mr. lynch: thank you, mr. chairman. thank the ranking member. i rise in opposition to h.r. 830, the f.h.a. refinance program termination act, and also the other bill that will be coming to the floor on the same subject. i want to emphasize one thing that the ranking member has raised and that is that these are voluntary programs. these are all voluntary programs that are trying to keep american families in their homes, these programs require the banks to agree that this is a good deal. . and it's deserving of these homeowners. these programs require that the homeowner also agree, obviously. and that in many cases that servicer agree. now, because you're requiring a voluntary agreement and an agreement that has been crafted in such a way that all parties are balanced in their interests, it's been difficult to generate

the number of families to be helped so far. i do want to also emphasize this program started in november. this program started in november. we've had about four months to get families onboard to be helped by these programs. for much of that four months we have had abject resistance from the servicers. they have been the obstruction in making these programs work. but i am happy to say that in the last 10 days we have had three major servicers, ally, gmac and wells fargo, that have finally come forward and said, we're going to work within this program and we're going to try to help families stay in their homes, not because -- not out of charity but because they realize that we need to put a floor under this housing market in order to help sustain the weak economic recovery that we have going forward. what exacerbates the situation is also the way the banks have

handled this up to now. in my district and it's happened all across the country, we've had situations where banks and servicers have employed robo signers to the point where many of these foreclosure documents have been signed without full knowledge by the individuals charged with that responsibility . we've seen many courts in this country look at the foreclosure process used by these banks and have ruled them to be illegal and that in fact the banks did not own the homes that they were trying to foreclose on. and this has happened thousands of times across the country. it's not been a smooth process. we've also had a very, very difficult situation for our men and women in uniform. despite the fact that there's been a law in this country since world war i that we will not foreclose on service members' homes while they are in combat, while they're in afghanistan or iraq, we've had banks do hundreds and hundreds of

foreclosures on our men and women in uniform. there are needs for these programs and yet we're conveniently forgetting those facts. lastly this bill, with all due respect, has been poorly drafted in a meaningful way. this bill, if adopted, would prohibit all voluntary agreements between parties to stop these foreclosures. and i understand what the targets of my republican colleagues are, but the bill is drafted so broadly it would prevent the banks and the f.h.a. and the homeowner and the servicer to come to a voluntary agreement. private enterprise has been something that my colleagues used to encourage and here we have voluntary agreements that will be prohibited by this bill. and i do not think that is the intent of the gentleman, however that is the actual impact of his

legislation and i have an amendment more specifically to deal with that at a later time. but we have to slow down the foreclosure process to put a floor under this economy, we have to help the families that can be helped and this f.h.a. refinance program termination act would prevent that from happening. i thank the ranking member for the time and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you. mr. chairman, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for four minutes. mr. dold: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding and, mr. chairman, h.r. 830 is commonsense legislation that stops inefficient and ineffective government spending. this program at its outset of this $8 billion program, its failure was inevitable. that inevitable failure is now

undeniable. it doesn't work for the homeowner, it doesn't work for the tax paying american families and it certainly doesn't work for future generations who are trying to claw their way out of the debt that we are burdening them with each and every day. so let's go back and let's talk about the homeowners. we've got 12 million mortgages in america that are currently under water and yet this program , this program which was actually rolled out in march, started about six months ago, has 245 applications. 245. how many have actually made it over the hurdles and have gotten some help and refinanced? 44. 44 refinances. we've got $8.12 billion that has been obligated, we have $50 million that has been dispersed. now, a quick back of the envelope calculation, that's $1.1 million per mortgage

refinanced thus far. if we look at it even further, were these million-dollar mortgages? actually the average mortgage was about $300,000. so we spent the american taxpayers, in terms of their dollars, we spent $1.1 million in order to refinance a $300,000 loan. the administration said, we're going to have $1.-- 1.5 million homeowners get into this program. and yet we've taken almost a year, we have 44 that have actually gone through. if you were to get through this program, if you were one of the lucky ones, one of the 44, clearly it's not going to help you in so as you're going to destroy your credit for the next several years. the average credit score of the 44 that are in the program was 711. that credit score is going to go down.

is their monthly payment going to go down? in many instances no. because they're going to have to come up with closing costs. they're going to have to pay private mortgage insurance if they haven't been paying it already. and so there are other requirements that are simply a burden on the actual homeowners. it's time that we tell the american public the truth. it's time that we in this body recognize when a government program is not working. we need to get rid of this program. $8.12 billion obligated. $50 million dispersed. for 245 applicants and 44 mortgages actually redone. the program certainly doesn't work for the american taxpayer. when we're looking at debts and deficits in washington, many of us sent here to washington to try to get the out-of-control government spending back in line and i would say that certainly $

1.1 million per mortgage is not a good use of the taxpayer dollars. when we look at future generations, we look at the amount of money that we're spending right now, $.48 trillion in the deficit spending -- $1.48 trillion in the deficit spending. the president's budget comes down to talking about $1.6 trillion for the next year. we cannot continue to spend money that we don't have. our debt at $14 trillion. when we actually took a look at the treasury report that came out just a couple of days ago, talking about tarp, because this program is basically on tarp funds, they recognized that the mortgage modification programs were never intended to be recovered. this to me, i think, is an enormous problem. this is a program that doesn't work for the homeowner, it doesn't work for the american public and it certainly is not

going to work for future generations. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: the gentleman simply repeated an absolute fantasy. this is not a $50 million spenditure for 40 loans. the $50 million has not been given to anybody, not a penny of it. it has been put in a reserve account. $50 million has been set aside in a reserve account. it was dispersed from the tarp to a reserve account. the c.b.o. has estimated that if this goes forward it will be $12,000 per loan. last week the gentleman was claiming that if you participate in this program you'd have a tax liability. he learned that that was wrong. he's perpetuating error. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcnerney: thank you, mr. ranking member. i'm proud to represent much of the san joaquin valley. our valley is a great place to live and work but unfortunately we've been hit very hard by the

economic downturn. the valley has been ground zero for the foreclosure crisis. over the past few years thousands of families in our county and throughout the valley have lost their homes. i've hosted foreclosure assistance workshops, i've met with hardworking people who were misled by lenders who were struggling to stay on top of their mortgages, i've seen grown men cry because they couldn't keep a roof over their children. i've talked to veterans who served their country only to return home to a notice of default. and i've met seniors on the brink of homelessness. the administration's foreclosure prevention initiatives have fallen short in the valley. simply put, the administration's programs haven't effectively served the people you understand water on their mortgage and the -- under water on their mortgage and the administration hasn't been tough enough on the big banks. i call on president obama and this cabinet to develop more effective efforts to stem the

tide of foreclosures. but despite these shortcummings, the bill -- shortcomings, the bill the house republicans are offering today is absolutely the wrong approach. it's throwing the baby out with the bath water. instead of canceling foreclosure relief programs at their beginning stages like they're proposing, we should be strengthening them so they're more effective. mortgage counselors from my district advise and plead to improve our efforts to get tough on big banks and provide meaningful relief to families. stabilizing the housing market is critical to economic recovery and creating jobs. for these reasons i oppose h.r. 830 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: yes, mr. chair, i yield the gentleman from illinois 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 30 seconds.

>> i thank the chair. running a business, i have to tell you, obligated funds are one thing, dispersed funds are quite another. if i can, from the monthly 508 report delivered to the congress from tarp and from the department of the treasury, and i have and would like to submit for the record, under obligated, all the way down here, when it's talking about the f.h.a. refinance, it's $8.12 billion. mr. dold: in an entirely different column, under dispersed, it's $50 million. from the paper here, from the department of the treasury, obligated and dispersed are different things, we have $50 million that has been dispersed. i yield back. mr. frank: i yield myself 15 seconds to further illuminate. it's been dispersed in a letter of credit, none of which has been drawn down. it sits there as a reserve in case of losses. i now yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for three minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the

ranking member for yielding and i rise in opposition to h.r. 830 and this bill is one of four separate antiforeclosure programs aimed at helping troubled homeowners stay in their homes that the new house republican majority are planning to end. now what is very troubling is they don't have any idea of what to put in its place. now, we know that we have 12 million mortgages that are under water, that need help. and they're in all of our states. but they're not coming forward with any ideas of how to help the economy or to help the people. now, this particular program is just getting started. it's the f.h.a. short refinance program. and it's one of the foreclosure prevention programs that would not only help the individual homeowners but also help to stabilize the overall u.s. housing market which is 25% of our economy.

