEND, MR. FATTAH FROM THAT
STATE, HOW THIS PROGRAM HAS
WORKED WELL.
FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS.
IN ASSISTING UNEMPLOYED
HOMEOWNERS.
WE WILL SET THE REGULATIONS FOR
HOW THIS IS DONE AND OF COURSE
THEY WILL LOOK AT THESE
INDIVIDUALS IN TERMS OF HOW LONG
THEY HAVE BEEN UNEMPLOYED, HOW
THEY PAID THEIR BILLS, AND
WHETHER OR NOT THEY BELIEVE THEY
ARE CAPABLE OF NOT ONLY
UTILIZING THE PROGRAM BUT
REPAYING THESE LOANS AT SOME
POINT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S TOO MUCH TO
ASK OF US TO BE BE OF
ASSISTANCE.
I NOTED THAT MY COLLEAGUE FROM
TEXAS REFERRED TO IT AS THESE
PEOPLE.
THESE PEOPLE ARE OUR PEOPLE.
CITIZENS.
THESE PEOPLE ARE AMERICAN
THESE ARE CONSTITUENTS.
WHO VOTE AND SEND US HERE TO
MAKE GOOD PUBLIC POLICY.
IT HAS BEEN SAID OVER AND OVER
AGAIN THAT WE BAILED OUT THE TOO
BIG TO FAIL INSTITUTIONS.
THAT WE WERE GENEROUS IN OUR
LOANS TO THEM.
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WENT
INTO THOSE TOO BIG TO FAIL
INSTITUTIONS.
SO I WOULD SIMPLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE ON THIS VERY SIMPLE
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD BRING SOME
TRANSPARENCY --
THE GENTLELADY'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLELADY'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES --
I CLAIM TIME IN
OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT.
--
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
I WANT TO READ A
PORTION OF THIS AMENDMENT THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM CALIFORNIA SAYS
THE EMERGENCY MORTGAGE RELIEF
PROGRAM WHICH WOULD HAVE
PROVIDED UNEMPLOYED HOMEOWNERS
WITH LOW INTEREST RATES LOANS TO
ASSIST THEM IN PAYING THEIR
MORTGAGE HAS BEEN TERMINATED.
IF YOU ARE UNEMPLOYED AND
CONCERNED ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE
TO PAY YOUR MORTGAGE, PLEASE
CONTACT YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
THAT'S WHAT IS SO CONFUSING
ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS THAT MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE,
THEY CAN'T DECIDE IF THIS IS A
LOAN OR GRANT.
ONE TIME IT'S A LOAN.
ONE TIME IT'S A GRANT.
BUT IN FACT THE PROGRAM SAYS
IT'S A LOAN.
IN FACT THE H.U.D., DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, THE TITLE OF THEIR
RULE IS EMERGENCY HOMEOWNERS
LOAN PROGRAM.
THE OTHER REASON I RISE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS IS THAT THIS
-- WE ARE TERMINATING A PROGRAM
THAT HAS HAD ZERO CUSTOMERS.
SO IT SEEMS AMBIGUOUS HERE TO
HAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GO
THROUGH A PROCESS HERE WHERE WE
ARE GOING TO NOTIFY HOMEOWNERS
OF A PROGRAM THAT NEVER WAS
INSTITUTED, NEVER WAS USED, THAT
IT DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE.
THAT SEEMS A LITTLE WASTEFUL.
I THINK IN MANY WAYS COULD BE
MISLEADING BECAUSE ACCORDING TO
-- OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT
THE WAY THE PROGRAM IS
STRUCTURED, IT BECOMES A GRANT
PROGRAM, SO WE ARE
MISREPRESENTING THEM IN THE
SENSE THAT, WELL, IT SAYS IT'S A
LOAN, BUT IT'S NOT A LOAN.
IT'S A GRANT.
AND SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS --
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
FOR THE
GOVERNMENT OUT THERE
MISREPRESENTING OR CREATING
CONFUSION TO HOMEOWNERS THAT MAY
BE SEEKING ASSISTANCE.
I WILL NOT.
SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT AT THIS
PARTICULAR TIME THAT THIS IS NOT
NECESSARY AND THAT IT WAS A --
WE SHOULD NOT PUT CONFUSING
PIECE OF INFORMATION OUT THERE
ON THE WEBSITE.
AND WITH THAT I YIELD TO THE
GENTLEMAN.
I NEED TO CLARIFY THIS.
I WAS NOT AROUND.
I AM A FRESHMAN HERE IN
WASHINGTON, D.C.
