drags on. that being said, obviously, we've seen a lot of cases where servicers have not performed their due diligence. where they have foreclosed inappropriate lly et cetera. and when there are situations where there are questions about the integrity of the process we have to take the timeliness to make sure things are being done correctly. >> yes, mr. secretary? >> i think the chairman said it right. there are, of course, huge numbers ever incident victims in this crisis and there are lots of people who can afford to stay in their homes and you want to make sure you give them a chance to do it, and there are some people that have already left their homes or need to pursue a more affordable option and we should help make that easy for them to do it and you want to make sure when you foreclose that that process has complete integrity. you want to have checks and balances on that but i agree the process is takeing to long in many parts of the country, and if that could be sped up without compromising those other fundamental objectives that

would probably be better for those communities. >> thank you. mr. cummings? >> thank you very much. i want to just go back to the matter that we, that the chairman brought up on monday at the hearing. and just get your opinion on this. we had major banks there, and we asked the question about how, you know, interest rates are lower. say somebody has a mortgage at 6%. and they are, i'd say, underwater. we were ask -- he was asking the banks what is, what's the negative side, and you can correct me if i'm wrong, mr. chairman, of trying to make sure that those people are able to take advantage of lower interest rates? i minean, do you all see that a one of the -- we talked about a number of remedies. did you understand my question? i just wanted your opinion on that.

seems like a lot of people would fall into that category. >> you're exactly right, and that's why it's so important that you give people the opportunity to refinance to take advantage of lower rates. one of the most important things that we have done and what, that the head of the fha has done over the last six months to do put in place a much better designed program to help people who are significantly under water take advantage of lower interest rates. we want that to happen on a much larger scale. in a program is getting quite a lot of trakds now. you're seeing, you may have heard in new york a substantial increase in refinancing by people who are significantly under water and we think we're at an early stage of that increase expect much more to happen. now, those programs now only apply to the loans that have been guaranteed by fannie and freddie and so we've also suggested that congress consider authorizing the fha to provide an additional program in that context, too, just to be fair. most people, you know, they're not sure who guaranteed their loan. want to make sure those

opportunities are available to everybody who owns a house. >> okay. one last question. one of the things that i looked at was this whole idea of when the banks did their settlement, fha did not bring them under those provisions for writing -- as a matter of fact, they said we don't want to be a part of that, and i noted you talking to mr. dimarco, was that a concern of yours? particularly when we have tripled the incentives for those kinds of things. just curious. >> as i said, there's a very strong economic case in some circumstances. and that's why you're seeing private investors do it to reduce principle for people under water but can afford to stay in their home with a reasonable payment, and that case will be equally compelling in parts of the people whose

loans were guaranteed by fannie and freddie. what we're trying to do is encourage mr. dimarco who is fully independent -- >> i understand that. >> to take another look at the evidence, because we think there's a place for doing more in a way that's completely consistent with a mandate that congress gave him appropriately or make sure he's protecting the interests of the taxpayer as he helps the housing market. we're working through those numbers with him, and i expect to hear more from him in the next couple weeks. >> on the behalf of the many, many, the millions of americans who are dealing with this issue, i would ask you to use your most convincing voice to try to get him to move off the dime. thank you very much. >> i want to thank our witnesses. we did get you out pretty close to the 12:00. you extended your willingness to answer far beyond the initial scope. i would only ask one more item.

please, the next time we invite you back, remember that this was a committee that has worked a lot in areas that overlap, and accept or invitation as you so graciously did this time. with that, we're adjourned.

finishing up a testimony from fed chair ben bernanke and treasury secretary tim geithner this afternoon. if you missed any of this hearing you can see it in its entirety in the c-span video library bp go to c-span.org. off the hill, news on the campaign trail. sources confirming former florida governor jeb bush

endorsed mitt romney's presidential campaign today. he is the second member of the bush family to give the nod to in romney. former president george h.w. m wush endorsed him last december. he stead was a signal for republicans to line up behind the former massachusetts governor. again, florida governor jeb bush endorsing mitt romney's presidential campaign today. yesterday house budget committee chair paul ryan released the republicans' budget proposal which aims to cut spend big $5 trillion over the next decade. today the house budget committee is reviewing the budget plan. they started this morning at 10:30. it's expected to last into the night tonight. we join it in progress. >> -- to increase tax breaks for millionaires. why when cutting medicare is it important to shift the burd ton middle class families? i think the bottom line is we have got-we've got a fight on our hands, and if we're going to keep the promise of medicare, if you value it as a fundamental