so it not only helps an individual, it helps the locality, it helps our country, it helps our economic strength. the result of ending this program would be hundreds of thousands of additional foreclosures and steeper price declines in our housing. it's outrageous. it's short-sighted, it's mean and it's wrong. now, in this program it would allow the borrowers to reduce the principal owed on their homes up to 10% so that their payments are lower, so that they can save money that they can't afford and in return the banks would get an f.h.a.-insured loan that is subject to all of f.h.a.'s strict standards. so to get this loan you're going to have to jump through hops -- hoops to be able to qualify and it is voluntary. just last week several major banks in america voluntarily walked forward to help out. citi bank, wells fargo, bank of

america, to name a few. so the program is just getting started and the $50 million line of credit is like a line of credit you draw down on. hopefully we won't even have to tap into it. hopefully our economy improves, people are employed and they're able to pay their mortgages. and the standards are very, very strict. the owners must be current on their payments, it must be their primary residence, they have to have full documentation to qualify. so it is a strict program and i want to come back to an issue that is very important to me, is this affects lives. this affects people. now, in congressman frank's home state there are over 222,000 residents whose mortgages are under water that could qualify possibly if they can meet the criteria. it's part of a total package to help our economy move forward and the opposition, the republican majority, has no ideas of their own. it's just to come in and cut a

good program that is just getting started. now they mentioned the 44 people that have been helped, they say that's not important. i'd say it's very important to the 44 people that have been helped and there may be 12 million possibly that could be helped under this program. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i inquire of the time on each side? the chair: the gentleman from alabama has 6 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman has 7 1:4 minutes remaining. mr. bachus: i continue to reserve my time. mr. frank: i yield to the gentleman from north carolina four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i say 10 years ago the debate here in congress was what to do

with the surplus. in fact, we paid off $400 billion of the debt and alan greenspan worried that we were going to pay off the national debt too quickly and it might be unsettling to the economy. mr. chairman, if there is one problem that got solved in the last decade it is that problem, the problem of paying off the national debt too quickly. my party can claim none of the credit for that. it was a republican president and a republican congress. i must admit, i don't like what they did of paying off the national debt too quickly. they gave tax cuts to america's top .1%. americans making more than $2 million, $340,000. and we saw just a couple months ago that was one thing that was absolutely nonnegotiable to them. they would give up everything to let those americans have to pay any more in taxes. when -- when there was a proposal to expand medicare to take care of prescription

drugs, something i supported generally, republicans in congress passed a bill that was not paid for as other programs like that had been paid for and was a giveaway to the insurance industry and to the prescription drug industry. mr. miller: so when they're giving tax cuts to the richest americans, the rich of the rich, when they're giving away taxpayer money to the insurance industry and the prescription drug industry, the drug industry, they don't worry about deficits at all. it's only when democrats take the presidency and particularly in the last two years. when we have been dealing since the worst recession since the great depression and have been trying to pull the country out of a nosedive that they've become worried about the deficit, and criticize americans, everything that we have done to try to save the country from the disaster that we -- that we inherited. and it is only the programs that help working and middle-class families that seem to give them a problem like this one.

now, we have been on the case of subprime lending and its effects for a long time. i introduced legislation in 2004 to rein in subprime lending. not a bit of help from republicans. mr. watt and i introduced that bill. it was miller watt two years -- miller-watt two years later it became miller-watt-frank. the gentleman from alabama said in committee the other day to deal with -- that wouldn't cost taxpayers. i introduced that in 2007. it was one way to teal with the problem is let bankruptcy judges modify mortgages in bankruptcy the same the way they modify all kinds of secured debt. no support from republicans at all. and the opposition of republicans killed that. i had introduced -- i urged the federal agencies that set rules for the banks to require they treat people better than they've been treating them. no help from republicans at

all. and even -- even mountain last -- well, just yesterday, the federal agencies in charge of -- the banks' conduct and states' attorney generals had been pushing the banks to impose fines for violating the law in how they handle foreclosures. and several republicans sent a letter yesterday to the secretary -- secretary of the treasury protesting that federal agencies were being too mean to the banks. now, i thought most politicians learned during the keating five that your office does not give you the right to give your political buddies, your contributors, a get-out-of-jail free cards but that's what they appear to do when it's the banking industry that's complaining about it. it's not true that this problem of foreclosure is just affecting a handful of americans. can i have one minute? mr. frank: one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. miller: we are in a cycle of foreclosures leading to

reduced value of homes -- reduced values of homes. with people under water they seem their life savings disappear. more foreclosures and on and on. we have got to put a bottom on the housing market. we know this can work. this program is very similar to a program in the new deal that did work, the homeowners loan corporation turned a profit, a slight profit but a profit and saved the middle class, saved the housing industry. we need to do something. republicans have offered nothing. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. chair. at this time i yield one minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from nevada, mr. heck. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute and 15 seconds. mr. heck: i rise in support of the this -- this bill.

390,192 families in nevada are under water. let me say that again. 390,192 families in nevada are under water. we must help individuals who are trying to do the right thing. this program gives some of those nevadans who are current on their mortgage but under water the ability to refinance their loan. some will say this program is a failure because too few mortgages have been refinanced through it. they'll say not enough money has been distributed. i say a failed p.r. job should not be the reason a good program dies. and the f.h.a. refinance program can be a good program, but it needs more attention and perhaps reform so homeowners know it's an option. vote no on h.r. 830 and give homeowners a chance to take

advantage of this program, and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: at this time, mr. chair, i recognize the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. mr. yoder: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 830. this bill would repeal a well-intentioned but bankrupt policy. mr. chairman, the republican people are tired of bailout after bailout. with $14 trillion and borrowing $5 billion a day, yet unemployment is 9%. the american people are sending us an unmistakable message, the idea of borrowing and bailing out and spending isn't working. we're borrowing more money in washington with this program that we don't have, tell the americans borrow more money at home for housing they can't afford. mr. chairman, this is madness. when will the stop and when will the politicians in

washington understand that we're not going to be able to borrow and spend our way to prosperity? the american people are tired of this. they want washington leaders to step up, reduce spending and eliminate programs that aren't working. mr. chairman, i ask today we pass this legislation and restore fiscal sanity to washington. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: how much time is remaining on both sides, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 2 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from alabama has about four -- has 4 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from alabama has the right to close. mr. bachus: thank you. mr. chair -- mr. frank: i yield -- i have one remaining speaker so i'll defer until you have your last speaker. mr. bachus: you just have one remaining speaker? mr. frank: yes. mr. bachus: at this time i recognize the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. biggert, for 2 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mrs. biggert: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. and, mr. chairman, president ronald reagan famously said with tong and cheek, no doubt, that the closest thing to eternal life on this earth is a federal government program. and i rise today in support of h.r. 830, legislation authored by my friend from illinois, mr. dold. at the risk of disproving the late president's ax yum, let me say that h.r. 830 will demonstrate that congress does have the good sense, the fortitude and the wherewithal to bring an end to a federal program, especially one that's not working. the program in question is the f.h.a. refinancing program which was authorized under the broadest provisions in the tarp legislation back in 2008. in 2010 the program was conceived in haste, enacted with no vote in congress and was designed to augment another failed program, the making home

affordable program, which has done more harm than good. under the f.h.a. refinancing program, the f.h.a. is directed to use tarp funds to refinance mortgages that are current but underwater. its record has been a real problem with the f.h.a. commissioner stating during our meeting last month, as of february 11, 44 loans have been endorsed, end quote. where else but in washington would it be a good idea to obligate $8 billion in taxpayer funds and disspers $50 billion of those dollars? -- disburse $50 billion of those dollars? we don't know how many will be in default, how many -- what it will cost, but that money has been disbursed from the u.s. treasury. mr. chairman, this bill ends another failed program. taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for failure, so i would

urge my colleagues to support the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. -- the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the author of the bill, the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, was telling people that if they join this program they would have a tax liability. he was wrong. it wasn't his fault. he was told that was the case. he dutifully read what he was told. he found out it was wrong. it would be $50 billion disbursed. no, $50 billion has not been spent on any individual. it has been set aside if necessary in the future to pay for defaults. so this is a fantasy. it's true, the program has not had a major impact. and if it does not prove itself out it never will. it cannot be loudly expensive and nonexistent. it is there if we get an agreement involving all of the

attorneys general of both parties, involving the regulators and the financial institutions, this would be one of the tools that will accommodate people. c.b.o. does think there could be a loss. their prediction is -- their best guess, and they are the best objective element that we have, you could get an amount of $12,000 or so per loan lost here. not $1 million. $12,000. it is part of a -- part of projects that will help reduce foreclosures and help the economy deal with this crisis. people that don't like it, they'll send money to brazil, they'll send money to afghan cities, they'll send money to iraqi security, they'll send money to farmers for $250,000, but $12,000 per homeowner is just too much for them. it's not just for homeowners. it's part of getting out of our economic crisis. so i hope this is defeated. i appreciate what the gentleman from nevada said. yes, it can be improved.

the fact that only 44 people have been involved so far means they are proceeding appropriately cautiously. this is a program with great promise. it may not turn out, but if a promise doesn't turn out then it doesn't cost anything. and if it does turn out to be a workable part of an overall solution, it will be money much better spent than many of the billions my colleagues on the other side are prepared to subsidize some of their favored sacred cows as opposed to doing something to help the whole economy. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: mr. chair, i'd -- will approach the floor to use my remaining time. the chair: the gentleman may proceed. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. chair. mr. chair, members of this body , what are we talking about when we're talking about

cutting government spending? we're talking about these children. these children cannot afford a future where its federal government spends $8 billion more every day than it takes in. now the chairman has criticized our military spending. i could have a picture of my children or grandchildren up and i could have a picture of one of my little granddaughters whose son served in the u.s. marines. their unit served in afghanistan and in iraq. so i make no apology for supporting our troops. now if the president decides to call them home, my son would support that. now, the chairman -- the ranking

member frank says, well, this sits, this program that's helped 44 families whose average mortgage was $330,000, that's more than the cost of a home in my district, but here is the -- president obama's report to us that $50 million has been dispersed but the alarming figure is $8.12 billion that's obligated. now, the gentlelady from new york said that the banks, citibank, bank of america, they're all lining up to use this program. i would be too. this transfers obligations from lenders to the taxpayer, as long as these mortgages were making money the banks profited. but all of a sudden when they're under water and a borrower may be can't make the -- maybe can't make the payment, hey, if i was a bank identify say, yeah, let

the government, let the taxpayers pay, reduce this mortgage. that ought to be between the bank and the homeowner. 42 families, you say all of these programs we're going to debate this week and next week would cost billions of dollars, they're going to help a half a million families. there are 12 million families that are under water. let's talk about something very important. if we don't get our financial house in order, i quote the words of admiral mike mullen on august 25, before cnn, and i'll close with this. the most significant threat to our national security is our debt. and that threat comes from this body and the administration. it's time to cut spending. think about them, think about their future. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the

amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order except those received printing in the record designated for that purpose and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. each amendment so received may be offered only by the member who causes it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered printed, considered read, if printed. the clerk will designate section 1. the clerk: enacted, section 1, short title. the chair: are there any amendments to section 1? mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i have an amendment the at the desk. mr. bachus: i make a point of -- the chair: the gentleman from alabama. does the gentleman from alabama have an amendment to section 1? mr. bachus: no. i make a point of order against the amendment that -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york