I WAS NOT HERE FOR THE CREATION
OF THIS PROGRAM.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I AM
HOPING TO HEAR SOME
CLARIFICATION FROM YOU, THAT
THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE
APPLICATION THAT'S NOT EVEN BEEN
PUT IN MUCH LESS DENIED OR
ACCEPTED BECAUSE THIS PROGRAM
HAS NOT HAD THE REGULATIONS
PROMULGATED.
THAT IS CORRECT, RIGHT?
IT STRIKES ME -- IT'S LIKE
GIVING A JOB LAYOFF NOTICE
ANYBODY.
BEFORE YOU HAVE EVEN HIRED
AND THAT REALLY IS THE ISSUE IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE WE ARE GETTING PEOPLE BACK
TO WORK.
THAT IS THE BEST PROTECTION WE
CAN POSSIBLY GIVE TO ANY PROGRAM
OUT THERE FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY CAKE MARE
MORTGAGE PAYMENTS IS BY GIVING
THEM A JOB.
BUT I YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU.
I THINK HE MAKES
A GREAT POINT.
IT IS A PROGRAM THAT HAS NOT HAD
AN APPLICATION.
HAS NOT BEEN PROMULGATED.
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
THIS IS REASON
WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS NOT
NECESSARY.
I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
VOTE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELD BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLELADY FROM FLORIDA RISE?
I MOVE TO
STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLELADY FROM
FLORIDA IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE
MINUTES.
THANK
YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO H.R.
836, THE EMERGENCY MORTGAGE
RELIEF PROGRAM TERMINATION ACT.
THIS LEGISLATION LIKE THE OTHER
WAR ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING BILLS
BEING BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR BY
OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE AISLE SEEKS TO TERMINATE
A MUCH NEEDED FEDERAL PROGRAM
THAT HELPS STRUGGLING
HOMEOWNERS.
TO BE CLEAR, SHUTTING DOWN A
BADLY NEEDED FORECLOSURE
MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM IS
NOT A SOLUTION TO FEDERAL
DEFICITS.
IT WOULD SIMPLY HURT HOMEOWNERS
AND THE CURRENT ECONOMIC
RECOVERY.
RATHER THAN TURN OUR BACKS ON
HOMEOWNERS, WE SHOULD BE WORKING
TOGETHER TO IMPROVE AND EXPAND
PROGRAMS TO HELP THE MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS AND COMMUNITIES
AFFECTED BY THE HOUSING CRISIS
ALL OVER OUR NATION.
FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW, MANY
AMERICANS HAVE STRUGGLED WITH
FORECLOSURES, UNDERWATER
MORTGAGES, AND ANN ABAND --
ABANDONED AND BLIGHTED
PROPERTIES.
IT HAS DECIMATED THE TOWNS' TAX
PLACE PRODUCING FUNDING
SHORTFALLS FOR BASIC SERVICES
LIKE POLICE.
THIS CREATES DEFICITS AT EVERY
LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT.
I KEEP HEARING FROM MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES THAT THE
DEBT IS CRUSHING AMERICANS AND
WE MUST ACT NOW.
WHAT ABOUT THE CRUSHING DEBT OF
NEGATIVE EQUITY FACING ALMOST A
QUARTER OF ALL HOMEOWNERS IN
THIS COUNTRY?
NEARLY 1/4 OF ALL AMERICANS OWE
MORE THAN -- ON THEIR MORTGAGES
THAN THEIR HOMES ARE NOW WORTH.
THERE ARE NEARLY 11 MILLION
FAMILIES WHO FEEL TRAPPED IN
THEIR HOMES UNABLE TO SELL OR
MOVE IF THEY WANTED TO OR EVEN
REFINANCE TO LOCK IN AT BETTER
INTEREST RATES.
AND THE STATISTICS IN MY HOME
STATE OF FLORIDA ARE FAR MORE
STAGGERING THAN THE NATIONAL
AVERAGE.
45% OF ALL MORTGAGES IN FLORIDA
ARE UNDER WATER.
IN BROWARD COUNTY WHERE I LIVE,
THAT NUMBER IS MORE THAN 50%.
YES, OVER HALF.
MORE HELP IS NEEDED NOT LESS.
HOWEVER WHAT IS OFFERED TODAY IS
A REPEAL AND ABANDON APPROACH,
LEAVING HOMEOWNERS WITH FEW OR
NO OPTIONS.
THIS IS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE.
FOR 10 WEEKS NOW THE HOUSE
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP HAS FAILED
TO BRING TO THE FLOOR A SINGLE
PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO CREATE
JOBS DESPITE MAKING OCCASIONAL
CASUAL REFERENCES TO JOBS.