promise to keep -- allow retirees to live their lives in dignity, then reject this republican plan. this is an important american value. and it's absolutely worth fighting for. i'm happy to, at this time, yield my time to the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you, madam chairman. i have to start with this is a political document. every budget that's ever presented by the democratic party or the republican party or the no-nothings, it doesn't matter. this is a political document as nudge as you are smuch as you'rs an economic document, which partly it is. for the last 30 years you've sold us, tried to sell, the american people economics that prioritize corporate interests

in the wealthiest amongst us over the middle class. our most vulnerable citizens are seniors and even do it in comparing this budget to the president's budget which is 13% less for veteran whose put their lives on the line every day, and you pat them on the back at best. we got what we paid for. the worst economic crisis since the great depression. let me tell you something, i'm happy that you introduced this budget. i'm happy to run against it politically, economically, any way you say it. because you've handed it to us. it defines our battle. enough applied partisanship you're saying. i couldn't agree more with the gentleman from oklahoma who's not here right now. it's time that we came together. this document is not in any manner, shape or form a reaching out. it's a reaching back. it didn't work then. it's not going to work now. you think we have learned from the mistakes. instead, the budget doubles down on those failed policies of

providing money to the very wealthy and the multi-national corporations. disguised as tax reform. that's the best one yet. you must have worked hard on that. by using deficit reduction as a reason to eliminate investments in the future, cutting education when you compare the two budgets wa they already know about now by 33%. we say investments in the future, you must have skipped over those pages. i have reviewed and support the democratic amendments. they start to fix this mess. this budget would create. but first i can't reiterate this enough. in regards to the chairman's charge that our side doesn't have the courage to approach partisan reform, you didn't read the health care bill. health care reform was entitlement reform. one-third of health care reform, and i suffered through the ways and means committee, all of that, reading that page, but let

me tell you something. one-third of it devoted to medicare and medicaid. read it. it's the reform. in fact, those folks in charge, the trustees of medicare, just made the statement that the financial outlook for medicare is a substantially approved as a result of the affordable health care act. time is up. >> i'm just getting started. >> thank you, mr. pascrell. and at this point, i yield six minutes to mr. bloomen our. >> thank you. i would like to commend my friend for holding true to the principles of agriculture reform. i hope this is something that the committee can actually spend a little time on, because i think the direct payments, i think the opportunity for crop insurance, this is something that maybe the committee can get behind and do something to deliver. but in the main i must take exception to my good friend the ranking member who talks about

our friends and majority making the wrong choices. because actually other than the ag, yav made to choice. i don't think it takes much courage to say that you are going to, on the hard issues, you're not going to make any tough choices for the most fortunate and the most powerful. that you're going reduce their taxes. and turn around and reduce medicaid for all our states that are in a downward spiral, that that's going to be reduced 45%. or 19 million people cut back on food stamps. that didn't take much courage. and it's ducking the issues. in my humble prn. i look at these medicaid cuts, i wonder, don't you talk to your constituents going gonzo because of the pressure on medicaid and

what the states are doing, and you would retreat from that. over the course of the next ten years, now, mr. ryan actually was pressed. okay, you're going to cut the tax rates for the most fortunate, and for a lot of other people. but it's going to be deficit neutral. you're going to raise 18, 19%. how are you going to do that? not a clue. there aren't enough loopholes, tax reductions, without impacting the things that our constituents rely upon greatly. like the home mortgage deduction. you go through the list. how are you going to come up with 6.2 trillion dollars to make this deficit neutral? mr. ryan wouldn't say in his press conference. you haven't said a word about what those reductions are.

you're just going to leave it to those of us on the ways and means committee. well, with all due respect, that's not much of an answer. that's not courage. that's not a path to actually reduce the budget. you don't have a clue about how you'll close that $6.2 trillion gap, except you're going to hammer people who are the voiceless. at the end -- look at the independent analysis. you've got it, if you ask your staff for it, of people who look, that in 2050, if you follow this path, you're going to be down to 4% or less of the gdp. and you're going to hold defense harmless. doesn't work. no money for the fbi. no money for food -- it is a sham, and every independent analyst knows it. you've ducked the hard questions

in terms of how you're going to fix the tax system. you're going to leave a yawning deficit subpoena you have abrogated the agreement that we made last fall and wrote into law, that's not good enough for some of your tea party members, so you're going to brat teak th agreement of last fall and make the job of mr. cole, simpson and calvert into a nightmare trying to get something done and not have a shutdown before the budget in the fall. i think it's sad. it's not courage. it's not a plan. it is a political document, and we've decided that we're going to play politics here. what a surprise on the budget comme. it's anything other than a budget plan and ducking the tough questions. i would like to turn to mylleae remainder of our time to use as she sees fit. >> think tank the gentleman fo