seek recognition? mrs. maloney: i have an amendment at the desk and i ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. maloney of new york. mrs. maloney: i ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with. the chair: the amendment has been designated. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i make a point of order against the amendment because in my opinion -- i reserve a point of order against the amendment because in my opinion -- the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentlelady from new york. is recognized for five minutes in support of her amendment. mrs. maloney: thank you, mr. speaker. my amendment has the purpose of making very clear what we're doing today to the american people. and this amendment ensures that we do that, it shows that -- and makes clear that we are ending a

program that has the potential to help hundreds of thousands of under water borrowers. h.r. 830, the f.h.a. refinance program termination program, ignores the under water borrowers of this country and does nothing to help families save their homes. very simply the bill ends a program that has the potential to help hundreds of thousands of people whose mortgages now exceed the value of their homes and also help the communities and help the overall economy. the majority crafted a so-called open rule in such a way that it's nearly impossible to offer any substantive amendments, a number were voted down on party lines in the committee debates. in response to this reality and an effort to highlight the true nature of this harmful bill, my amendment identifies the numbers in each state, of the hundreds

of thousands of under water borrowers across the country and makes clear that the republican majority has no solution to the problem, nor do they have any desire to find one. americans must be made aware of the intention of this majority. this program allows borrowers to write debt at least 10% to reduce the debt burden, they're all paying, in financial difficulty, and banks then can get an insured f.h.a. guarantee and move forward and keep living in their homes and can keep participating in the economy. because of this vote today, if the majority wins, homeowners across the country may not have the opportunity to take advantage of the program that just began and which should be made, in my opinion, available to them. now, what this does, it goes down all of the impacts across

the country. it shows that in my home state of new york there are over 129,000 mortgages tund water that would not be able to apply for this program to allow people to stay in their homes. in chairman bachus' state there are over 35,000 mortgages under water. in florida there are more than two million mortgages under water and they have no alternative of any way to help these people. and these numbers are from an independent company study. if you go to california, our largest state, over two million homes are under water. nevada, 390,000 individuals are facing the loss of their homes. in arizona there are over 648,000 families that are under water, their home is not worth what they're paying for it with the mortgages. so this program is one that i think is thoughtful, one that

has only $50 million as a line of credit that will be pulled in if there are defaults. but the banks participating have very strict standards, as does the f.h.a. they have to be their primary residence, they have to provide full documentation, no more of these no-doc loans. it must be current on the mortgage. they must have a job. they have to have many, many levels that they have to meet before they get the loan. but at least it's a lifeline to these 12 million families whose homes are under water. and with declining home values borrowers are caught in mortgages they no longer can afford. because their rates have reset or because their interest-only payments have not allowed them to grow any equity in their homents -- homes. they are making their payments but just barely and so this one is there to help them. and it simply adds findings to

the bill with the number of under -- underwater mortgages in each state that we've secured data for. so that it becomes very clear to the american people how many homeowners in each state we are not helping if we do what the majority wants to terminate this program. and i might say, this program is one of four that the obama administration has put forward to help homeowners stay in their homes and to help stabilize our economy which is still fragile and is still recovering. housing is 25% of our economy according to many economists, so the strength of housing is important to the overall health of our nation's economic future. so i urge my colleagues to support the amendment, to make it clear by the vote on this bill how many americans across this country will not be helped if the majority gets their

passage of a bill that would terminate a program that has the potential of helping literally millions in america. my time is expired, i urge a yes vote on my amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: mr. chairman, i now make pivente order against the amendment because in my opinion it violates clause 7 of rule 16 which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it's amending. it's not germane to the bill because it's outside the scope of the bill and fails to draw the nexus to the bill. the chair: does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: the amendment is germane, mr. speaker. this program has the potential to help underwater mortgages across our great country which is germane to the bill we're debating today. because the program terminates the potential of this. have no findings in this bill that you're rushing to to the floor. it is germane to talk about the hundreds of thousands of homeowners that are out there

that possibly could lose their homes. because this program is being terminated. and this is germane in my opinion to the underlying bill. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: mr. chair, she lists the number of mortgages that are under water but there's no in saying that this program may help them. obviously there are many of those, the borosers are behind on their payments, they wouldn't qualify for help, just the number 44 ought to tell that you when you list 12 million homeowners and then say that the termination of this program would have helped is quite a stretch. there are certain other qualifications under this

legislation that are not met by simply being under water. the chair: does the gentlelady wish to be heard on the point of order? mrs. maloney: yes. as a point information there's very strict criteria from the f.h.a. and the individual banks that are voluntary participating and one of those criteria is that you must be current on your payment. you must be current. what the gentleman said was inaccurate, that they could be behind on their payments or not making their payments. they have difficulty making it because their home ral is not equal to what the mortgage is so it's difficult. but they must all be current on their payment. the chair: will the gentlelady -- mrs. maloney: and also, mr. speaker, it's very germane to list the people to who could be hurt by this -- the chair: the gentlelady needs to confine her remarks to the point of order. does the gentleman from alabama wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. bachus: no, sir. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule -- ms. jackson lee: i would like to be heard point of order. first of all, the gentleman from alabama was arguing the merits of the legislation.

these are findings that pertain to the results that would occur from the language in the bill. the bill is eliminating the existing funds or leftover funds for f.h.a. refinance. the amendment clearly lays out the impacted persons connected to the elimination. therefore this is germane because it relates to the language of the amendment and the intent of the amendment, 12 million people left behind, thousands of homeowners in different states and the fact that there is no other solution to these homeowners except f.h.a. refinance. it is a germane amendment, the find rgs simply laying out the impact, we do that in all of our bills, to put findings on what the basis of legislation -- what the impact would be. so i ask the chairman to consider the gentlelady's amendment being germane, findings are germane, and it is doing simply that, of listing the elements of the impact of this legislation. with that i yield back and ask

for a waiver if anything else does not occur. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. the gentleman from alabama makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york is not germane. the bill addresses repeal of the federal housing administration program that provides for refinancing a specified set of mortgages. one of the fundamental principals of germaneness is that the amendment relate to the subject matter of the underlying bill. the bill is confined to a specific type of refinances program. the amendment seeks in fact to address mortgages more generally beyond the confines of the subject addressed by the bill. the amendment is therefore not germane and the point of order is sustained. mrs. maloney: i strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. maloney: i'm distressed with this ruling because i think it is germane that people will lose their homes, that they are

eliminating a program that is just starting, that is thoughtful, that would give f.h.a. financing and guarantees to help people stay in their homes. and that people in nevada, over 390,000, could be affected by this, california over two million peoples' homes are under water, in florida, more than two million people's homes are under water, and in my own state, over 129,000 people will not have the access to this program that allows them to adjust their mortgages so that they reflect the true value of their homes. make their payments on that value so that they can move forward and be part of the community, keep these homes from becoming blights and emptied in an area. we all have stories in our districts and across the nation where people cannot make their mortgage payments because they have lost values in their home, they are desserting them, they are leaving them in some states

they are literally bulldozing the homes underground because no one can afford to live in them. this is a answer to some of the challenges. and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talks about the cost. well, i'd say the cost, not only to the individual homeowner but to the overall economy, will be greater by terminating the four efforts, the four anti-foreclosure efforts from the obama administration to help with the housing crisis. and we know that the subprime crisis was a scandal. many people were not -- got into homes they couldn't afford under misinformation. we have helped other areas of our economy. we certainly should help the homeowners, the working americans to help them through this economic crisis too. and we have to remember that although we are digging our way out of this great recession the

recovery has been slow. we are still in a fragile economy. economists testified before the financial services committee that housing was 25% of our economy. so helping people stay in their homes i would say that our overall economy has a stake in it. now, some people said, well, the banks will run in and do this. banks are not going to do this unless they think that the loan is going to be paid and they're not going to be hurt with it. and the standards from f.h.a. are very high. you have to be current, you have to have a job, you have to live in your home, you have to have proven track record, you have to have good credit before you can be approved. so that is why only $50 million is the line of credit that will be drawn down if there are foreclosures. hopefully the economy improves, people keep their jobs. hopefully the banks do a good job and do not hand out loans unless people can actually repay them. and this will be a tool to move forward, not only to help people, but help the overall

economy. now, what i find troubling, very troubling about this is that my friends on the other side of the aisle want to terminate four anti-foreclosure programs, but they have no alternative. it's sort of like their approach to jobs. they have not come forward with any program to help create jobs. they have not come forward with any program to help people stay in their homes. it's part of the so be it attitude. you're on your own. we're not going to help you. but this is a program to help people help themselves, adjust to the reality of what their homes are actually worth, and i think that it's important that this information of how many people, the 12 million people and where they live in america is important information that should be part of this bill. and that's why i am now respectfully requesting unanimous consent to place into the record the listing of where these 12 million people live so that people will know these are the people we are saying no, so

be it, we're not going to be there to help you. and let me tell you, my fellow colleagues, i would be cautious about voting for this because you're voting against your economy. you're voting against your state. you are voting against your own colleagues, your own residents and neighbors who may need this. we know the trouble that's in this economy. practically every family in america has some relative who's lost a job or is unemployed. so this is some way to help with this economic recovery. it is thoughtful, it is a good -- it is a good program, and i urge my colleagues to vote against the so be it bill the republicans have before us today and to really work with in a bipartisan way the obama administration to help working americans, struggling americans stay in their home. it's the least we can do as a

caring nation. absolutely the least we can do as a caring nation. and so i urge my colleagues -- and i would be very cautious in your vote because your constituents are going to remember this vote if this program is terminated and their ability to stay in their homes is terminated because of your vote today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's request will be covered under general leave. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i'd like to simply add that you need to put faces on what this legislation is doing. it is a simple act. it guts and eliminates all remaining funding. it does say that if you are in the midst of the program you might continue. but everyone knows how solid f.h.a. is. whenever you hear f.h.a. you know that there is a framework that really provides for