WHAT THEY HAVE DONE INSTEAD IS
DESTROY JOBS.
PUSH LEGISLATION THAT WILL
JUST LIKE THE SPENDING BILL
PUSHED THROUGH THE HOUSE A FEW
WEEKS AGO THAT WOULD COST OUR
ECONOMY $700,000 JOBS.
THESE HOUSING BILLS WOULD INJURE
OUR ECONOMIC GROWTH.
I-K A APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENT
THAT THE CURRENT HOUSING
PROGRAMS HAVE NOT DONE ENOUGH TO
HELP OPENERS, I AGREE.
THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT LEGISLATION
OFFERED BY CONGRESSMAN CARDOZA
TO REQUIRE FANNIE MAE AND
FREDDIE MAC TO REFINANCE
UNDERWATER MORTGAGES SO
HOMEOWNERS STRUGGLING TO STAY
OUT OFER FROM CLOSURE -- STAY
OUT OF FORECLOSURE TO STAY IN
THEIR HOME.
AND I LOOK TO HOW WE CAN IMPROVE
THE PROGRAM.
MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE NO
PLANS IN THE -- TO HELPING MAKE
HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE OR
KEEPING PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES
NOR WILL THEY.
THAT'S BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THE
.
LENDING INDUSTRY WILL TAKE CARE
OF IT.
THAT'S THE SAME APPROACH THAT
CAUSED THE WALL STREET MELTDOWN
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP BEGAN
THE 11TH CONGRESS WITH A LOT OF
FANFARE BY READING THE
CONSTITUTION ON THE FLOOR OF THE
HOUSE.
WELL, IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SIMPLY
READ THE CONSTITUTION BUT TO
ABIDE BY IT AND CARRY OUT ITS
CHARGE.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE
CONSTITUTION VETS THE CONGRESS
WITH THE DUTIES TO PROVIDE FOR
THE GENERAL WELFARE AND TO
REGULATE COMMERCE.
HOWEVER OVER THE DECADES -- OVER
THE DECADE LEADING UP TO THIS
HOUSING CRISIS, THE CONGRESS
ABANDONED THIS, IT LED TO AN
ANYTHING-GOES ATTITUDE.
BANKS WERE MAKING SUBPRIME LOANS
PEOPLE COULDN'T AFFORD AND THEN
BUNDLING THESE LOANS AND SELLING
THEM OFF, BECOMING TOXIC ASSETS
THAT CRASHED OUR FINANCIAL
MARKETS.
WE OWE MORE TO OUR CONSTITUENTS
THAN SPEAKER BOEHNER'S SO BE IT
ATTITUDE.
BY AND SAY THE LENDING INDUSTRY
WE MUST DO MORE THAN JUST STAND
WILL TAKE CARE OF THIS CRISIS.
A FORECLOSURE HAS A DEVASTATING
AFFECT ON EACH AND EVERY
HOMEOWNER AND TEARS AT THE VERY
FABRIC OF THE FAMILY.
SAYING YOU SUPPORT FAMILY VALUES
IS MERE LIP SERVICE UNLESS YOU
TAKE ACTIONS TO VALUE THE FAMILY
BY STRIVING TO KEEP FAMILIES IN
TACT WITH A ROOF OVER THEIR
HEAD.
AND THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT THE
AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MANY OF MY
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES, MOST OF
WHICH HAVE BEEN RULED NONGERMANE
BECAUSE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL,
THEY OPPOSE HELPING TOO MANY
HOMEOWNERS.
APPARENTLY NELL FEDERAL EFFORT
THAT WOULD HELP ZERO HOMEOWNERS
IS TOO BROAD AND UNACCEPTABLE TO
THE OFFICE OF THIS LEGISLATION.
PERHAPS THIS BOILS DOWN TO A
FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT ON OUR
ROLE OF LOOKING OUT FOR
CONSTITUENTS AND ASSISTING AT
THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
THE DEMOCRATIC MINORITY REMAINS
COMMITTED TO OUR GOAL FOR THE
112TH CONGRESS, TO CREATE JOBS,
STRENGTHEN THE MIDDLE CLASS AND
RESPONSIBLY REDUCE THE DEFICIT.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO JUDGE EACH
OF YOUR BILLS BY THIS STANDARD.
THE LEGISLATION BEFORE US TODAY
FAILS ON ALL THREE COUNTIES --
COUNTS AND I URGE MY COLLEAGUES
TO VOTE AGAINST IT.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, I
TIME.
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
THE GENTLELADY FROM
FLORIDA YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE
OF HER TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ARKANSAS RISE?
MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ARKANSAS IS