yieldinyield ing addition to tax targets that can't come close without major class the republican budget boastfully is a windfall. essentially offshoring by u.s. corporations contributes to job loss. the current corporate tax system has created a competitive disadvantage for domestic businesses that choose not to engage in offshore, or for operations, and rewards companies for sending american jobs overseas. the result is not only millions of lost jobs but also trillions ever dollars of lost revenue. a case in point repatriation tax holiday in 2004. this bad tax policy added to the deficit. on october "wall street journal" article found the 15 companies that benefited most from an '04 tax break for the return of their overseas profits cut more

than 20,000 net jobs and decreased the pace of their research spending. the "wall street journal" goes on to warn against repeating the tax break calling the '04 policy a failed tax policy that cost the u.s. treasury $3.3 billion in estimated lost revenues over ten years and led to u.s. companies directing more funds offshore. and the most damaging finding, no evidence that the previous repatriation tax giveaway put americans to work. essentially, this is what is proposed in the republican budget. what we are going to do is reduce the tax rate for corporations, drive jobs overseas, not replace the revenue, which then automatically leads to the deep cuts that my colleagues have described, and also leads eventually to raising taxes on the middle class. i yield back my time. >> i thank you, ms. bass, and i

now yield nine minutes to ms. mccullagh. >> thank you. this congress is a big job. it's our responsibility to keep the focus on creating jobs, the economy, promoting long-term economic growth and putting america back on a sustainable fiscal path. congress has to do this in a way that spreads the benefits and burdens across our society. our seniors cannot and should not be left behind. as my colleagues explained the house republican budget fails to achieve every one of those goals. the republican budget protects subsidies cutting scholarships for college students. their budget gives more tax cuts to america's wealthiest individuals and corporations while cutting funding for food safety, medical research and better roads. these are not the priorities that my families in my community support. the republican policies to

subsidize the ultra wealthy are unpopular because they fail to create jobs, opportunity or security for america's middle class over the past decades. it's time to leave these old broken ideas behind. my democratic colleagues and i are going to offer amendments to reshape the republican budget into a plan that meets the real needs of america's economy. our amendments will end unaffordable tax cuts for millionaires, absurd tax breaks for oil companies and other fair unspecial interest tax giveaways. democrats will argue for responsible investments in building blocks of competitive 21st century economy. blocks that include basic research, modern infrastructure, clean energy, workforce development and education. my colleagues will offer amendments to commit $50 billion in immediate upgrades to our nation's crumbling highway, bridges and transit systems. to invest $30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 american public schools and

community colleges. and direct $1 billion to put 20,000 veterans to work resto restoring our national parks and public lands. investments like these will create thousands of jobs, sustain our economy and recover and help shape a new economy. democrats on this committee recognize that the economy of the last decade was built on shake e ground. a financial speculation and consumer debt and imported goods. that economy collapsed, and it's gone. past government policies that contributed to that failed economy are gone as well. we are now ready to build a better economy built on a foundation of advanced manufacturing and experts. the world class economy, folks, is not free. countries that we compete against, china, brazil, india and germany, they are making huge investments in education, research and infrastructure. so we need as members of

congress to have a chance that we will demonstrate that we can make smart choices, smart investments, for the country we all say we want to have and leave to our children. and with that i yield three minutes to congressman honda from california. >> thank you. i just want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for this opportunity. last week the chairman released a video preview of the contents of this budget. in it the chairman asked, what if your members of congress saw a crisis come in and did nothing? with all due respect, no one in this room, in fact no one in this congress is suggesting we just do nothing about the problem before us today. this is the debate about which solutions are best for this country. this is a debate about the sacrifices and trade-offs we must make. who must contribute and where can we afford to cut back? all of these are tough

decisions, and no one takes them lightly, but the way a person answers these questions reveals his principles and values. this budget before us today answers these questions by tearing apart the very fabric of our nation. this is not a role for prosperity, it is an outline for experiments with some of our treasured programs serving us as lab rats. i do not believe in experimental medicare and turning it into a voucher program. i do not believe in experimenting with medicaid or the low-income children, parents and seniors and people that this program protects. we need a budget that works for all americans not just the well-kewell well-connected and well-off. we should be listening to americans and seek sensible budget solutions. it not sensible to take the cut, cut, cut approach to all of our nation's challenges. i am particularly disappointed that this budget sets even lower spending levels than established