protection for the federal government and a fiscally responsible program that provides the federal government with protection for those who are able to utilize it. but even traveling through airports, mr. chairman, i had a man with a family who indicated that in the midst of the holiday season even though he had been told by the banking institution that his mortgage was intact, they would allow him to continue to pay, he was keeping up but having difficulty, looking for modification, a few days into the new year, january 6, he was foreclosured on and a few days later or at least on that day foreclosure or with a sign or notice on his door, vacate within three days. these are the faces of individuals who probably would have fared better under f.h.a. at the same time law enforcement, a police officer

came to me named an institution that i had never heard of, had no national standing, some fly by night. here is a law enforcement, a local police officer, putting his life on the line every day and he needed to sell his home and he had managed to find a buyer. he had communicated that to the bank. lo and behold, the low life thing to do was what this financial institution to do. i would not call it a bank but probably a mortgage entity. they took the house underneath a man who goes out every day and projects himself into the community and lays and could lay his life on the line. i am against h.r. 830 and h.r. 836. it doesn't make sense when we have hundreds of thousands of individuals who are in need of this program. i will venture to say that if a program needs fix -- if we ever heard of fix it, don't end it -- of course it's always good

to do due diligence and have oversight over these praments, but i would think that the financial services -- programs, but i would think that the financial services committee could make the f.h.a. work better, if that is the case. but the nonsensible plan of eliminating it, not helping the under water mortgagers, the mortgagees, the individuals that have these mortgages with mortgages that are worth mohr than the homes -- and we know there are many communities like this and my colleagues mentioned some but let me cite three states again because it's so enormous. florida, two million. california, two million. nevada, 390,000. they are still in distress, and everyone knows that the housing market has a lot to do with this economy, and even without the help of my good friends on the other side of the aisle, we still saw the unemployment go down and 192,000 jobs created.

but i can tell you that this does nothing to create jobs. it simply puts americans out on the street. it devastates families, and who knows, with the lack of sales of homes and remodification or modification of these, it puts people out of work, not in work. so i argue vigorously, a little too late on the gentlelady's amendment, but i want to thank her for her astuteness, carefully defining what impact this bill would have. and it's unfortunate that the good work of f.h.a. that requires documentation, a current job, a decent salary, all that is needed is now thrown to the wolves with no other plan. and so we go home and constituents will ask us about modification or or the viability of the f.h.a., which has been in place for a long period of time, all we have to do is give them our empty hands and our blank face saying

obviously greater minds than you who knew this was a good program decided to eliminate it with no substitute in place. so, mr. chairman, let me conclude by simply saying to the hundreds of thousands of borrowers, have faith because this is only the first step. we know in the wrong-headed and wrong direction. thank goodness for the founding fathers that gave us the house and the senate and a president, and i can be assured that this legislation, i hope, is destined for a root of no return. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair would remind the gentlelady to direct her comments to the chair and not the viewing public. the clerk will designate section 2. the clerk: section 2, rescission of funding for f.h.a. refinance programs. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an

amendment at the desk made in order under the rule and printed in the congressional record number 11. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. fitzpatrick of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleague from illinois, mr. dold, for introducing this legislation to end a failed federal program, the f.h.a. refinance program. this amendment ensures that the savings realized from ending this program goes directly to debt reduction. last month, mr. chairman, this chamber began a process of examining the federal budget line by line asking tough questions and making tough decisions on federal spending. while work was substantial, it is also continuing. in order to encourage economic growth and job creation, the federal debt is and must remain public enemy number one. over the past two years,

federal discretionary spending has increased by 24%. the rate of growth is simply unsustainable. despite the record pace of new spending over the last two years, that spending continues today. and just this week, mr. chairman, we learned that the federal deficit for the month of february, 2011, was the highest ever and exceeded the deficit for the entire fiscal year 2007, $233 billion, mr. chairman, the biggest monthly deficit in the history of our country. over the past decade we have seen the excesses in unsustainable growth in sectors of our economy that can have disastrous effects across the entire economy. unless we take dramatic action now, the tax burden placed on small businesses and families in my own bucks county and across the country will outpace our ability to pay, killing jobs and straining family budgets.

just as troubling is the fact the money our government is spending is borrowed from foreign nations. the sheer amount of cash owned to foreign powers led the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral michael mullen, last year to declare the deficit is the number one security threat facing our nation. reduce the debt. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment, support the underlining bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: first, i would repeat that i'm glad to hear the support for admiral mullen. earlier we heard of secretary gates and the warning about the deficit. i just wish that all of those who were accepting the warning of the deficit would refrain from enforcing money on them that they don't want. we have people citing the military leadership and then

voting for weapons systems swelling an already swollen military budget that they don't want. as to this amendment, i'm tempted to come to the defense of the drafters of this bill, because if you read the bill, the bill purports to do what the amendment purports to do. probably the author of the amendment didn't think the bill did a good enough job or somebody thought the author of the amendment, being a nice fellow, ought to get in on the credit. so this is an amendment that is either editorial refinement or political redundancy. in either case, it does not have much effect, so i urge members to adopt it. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york. for what purpose does she advise? mrs. maloney: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. maloney: i want to point out to congressman fitzpatrick from the great state of pennsylvania that there are

over 132,000 homes that are under water now that could benefit from this program and urge my colleagues to support the program. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment. offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. . the clerk will designate section 3. the clerk: section 3, termination of f.h.a. refinance programs. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. lynch: good afternoon, madam chair. i believe i have a desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. lynch of massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you, madam

chair. i want to first of all clarify what this bill is intending to do. the goal of the bill by my colleagues is to end the f.h.a. refinance program. and while i do support voluntary workouts, and i think that's the best way to approach the problem, i want to point out that the bill as it is written does not allow that to be accomplished by the f.h.a., not only does the bill eliminate the targeted programs that have been identified, but also in its breath also eliminates the possibility of any voluntary agreements outside of these programs. and that's what my amendment would seek to address. i do know that the c.q.'s house action report indicated that i was amending section 2, however i want to make sure that they understand that the language my

amendment addresses is section 3, termination of f.h.a. refinance program. basically what this amendment would do to understand it the f.h.a. facilitates mortgage workouts and other actions under its purview through mortgage letters. these are written guidances to mortgagees, lenders, how to prove councils and appraise this. anyone who is actively providing services on behalf of the h.u.d. similar guidance is done for a lot of other programs. administrative law dictates that the agencies can issue administrative guidance that interprets statutes and regulations that we adopt. and it requires public notice and comment and must be based on authorizing statute. the f.h.a.'s guidance for lenders comes in the form of hand books and these mortgage letters which essentially

provide periodic advice and clarification while we are trying to do these voluntary agreements. last year f.h.a. issued 43 separate versions of this mortgage letter and so far this year they have issued about 14. my amendment would strike the text that i believe and the f.h.a. believes would interfere with the rest of the work that the f.h.a. is doing in their operation. these are not areas targeted by the bill, by the gentleman from illinois. the bill provides that -- the bill provides that anything substantially similar to what they have prohibited in section 2, which is a mortgage letter titled 2010-23, anything similar to that, any voluntary agreement similar to that would also be prohibited. that creates a problem. that stops the f.h.a. from doing

a lot of the other work that both sides agree needs to be done. we are talking about voluntary agreements where the bank and servicer and the homeowner agree. basically that would be stopped by this legislation. so i'm not trying to undo the targeted work that you're trying to do. i'm just trying to let the f.h.a. do their job in general. i just want to remind the gentleman from illinois that the f.h.a. by itself cannot recreate the finance program through a mortgage letter. it can only work -- it can only do so if it's legislation that's clearly underlying their action. and all the mortgage letters must go through departmental clearance and be viewed by o.m.b. before they become official guidance. i'm asking that this amendment be accepted to clarify the action of the bill itself. thank you. the chair: does gentleman yield back -- does the gentleman yield

back? gentleman may not reserve. mr. lynch: then i don't reserve. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: madam chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. biggert: thank you. this amendment came up in committee and failed during our committee markup by a vote of 33-22. and the amendment removes all references to the mortgage letter issued by h.u.d. concerning the f.h.a. refinance program. i think that the -- this announcement was the defining document for the program and provided guidance to lenders on the f.h.a. refinance program. i think our concern is that the amendment leaves the door opened for the treasury and for h.u.d. to create another substantially similar program to the f.h.a.

refinance program at a later date. again without the express consent of congress. as the sponsor the bill mentioned, this program was never authorized by congress and the funding came from the tarp money that was setaside for the program. the mortgagee letter was effectively the authorizing document for the program. and if this were to be in, it would -- there would be no nullification of the program. it wouldn't be terminated. i think that this is directly to this -- this mortgage letter is directly to this program. i don't think it affects the other parts of the f.h.a. and really just voids the letter in doing so to end the program. i don't think that we need to further burden f.h.a. with this

program. an f.h.a. program right now is currently operating the lowest congressly mandated 2% capital reserve ratio, and i think that this program has the potential to further expose taxpayers to f.h.a. losses. and even the -- i think the administration has expressed concerns over the new program loan performance, during testimony delivered to the financial services committee, the f.h.a. commissioner testified that, and i quote, these loans may perform worse than refinance loans that were not previously under water, end quote. so i just think it's another example of the administration using tarp dollars in questionable ways. and i think the program is similar in scope to the failed hope for homeowners program established under f.h.a. in 2008, and that program even

helped fewer than 200 families since its inception. we are concerned that the method of funding for this program exposes taxpayers to higher levels of tarp money. i don't think that it affects f.h.a. other than this program is terminated. so this program along with its component -- companion programs in the failed hem program should be terminated and all unobligated funds associated with the program should be used to pay down the nation's unsustainable debtment -- debt. i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mr. frank: madam chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: i regret the fact that my colleague from massachusetts, who is a good lawyer, and a careful student of what we do, has drafted a very

specific amendment aimed at a particular point, i don't think his point was understood. the general rhetoric about the bill was repeated. he's not trying to re-establish this program. he's talked to thoughtful people and worried about an overreach. the only thing we are seeing now is pride of authorship. and the gentleman from illinois, as i said, using general rhetoric totally unresponsive to the very specific point my friend from massachusetts has made. with that in the hope that he might, if he says it again, get them to pay attention to the specifics, i yield to my friend. mr. lynch: thank you, madam chair. i will concede that the gentlelady from illinois has raised a lot of good points. unfortunately none of them are relevant to my amendment. if you look at section 2, which is what you just talked about, that remains intact.

that remains intact. basically what you have done in the bill is -- says effective on the date of the act they are rescinded and permanently canceled all unexpended balances remaining available as of such date until title 1 of the emergency stabilization act. you cut out the tarp and you say it can't be used for mortgages. i left that language alone. but then -- in that section you identify specifically mortgage letter 2010-23, you say, nothing can be used for that. and i'm not trying to turn over that apple cart. however, when you go to section 3, you say, that the secretary of housing and urban development may not issue any regulation, any order, any notice, or any mortgage letter based on or substantially similar to such mortgage letter referred to above. ok.

so what you're saying is, no notice, no orders, no mortgage letter, no communications on voluntary agreements between the bank, the lender, servicer, and the homeowner. so you are prohibiting f.h.a. from working out a voluntary agreement with any of our constituents. mr. frank: let me take back my time. i yield to him again, the problem is the ambiguity of substantially similar. it doesn't -- it kills this program but bans things that would be substantially similar so that innovative private sector entities trying to do something would be deterred because no one can tell them what substantially similar is. i yield. mr. lynch: the gentleman is correct. mr. frank: i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. lin: 7 -- mr. lynch: let me say this. the idea here, it's a two-step

problem. one, the gentlelady's bill would seek to eliminate voluntary agreements. ok. so that's a problem. because we are asking the f.h.a. and homeowner and the lender and the servicer all to agree that this mortgage should be modified and that the homeowner should be allowed to remain in their home, which is a good thing. for some reason you don't want any of that. so you are eliminating all four of those programs. that's a problem. the underlying problem that we have here specific to this language is compounded by the fact that you are eliminating all voluntary agreements not only the ones that you seek to eliminate in these four voluntary programs. mr. frank: let me yield to the gentlewoman from illinois to respond. mrs. biggert: i think what we are doing here is to terminate the mortgage letter which sets up the program. and to make sure that there won't be a similar substantially -- mr. frank: the gentlewoman is

simply not responding. the point of my friend's -- you have introduced an ambiguity with the substantially similar so that people will be deterred from further innovative activities. mrs. biggert: would the gentleman yield? mr. frank: i yield to my friend from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank, madam chair. the funding authorization you have already deleted in section 2. so there's no funds, there's no authorization for f.h.a. to issue a letter in connection with a program that no longer exists. so you have eliminated that. but what you are going further in section 3 is saying, we don't want you to even -- we don't want you issuing a letter or notice or order that is substantially similar to the one we just eliminated. that's the problem. you are taking the ability of f.h.a. to work out voluntary agreements i think on the merits for the people in your district

you would like to see occur. that are in good faith and that are affecting homeowners. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? mrs. maloney: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for five minutes. mrs. maloney: congresswoman biggert, do you know how many under water mortgages there are in your home state? mrs. biggert: no, i don't. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york is advised to address her remarks to the chair. mrs. maloney: reclaiming my time. there are 431,000 mortgages that are under water in the great state of illinois, where the residents would be eligible to participate in this program that the republican majority is voting to terminate. i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: on the assumption that three beats nothing i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. . for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, madam speak. the clerk: amendment number 4 offered by mr. paulsen of minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. mr. paulsen: thank you, madam speaker. i met a woman whose husband died in afghanistan. and we discussed issues as widow of a service member. and one of the concerns she raised was absolutely paying

her mortgage, giving the changes and stresses that had taken place in her life. and this led me to introduce legislation last year which passed the house last fall which directed the appropriate agencies to take into account in consideration of the special circumstances of wounded service members and widows of fallen soldiers and housing programs. and along this line this amendment and my amendment today would add military service members and veterans that have service-related injuries as well as survivors and dependents of such individuals to be included in the study of the use of the f.h.a. refinance program. these families do face often new hardships. they may need modification to their houses if the service member is now in a wheelchair. they may have significant changes in their ability to move around as well as the skills they are able to perform which could have a significant impact on their livelihood. it's my hope, madam speaker, through this amendment we can get a better understanding of how best to provide these families that made the service and sacrifice. i yield back and urge adoption

of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is -- for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: madam chair, the gentleman from texas, mr. green, and the committee offered an amendment that would have provided some substantive protection to veterans. my republican colleagues neither wanted to provide help for the veterans nor be caught not providing the help. so they came up with some study amendments that would give them the appearance of being concerned but no reality. that was unfortunately adopted over mr. green's objections and mine but it's part of the bill. this is in addition to what is largely a cosmetic amendment. i see no reason to object to it so i urge everybody to vote for it. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? mrs. maloney: to be recollect for one minute. the chair: does the gentlelady move to strike the last word?

mrs. maloney: thank you. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. maloney: congressman paulsen, i'd like to ask you -- the chair: the gentlelady is advised to direct her remarks to the chair. mrs. maloney: i'd like to inquire from congressman paulsen if he is aware of how many mortgages are underwater in his home state, the great state of minnesota? -- the great state of minnesota. the chair: do you yield to the gentleman from minnesota? the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. paulsen: congresswoman, i am not aware of the exact number. the amendment applies for addition to the study. but would be happy to share that information. mrs. maloney: i reclaim my time. the chair: the gentlelady reclaims her time. mrs. maloney: i'd like to point out to the gentleman from

minnesota that there are over 940,000 homes, 9 -- 90,000 homes, 90,000 homeowners that are underwater in the great state of minnesota and could be helped from this program that the majority is urging to be eliminated today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> madam speaker, madam chair. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. inslee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. inslee of washington. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: madam chair, i reserve a point of order against this amendment.

the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. inslee: thank you. madam chair, we know how dire the situation is for tens of thousands of americans with underwater mortgages who are making good faith efforts to make the right decisions both for themselves and for the lender. and we are very concerned that if this program prematurely is destroyed we will be yanking back a lifeline that congress has sent to these folks. and, of course, this is important because it's not just the people who own these homes that are underwater right now that are affected by the collapse in housing values, but that housing debacle has affected employment in the construction trade and the real estate industry broadly. we all have a stake in this issue. so what my amendment would do is to basically say that we

want the f.h.a. if in fact this situation moves forward, like this bill is, that they will conduct a study and essentially implement a stub constitute program that will fix -- substitute program that will fix anything that needs fixing in this program that will achieve the ends that we need to have as our goal. now, the basic underlying theory of our amendment is simple. before you take a lifeline from some americans to solve a problem that thousands are experiencing, come up with a substitute, come up with an improvement, come up with an alternative, and that's what our amendment simply says. if we are going to eliminate this program in its current embodiment, let's come up with an alternative and have it implemented in a way that we keep this lifeline out there. the reason we feel that this is important is that all too frequently in this congress we have seen the majority party remove these solutions to

programs and not replace it with an alternative. we've seen this in health care where they have wanted to remove a health care program arguing it's ineffective or they think they have a better program but not come up with a substitute to replace it. that's not good enough. americans deserve better. same thing with the environmental protection agency. today, my friends in the majority party sought in the committee to eliminate protection against airborne pollutants but not come up with a solution to solve that problem. now, we want to join in a bipartisan fashion if there are impediments or imperfections in this bill, let's come up with a solution. let's not allow those americans to be hanging out there without a lifeline. my amendment would do that. and i would commend it to my fellow colleagues, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time.

the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for five minutes. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: madam chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because in our opinion it violates clause 7 of rule 16 which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it's amending. the chair: any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. inslee: i will be heard on the point of order, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. inslee: thank you. briefly, i hope the chair would think about a couple of points. it's our intent and i believe universal sbept that by this amendment we don't -- intent that by this amendment we don't intend to change the basic part of this program. it does help those homeowners who are current on their mortgage obligations. we would intend that that standard and condition would continue. and i would point out to the

chair the language of our amendment specifically says that this program would only be carried out under, quote, appropriate guidelines and standards, closed quote. we think this solves that problem. we seek our congressional intent to continue. we hope that the members will be able to be heard on this. thank you, madam chair. the chair: is there any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? if not the chair is prepared to rule. the gentlelady from illinois makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington is not germane. the bill addresses repeal of a federal housing administration program that provides for refinancing of a set of mortgages. one of the fundamental principles of germaneness is that the amendment relate to the subject matter of the underlying bill. the bill is confined to a specific type of refinancing program. the amendment seeks to address a different type of refinancing program, a matter outside the confines of the subject addressed by the bill. the amendment is therefore not germane. the point of order is

sustained. are there additional amendments? >> madam speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lewis: madam chairman, i rise for every american that struggles to pay their mortgage each month. i rise for every american's dream slip away because they lost their job through no fault of their own or because they got cancer or no longer able to work and pay their medical bills. i rise to condemn what these bills are trying to do today. make no mistake, repealing these programs will close the door on the american dream for more and more americans. madam speaker, when i was a young boy, my family did not own a home. my father was a share cropper.

my mother and father had to go without for years. they saved and they saved. they prayed, they waited. my father could never get a mortgage. mortgages were not available where we lived. they were not available for families like mine. it was just the way it was. in 1944 my parents bought a house with three rooms and 110 acres. it was a small town called troy in rural alabama. it cost $300. i can't imagine that much exchanged hands at once. i look around this chamber and see suits that cost more than what my father paid. my mother spoke about the day we moved. how proud she was. it was a huge achievement for us.

it changed everything. that house, that land, it was ours. ours. looking back, i can't imagine what it would have been like to have lost it all for reasons beyond my father's control. the harvest or the weather or because it affects someone else's bottom line. madam speaker, i know that buying a house is the biggest decision most people will ever make, and it is the greatest source of pride. but most people that dream, their dream is their house. it was for me. when i bought my house i thought of my mother and my father. his house made it possible for me to buy mine. this american dream, it is built from hard work, but that dream is also made of bricks and mortar. it's the house. madam speaker, it is a home, and they're locking the door on

the american dream. these two bills today would end two new programs that are helping struggling homeowners who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. to me it is unthinkable. madam speaker, i strongly oppose h.r. 836 and h.r. 830. we must stand up for the american homeowner. we must stand in their corner. we must not walk away from them in their time of need. i urge all of my colleagues to stand with me and defeat these bills. don't lock the door on the american dream. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. are there any other amendments to section 3 of the bill under consideration? if not the chair is prepared to entertain other amendments. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise?