under the budget control act. although i say that president made a deal with this republican majority and noi they're walking away from that deal. it is impossible for us to govern when the majority party in the house continuously moves the goal posts. this has been the pattern of behavior this entire session and i hope for the sake of this country that it will stop. we can do better and here's how. we need to be honest about the best way to create a pro-growth economy. as i thaink my republican colleagues would agree, part is empowering with pro growth policies. that isn't all the entire solution. part of the solution simply must involve government investment and priorities we believe in. so this includes investments in capital, a smart and more sophisticated workforce through education. the president's budget takes some steps in the right direction. it provides $60 billion for education jobs,s 25ds billion to

help states prevent teacher layoffs. $5 billion to support reforms in the teacher profession and $30 billion to upgrade at least 35,000 public schools. this is why democrats are focused on s.t.e.m. education. we freed need to invest for all children and in each state. >> i thank the gentleman. the remaining time. >> i thank my colleagues for yielding. we prael see a stark contrast between the republican of budget proposal before us today. a budget that hurts the middle class and those who are struggling to get out of poverty and the democrats balance plan ton reinvest in our economy. paf egof representing is an area often referred to as the because of the concentration of high tech companies that call it home. it's a true sense of pride for us to have some of the world's leading innovators, big and small, as our community partners and they truly are our partners. they're inventors. they're manufacturers, they're

exporter, and since an enthusiastic work force is needed for all of this, they're also job creators. we should be dn to reinforce an our economic recovery. by supporting critical research and development efforts and investing in advanced enecturin. we see the private sector dividends paid by the research if a till taited by for example the national institutes of health, the national science foundation and the department of energy. these investments are more important than ever. we know we cannot drill our way out of the international oil market, but we can invent our way out. we've made exciting advancements in recent years in the area of green and renewable energy. solar, wind and even wave energy technologies will all have critical roles to play on our road to energy independence. and as these technologies continue to develop, we must continue to invest in and improve upon our workforce development initiatives.

community colleges play an important role in expanding access to higher education and workforce development opportunities. in oregon, for example, we've seen exciting partnerships develop between green energy, technology manufacturers and community colleges. these partnerships have been proven to be wonderful complements to renewable technology academic programs at the colleges providing students with the opportunity to see what they're studying and also learn skills relevant to local businesses. and, of course, access to quality education must start well before our children reach college age. our public schools are the cornerstones of our communities. we have an obligation to ensure that we provide the funding necessary to deliver the type of quality education that all of our children deserve, and when they reach college age, it's important that the option of higher education is available and affordable. instead of cutting pell grants and raising student loan interest rates in order to provide even more tax breaks for

millionaires, let's work to preserve the value of the pell grant and keep our student loan interest rates from doubling. continued access to these financial aid programs will help prepare our next generation of workers for their careers in the next generation technologies i mentioned earlier. there is indeed a clear contrast here between the chairman's resolution and what my democratic colleagues and i are proposing. we are at a fork in the road, and i urge my colleagues to avoid the path to poverty by rejecting the chairman's budget proposal and coming together to craft a balanced approach. that invests in our future. i yield back any time. >> thank you. thank you so much. mr. van holland. we clearly have a serious long-term problem in this country with rising health care costs. it impacts a veteran who served

our country, who relies on tricare in highland hills. it affects a senior who requires skilled nursing home care in thousand oaks in northeast san antonio. it impacts someone who has nothing but medicare to provide their health care in san marcus. and it affects people across this country, but the fundamental question that mr. ryan's republican budget presents today is whether the solution to that rising health care cost is a problem that impacts so many americans, is to shift more of the burden to the seniors, to the most vulnerable, including our seniors in nursing homes if that will solve the rising health care costs. and i think shifting from the taxpayer to the senior is the wrong approach to take. now, we've heard from many of the commentators who have gotten behind mr. ryan's plan that he's

visionary, and that anyone who doesn't agree with him is democrat gochic or involved in mediscare. what would be more mediscare than to tell people the alternative they have medicare going interrupt to adopt his plan. i don't think the plan, while well thought out, is visionary. i think it's rather myopic that he needs a different set of glasses, to look through the issues, the vision from the standpoint of that senior in san marcos or in east austin who's relying on medicare and now he would give them instead of the defined benefits program of medicare, he would give them a certificate, and that certificate, that voucher, would buy that senior less health care each year, because there is a feeling by some of the more right wing commentators that if you do that, that seniors will