>> thank you, madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read. can the gentlelady please specify what amendment she is offering? ms. waters: this would be amendment number 5. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. waters of california. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: madam chairman, i reserve a point of order against this amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved for the gentlelady from illinois. the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes on her amendment. ms. waters: madam speaker, my amendment would mandate that the secretary of housing and urban development and the secretary of the treasury conduct a study on the negative impacts of underwater mortgage loans or loans where the borrower owns more than what the house is worth, on the housing market and the economy of the united states and report those findings to congress.

importantly, the report would also include recommendations to congress on how to mitigate the effects of these underwater mortgages. before i go any further talking about these underwater mortgages, i think it is extremely important for me to help everyone understand that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are moving to eliminate all of the programs that we have worked so hard to develop, good, strong public policy to assist homeowners of america in a number of ways. . they are eliminating the f.h.a. program that will assist with refinance on homes that are under water. they are eliminating the h.a.m. program. they are eliminating the neighborhood stabilization program, commonly referred to as n.s.p. and they are eliminating the program for homeowners who find

themselves out of a job who would be able to borrow and of course to pay back the money that is loaned to them that they cannot afford to pay their mortgages because of the loss of the job. so while they are eliminating all of the programs, that many of us have worked so hard to develop in the former congress i was the chair of the subcommittee on housing and community opportunity. so i know these programs very well. not only do i know these programs very well, i understand very well what has happened here in america that has caused homeowners to be in the situations that they are in now. we have a situation that occurred that created this crisis with the subprime meltdown. we had loans that were initiated in this country that were exotic loans, loans that were teaser

loans, no documentation loans, loans with resets, people were encouraged to sign up for mortgages that they did not understand. now we have millions of americans, really through no fault of their own, and i said once and i'll say it again, that all of a sudden homeowners didn't decide that they were going to default, that somehow they weren't going to pay their bills, it certainly didn't happen like that. it happened because of what i just alluded to. all of the tricks and the fraud that were perpetrated on american homeowners who were simply trying to live the american dream. and so we don't have the numbers in committee anymore on this floor. my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are in control. they have the majority and they are going to eliminate the program. we have made every argument possible that you can make in committee to try and hold on to

these programs. as you have seen on the floor today, we have the gentlelady from new york who are reminding them how many homes they have under water. and of course they know because they are getting the calls just as we are getting the calls with homeowners begging of assistance. and so while we won't be able to stop them, i am trying to make sure that at least we do the study so that we can help to bring to light what has taken place and how these underwater mortgages pose a severe threat to our economy. if you owe more than your home is worth, you can't pick up and move if you get a new job, you are stuck. that impedes our economic recovery. likewise you can't move if you want to go attend schools somewhere and you can't move in order to care for an elderly parent. the chief economist for first american core logic noted last

month that negative equity is a significant drag on both the housing market and on economic growth. it is driving foreclosures and decreasing mobility for millions of homeowners. since we expect home prices to slightly increase during 2010, negative equity will remain the dominant issue in the housing and mortgage marts for -- markets for some time to come. the f.h.a. refinance program is a modest step to address the problem ever underwater mortgages. this program would provide that if banks agree to at least a 10% principle write down for the borrower, the borrower can then refinance into an f.h.a. loan, only borrowers current on their mortgages, not those in default, qualify for the program. and so this study will help people to understand the impact it's having. i ask for an aye vote on my amendment.

the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: i make a point of order against the amendment because in our opinion it violates clause 7 of rule 16 which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it is amending. it is not germane to the bill because it expands the scope of the bill. i ask for a ruling of the chair. ms. waters: madam chair, morph to strike the last word, i suppose. if we terminate a program, we should understand the impacts of such a termination. and so this is relevant. the republicans said -- the chair: you need to speak to the point of order. ms. waters: this is the point of order. the point of order -- the chair: the gentlelady may proceed. ms. waters: the point of order indicates this is not germane. i am maintaining that this is germane because if we terminate a program we should understand

the impact of such termination. i believe that does speak to the point of order. the republicans say that this program doesn't work. so our regulators should suggest to congress what they think will work. this is just a study. this is not a new program. or an extension of the f.h.a. short refinance program. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. does any other member wish to speak to the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. the gentlelady from illinois makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california is not germane. the bill addresses repeal of a federal housing administration plan program that provides for refinancing of a special fide set of 340r9s. one of the fundamental principles of germaneness is the amendment relate to the subject matter of the underlying bill. the bill is confined to a specific type of refinancing program. the amendment seeks to address mortgages more generally, a matter outside the confines of the subject addressed by the

bill. the amendment is therefore not germane. the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. sanchez: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: the---- amendment number 15, printed in the congressional record, offered by ms. loretta sanchez of california. mrs. biggert: madam chairment the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: i reserve a point of order against this amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. sanchez: thank you, madam chair, i rise today in support of this amendment that i'm sponsoring. my amendment replaces the f.h.a. refinance program termination act which of course would allow the use of unexpended funds to create a program that will allow qualifying homeowners to apply to refinance a 30-year mortgage at 4%.

as long as the mortgage refinancing is on their primary home. that her up to date on their mortgage, and that their annual income, adjusted gross income does not include -- exceed $180,000. people back home are hurting and they are desperate to keep their home. i know that there are many who have lost their homes. there are some who are back payments. they haven't kept up with their payments. but what about the people who actually have held on to their homes? they have actually paid. they have actually had to give up their car, their they are walking to work. they are taking the bus because they understand how important it is for them to hold on to their house because a house is not just a house. your primary residence is your home. it's where your kids are. it's where they find a stable life. so this program, well, every program is not perfect.

it's not a perfect program we have come up with. we have tried to help people from losing their houseses -- houses. people who through no fault of their own have either lost their jobs or take a lesser job, who would swindle, who were talked into loans they didn't understand what they were signing because they were hit by the supply lenders and they are paying too much. so people out there sometimes paying in the double digits with respect to their loan. maybe they are at 10%, or 9 1/2%, or 12% on their loans. this program would actually say to those who somehow have held on we are going to refinance your primary home at 4% because there are a lot of people who could do this and their payment would come down significantly. but today they can't refinance. the refinance today on a 30-year loan is 4.9%. there are a lot of people paying

8%. that means a lot. it could be anywhere between $2,000 in their payment a month. they can't qualify. they don't have the money they need. their home is under water, etc. so this is a very important thing we could do. let's take the money, let's take that money that we have not spent on this program. let's puts it to help the people who have done the right thing. the people who no matter what have continued to pay on their loan. because there are many out there and i would hope that my colleagues would compromise that we would try to find a way to keep people in their homes. no program is perfect but i think we have the opportunity to do the right thing, madam chair. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back the time. for what purpose does the squeal from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: i make a point of order against this amendment because it violates clause 10 of rule 21 as it has a net effect

of increasing mandatory spending within the time period set forth in the rule. the chair: does any other member wish to speak to the point of order? ms. sanchez: i do. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. sanchez: madam chair, this is about eliminating a program. i understand those people who are behind on their payments, you are going to let them go, lose their homes, then they are going to have a hard time finding apartments. i understand that. this is about helping the people who truly, the middle class, the lower income class, who have a home who need to hold on to that home. i do believe that this is germane to the underlying bill. i respectfully request that we consider this amendment. the chair: does any other member wish to speak to the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. the gentlewoman from illinois makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california violates clause 10 of rule 21 by proposing an increase in

mandatory spending over a relevant period of time. pursuant to clause 10 of rule 21 and clause 4 of rule 29, the chair is authorively guided by estimates of the chair of the committee on the budget that the net effect of the provisions in the amendment would increase mandatory spending over a relevant period of time as compared to the bill. accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. inslee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: can the gentleman specify the amendment? mr. i.n.s. ln-ily: -- mr. inslee-ily: -- mr. inslee: number 14. the chair: offered by mr. inslee of washington. mrs. biggert: i reserve a point of order against this amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from washington. is recognized for five minutes. mr. inslee: thank you very much. madam chair, one thing that i

think there is universal anger about, republicans and democrats, independents, alike in this country is the lack of responsibility the huge mall feesance that got us into this economic pickle we are in. to my knowledge there has been not one person go to jail as a result of the economic collapse precipitated by the shenanigans and outride criminality of -- in the highest financial places in the land. and all americans, i think, are very angry with justifiable reasons about that. and if you read any of the books about the collapse on wall street, you will share that anger. if you read any of those books. we do not want to see that replicated in this scandal regarding the mortgage servicing situation.

we are now advised that there are multiple cases of people signing affidavits that were false knowingly. we are told there are numerous occasions this robe -- robeo signing situation. and -- robo signing situation. and these acts have resulted in losses by americans that should not have happened. and we want to send a message that the bipartisan basis, that the criminal laws need to be respected. and our bill, amendment would simply call upon the attorney general, both federal and state, to prosecute as appropriate these criminal violations. the amendment does not change the responsibility under the criminal statutes for any officers or directors if they are not personally responsible for these wrongful acts. there is no criminal liability. but we do think where there is violations of these criminal statutes, they ought to be prosecuted.

and this nation has been brought to the brink of financial ruin because of many, many instances of violation of these standards. and it's the least we can ask is that we prosecute these cases where it is appropriate. so we think it's the right thing for us to do on a bipartisan basis to make that statement today. i hope that members will join me in making that statement and make sure justice in fact is meted out here where it has not, in other instances. with that i yield back the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from illinois, for what purpose do you rise? mrs. biggert: i make a point of order against the amendment because in my opinion is violates clause 7 of rule 16 because the amendment is not germane to the bill because it is outside the scope of the bill. the chair: is there a member wish to speak to the point of

order? the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i rise to speak to the point of order. i do believe this amendment is germane for a number of reasons. the gentleman talked about the fact that this country was almost brought to the brink of total disaster because of the subprime meltdown and he pointed to things that have already been identified, that we can put squarely on the showeders of the services who are responsible for the management of these mortgages after they have been packaged, securitized and then sent on their way to be collected on. so this gentleman is talking about the fact that many of these services, when they are trying to collect on these mortgages, can see that fraud has taken place but they do nothing about it. they can see that amendments have been slipped in, that the

homeowners did not know about. they can see sometimes the signature does not even belong to the homeowner but they continue to try to collect on these mortgages. mrs. biggert: madam chairman. ms. waters: i think this amendment is germane. i ask that the chair rule in favor of this amendment. it's time that somebody paid a price for what this has been done to the american public. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? if not the chair is prepared to rule. the gentlelady from illinois makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington is not germane. the bill addresses repeal of a federal housing administration program that provides for refinancing of a specified set of mortgages. one of the fundamental principles of germaneness is that the amendment relate to the subject matter of the underlying bill. the bill is confined to a specific type of refinancing program. the amendment seeks to address foreclosures generally, a matter outside the confines of the subject addressed by the bill.

the amendment is therefore not germane and the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: madam chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. hirono: an amendment offered earlier directing the secretary of the housing and urban development, h.u.d., and the secretary of treasury to study the negative impacts of underwater mortgages on the housing market and on the u.s. economy and to report the findings of this study to congress, including recommendations on how to mitigate the effects of these mortgages makes sense to me. about 15 -- about 12 million to 15 million homeowners are currently underwater on their mortgages meaning they owe more on their mortgages than they are worth. these borrowers are diligently making their mortgage payments but needs some kind of lifeline to reduce their debt burden. we all agree that we need to

look at ways to cut government spending to address our country's fiscal prices, but what is the purpose of this underlying bill? why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to end programs that were established to assist families suffering from the foreclosure crisis without offering any plan or remedy to help the millions of americans who are trying to stay in their homes? families in every single one of our congressional districts are desperately seeking help to stay in their homes. the american dream. last year i met with an owner of a car dealership. this constituent had a successful business until the economic downturn reduced the number of her car sales. increasingly, former customers of her were returning to her dealership to return the cars that they had purchased from her, handing back their keys because they could no longer afford to make their car payment. this car dealer eventually

found herself in dire straits. so much so that her lender wanted to put her dream home up for a short sale. she didn't understand why the lender was only considering a short sale and didn't want to work with her to help keep her house. it was only when my office contacted the lender on her behalf that she was able to receive a forebearance on a portion of the principal and get a permanent modification. sadly, stories like hers are commonplace these days. the federal foreclosure mitigation program which unfortunately have not helped as many homeowners as we would like still provide a lifeline. without these programs many more lenders will be pursuing short sales and foreclosures rather than trying to help meet homeowners halfway in helping them keep their homes. the f.h.a. refinance program, also known as the f.h.a. short refinance option, assists underwater borrowers by facilitating volunteer mortgage

principal writedowns and refinancing the loans into a new, stable f.h.a. insured mortgage thereby enabling borrowers to have a reduced monthly payment and a mortgage that is more aligned to the actual property values. f.h.a. just started implementing this program a few months ago. we need to give the agency time to get it off the ground. we should also focus on what can be done to make the programs more effective so that the maximum number of underwater borrowers who are eligible for the program can benefit. instead of coming up with initiatives to assist thousands of homeowners or working to improve existing foreclosure mitigation programs, bills like this will only serve to destabilize an already fragile housing market and further delay our economic recovery. with bills like this, the house majority continues to turn their backs on the middle-class families in our country. let's focus on what can be done now to stabilize the housing

market, create jobs and get the economy back on track. i urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentlelady from hawaii yields back the balance of her time. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: could the gentleman designate or tell us the amendment that he's offering? >> number 8, i believe it is. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: madam chairman, i reserve a point of order against this amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. holt: i thank the chair. instead of focusing on job creation, innovation, retirement security or fair taxes, today we're considering legislation that would terminate a program that has the potential to help

struggling homeowners stay in their homes. we're not here to debate fixing the program or to consider replacing it with a more effective alternative. rather, we're here to end the program that is only a few months old, to declare it a failure and to go home. this is not good government. it will not help the middle class. this is not what my constituents sent me to washington to do. new jerseyans, as so many around the country, are burdened by high property taxes. while we have people deduct state and local taxes, many non itemizers, particularly those on fixed incomes, feel the high rates. this amendment would help senior citizens across the country, yes, and in central

new jersey, my district. specifically my amendment would renew for five years the property tax reduction for american homeowners who don't itemize on their federal taxes. it would allow single filers to deduct $500 and joint filers to deduct $1,000 on top of the standard deduction and index for inflation. this property tax revision, based on legislation that was wrote, that was signed into law by former president bush in 2008 and was extended through the 2009 tax year, would continue that. unfortunately, although the extension of this tax credit for the 2010, though passed by this house, failed to become law. that's why on the first day of this congress i introduced the universal homeowners tax relief act and with this amendment we have an opportunity to pass inside legislation to provide an estimated 30 million people

nationwide and 600,000 in new jersey with a few extra hundred dollars that i'm sure they could use. in these uncertain economic times it is no small matter. and unlike the bill before us today, my amendment would provide real help for american homeowners. i urge passage of the amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: madam chairman, i make a point of order against this amendment because in my opinion it violates clause 7 of rule 16 which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it is amending. it is not germane to the bill because it's outside the scope of the bill. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? mr. holt: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i recognize that under the structure of this bill this amendment is not in order. i only say it should be. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the

point of order? the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: thank you very much. madam chair, i rise to support the amendment. i'm opposed to the point of order. i think it is absolutely germane. not only do we have a bill before us that will eliminate the taxpayers' ability to have their home that are underwater refinanced, this also impacts their taxes. they will continue to have to be taxed on those homes at the same rate. and so here we have before us the universal homeowner tax relief act that would impact 30 million americans nationwide. and i must add that if we can in this house and in this congress give tax breaks to the richest 1% of americans in the way that we have done -- mrs. biggert: madam chairman.

ms. waters: we can support these homeowners who are underwater, these homeowners who have been tricked into mortgages that they didn't understand, these home ownsers who are the victims of fraud, and i think this is -- the chair: the gentlelady will confine her remarks to the point of order. does any other member wish to speak to the point of order? if not the chair is prepared to rule. the gentlelady from illinois makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey is not germane. the bill addresses repeal of a federal housing administration program that provides for refinancing of a specified set of mortgages. one of the fundamental principles of germaneness is that the amendment confine itself to the jurisdiction of the committee's represented in the underlying bill. the bill was referred to and reported by the committee on financial services. the amendment proposes a direct amendment to the internal revenue code, a matter within the jurisdiction of the committee on ways and means. the amendment is therefore not germane. the point of order is sustained.

who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: madam chairman, i reserve a point of order against this amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: madam speaker, 10 weeks ago on this floor there was great celebration by our colleagues in the republican party as they took control of this house. and there were many sermons given to all of us by the members in the majority party about the need to listen to americans. i suggest we do that at this moment. as we consider this bill. 10,780,236 american families

are crying out for help. we should be listening to them. i know that the gentlelady from -- madam speaker, the gentlewoman from illinois has a big heart, and she knows that 430,000 of the homeowners in illinois are crying out for relief. and i'm certain, madam speaker, that the author of this bill, the gentleman from alabama, is well aware that in his state 35,000 homeowners are crying out for relief. and i'm certain that all of the members of the republican party are listening to the 10,780,236 families in america that are crying out for relief. i can ensure you that the democrats are listening. my amendment, madam speaker, is

one that goes to one of the three reasons why they are crying out for relief. there was no regulation imposed during the years 2001 to 2009. that was one problem. we attempted to address that with the frank-dodd law that's now in place. the second reason was irresponsibility and certainly some of those homeowners who are crying out for relief were irresponsible and some of those who lost their homes already that are crying out for relief were irresponsible but the bigger responsibility were the bankers in this nation that took advantage of millions upon millions of homeowners and engaged in irresponsible activity. the third item is where my amendment goes and that is to

wall street greed. we know from the commission that was assigned to the responsibility of looking at why the great crash occurred, we know from that report that greed was the underlying motivation for wall street. my amendment goes to that greed. in the future, not in the past and some of my colleagues have spoken to the need for criminal action which is also part of that report done by the commission, this goes to the future. this amendment goes to the future and says, for those in wall street, the high and the mighty that get the huge bonuses, most of which were just in the newspaper this week, that their bonuses should be in the stock of the company in which they are operating and that those bonuses be held in an escort -- escrow account for a period of time. so that neither the good or the bad affect of their action would be known and so they could not

take immediate benefit from their irresponsible actions. this amendment would put a damper on wall street greed. this amendment is necessary to put a damper on wall street greed and it goes directly to one of the reasons why this bill is before us. this bill is before us i think in the near appropriate way to deal with the housing crisis. the housing crisis was caused in part by wall street greed. we ought to be addressing that. that's what this amendment does. by with holding from immediate benefit those members of wall street who have created the crisis in the past and who may very well be in the process of creating tomorrow's crisis. i ask for the support of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: i make a point of order against the amendment.

of my good friend and colleague. because in my opinion it violates clause 7 of rule 16 which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it is amending. it is not germane to the bill because it's outside the scope of the bill. the chair: does any other member wish to speak to the point of order? the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: i think that it's necessary when we take up a bill that would eliminate a law intended to help 10,780,336 homeowners that we look to the underlying reason why the problem exists. this amendment does that. we ought not be using artificial rules that have little to do with the underlying and prevent us from the underlying problem. allowing those rules to stop us from taking up the real problem. i oppose the proposal to rule this out of order. the chair: does any other member

seek to speak to the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. the gentlewoman from illinois makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from california is not germane. the bill addresses repeal of a federal housing administration program that provides for refinancing of a specified set of mortgages. one of the fundamental principles of germaneness is that the amendment relate to the subject matter of the underlying bill. the bill is confined to a specific type of refinancing program, the amendment seeks to address regulation of the financial industry, a matter outside the confines of the subject addressed by the bill, the amendment is therefore not germane and the point of order is sustained. does the gentleman from alabama rise? -- for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. bachus: i wish to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. mr. bachus: thank you. madam chair, there seems to be some confusion on what the underlying bill does.

and what the amendments are trying to accomplish. in fact, in certain cases it's quite evident that some of my colleagues don't understand the bill. this bill authorizes $8 billion, $8 billion to go towards the f.h.a. refinance plan. it has already dispersed $50 million. now we're hearing these claims of $10 million and $11 -- 10 million and 11 million homeowners. there are probably closer to 12 million homeowners that are underwater than 11 million. i think the numbers are understated. so let's assume 12. 12 million.

this federal program that we've dispersed $50 million to, how many -- how many american families have had their mortgages refinanced? 42. 42. now, who refinanced those? who paid for that? was it the lenders who loaned the money? no. was it the borrowers who borrowed the money? no. it was these children because it was taxpayer money. now you say they're not taxpayers. no, but they're going to have to pay this back. because we're spending $8 billion more every day, every day than we're taking in revenue. it was announced earlier this week, i think the american people, they probably -- and i don't blame them, don't want to

really put their arms around this. but we just announced the deficit for the month of february, 28 days, 28 days there was more than the deficit four years ago for the entire year. we're hemorrhaging red ink. are we better off than our parents? most of us are. are these children going to be better off than we are? not if we don't start cutting spending. and the american people, those who are parents and grandparents , are crying out for this congress to address this. and that's what we're on this floor today to do. now, if i were one of the 12 million homeowners who was underwater i might say, why those 42?

but if i were the taxpayers i would say, why are you taking money from me that we have to borrow from other countries, 42 cents out of every $1 that we're putting into this program, why are you paying this mortgage down? isn't that the lender, if a loan gets in trouble, is it up to the taxpayers to bail that lender out? someone mentioned bank of america, somebody mentioned citibank. you know, if i were citibank or bank of america and someone who was making their payments who was underwater, who may walk off, yeah, i'd say if the taxpayers come in and take that obligation off my hands, i would love that. my district, the average home is worth $212,000.

and it's the highest -- one of the highest in the state. and actually when i say that, let me say the community i live in which is one of the more -- it's above average in income. but the average loan here that people borrowed was $313,000, the loan itself. that's quite a loan. and to say that the taxpayers need to pay that mortgage down makes no sense. when these are the children, this is the generation that's going to have to pay it back. we need to get serious. we need to get serious, we need to get out pictures of our children and our grandchildren and we need to say, do we really need to come to the rescue of these banks when they overextended loans?

and how about all those americans who are making their payments and didn't buy a house and are not underwater? should you ask those americans to pay to banks money that they didn't obligate themselves to? the answer is no. no to more government spending. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: please leave the picture up. yes, we ought to look to the children. last sunday, last sunday on "60 minutes" was a report about our children, our children in america today. 25% of our children in america today are hungry and many of them are homeless because their parents have lost their homes.

42 families, yes, this program hasn't yet kicked in to its full potential, 42 families are in their homes today and those children are not out on the street homeless. listen to america. listen to the 25% of children in america today that are hungry and a large percentage of them are homeless. listen to their cries. listen to them. yes, we have an obligation as good citizens of this nation to see to it that our neighborhoods, even if they are the high-end neighborhoods in alabama, that those problems are addressed. 10 months ago the new majority took this floor and they said, listen, listen to americans that want jobs, not one job bill has

passed this house. the only bill that's passed this house that dealt with jobs was h.r. 1, the continuing resolution, that destroyed 700,000 jobs and will put more of those children homeless, will destroy more families. yes, we ought to be listening to the generations ahead of us. but if we do not listen to today's problems, those problems in the future will only be worse. and $8 billion, yes, that's a lot of money. but it happens to be 8% of what we spend every year in the afghan war. get our priorities straight here on this floor. you bet i'm worried about the children of today, the 25% of americans' childrens that are hungry and a large percentage of them are homeless because their

parents have been unable to meet the mortgage commitments. this program is one of four that are going to be terminated by the republican majority. so what is it that you are offering those children? the children of today? what is it that you're offering them? the opportunity to be homeless, that's what you're offering. come to this floor and talk to me about tomorrow's generation, yes, do that. and that's my concern also. but i'm concerned about those that are homeless and hungry today. so don't eliminate this program, make it work. don't eliminate the other three programs that are an effort to try to keep people in their homes so that they don't go homeless. madam speaker, i know my colleagues on the republican side care about the children of

america. today's children. and why they would put four bills forward this week and next week that eliminate the opportunity for those parents to stay in their home i do not understand. we need compassion. we need to be aware of the deficit. we need to make choices and if our choices to force -- choice is to force more families to be homeless, that's the wrong choice. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i rise because i want to make sure that the chair of our committee who just took the

floor understands that we understand the bill. ms. waters: when our chairman first took the floor to talk about what this bill is and what it is not he said he did not think that we really understood what the bill was all about. i would like to assure you that the members on this side of the aisle understand this legislation. i'd like to assure you that those of us who work on the financial services committee, who put these bills into operation, who organize these bills, who presented these bills, who got these bills passed into law, to help homeowners understand what is now happening to them. we understand that the bill before us would eliminate this program. this is an f.h.a. program that is designed to provide refinance opportunities for

those homes that are underwater. what do we mean when we say underwater? we mean that when middle-class homeowners, hardworking citizens went and signed for that mortgage where they were $250,000, $300,000, $400,000 for a home they signed that mortgage. that was supposed to be the value of that home. that's what it was assessed at at the time. that was what it is supposed to be worth. and now because of this crisis that we're in the -- the subprime meltdown that we're in, this economic difficulty, these homes have lost their value. they're no longer the homes that they signed that mortgage for. the value has changed. that $400,000 home, that $300,000 home that middle-class families were buying are 35% less or 50% less in some areas.

and so -- >> will the gentlelady yield? ms. waters: no, i will not yield. the homeowners are saying, will you please help me? will you please do something about the fact that i'm working every day paying a mortgage amount for a home that's 35% to 50% less than what i signed up for? will my government help me? this is not fair. and they're simply saying, can't you do something? and we said yes. we put into play legislation f.h.a. that would help to refinance these homes and let's get the amounts right. now, let me yield to the gentleman because i don't want -- mr. bachus: thank you. ms. waters: my friend the opportunity to have his say. mr. bachus: will the gentlelady tell the members when you write that check to help them with their underwater home, that check goes to bank of america, that check goes to citibank,

that check goes to -- just fill in the bank, fill in the mortgage company, it goes to whoever loaned the money, it doesn't go to the homeowner, are they benefiting? yes. tell the people who pays for that check? we do. the american people. ms. waters: reclaiming my time. i'm focused on the homeowner who was supposed to be protected by the regulators that have been appointed and given the jobs of regulation so that they could make sure that our consumers are being treated fairly. we failed them. we let them down. we allowed them to get into mortgages where fraud was quite evident. we did not do the job. and so now we have these homes that are underwater. and they're saying, help us, and we did. and that's what this f.h.a.

legislation would have done, help to refinance so they could lower their mortgage payments. and now my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are saying to the taxpayers and to the homeowners, no, we're not going to help you. we know your home is underwater. we know this information. we know what the services have done to you. we know that you're working every day to pay a mortgage for a home that you thought was worth an amount that is no longer so. and so we're saying, please don't do that. we're saying, please don't do that. don't strip the homeowners of this opportunity to refinance this home. in addition to stripping the homeowners of this opportunity, the other programs that you're going to hear about, the other three programs, the ham program, the ns p. program, the program for homeowners that lost their job that simply want a loan, we are saying no to all of this. we're saying no, homeowners,

we're not going to help you. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. waters: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. waters of california. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. bachus: i claim the time -- to claim the time in opposition although i may not be in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: first, i'd ask unanimous consent that amendment number 5 be modified with the modification that's at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to amount number 6 offered by ms. waters of california. strike all after the section heading and insert the following -- not later than

five days after the date of enactment of this act the secretary of housing and urban development shall publish to its website on the worldwide web in a prominent location, bold faced font, f.h.a. short refinance program, which was intended to provide borrowers with opportunities has been terminated. if you need help contacting your lender or servicers for purposes of having a loan modification, contact your congressman for purpose of negotiating or acquiring a loan modification. the chair: is there objection to the unanimous consent request for modification to the amendment? mr. bachus: there's no objection. the chair: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: thank you very much. madam chair, this amendment that i've worked on with my colleagues on the opposite side

of the aisle is simply about transparency. it's simply about making ourselves available to the homeowners who are trying to get some help because they are underwater. this amendment would simply say that the program is no longer in existence and that you may call us to help you to get to your lenders or to get to your servicer in some way. it is certainly not what i would prefer to have to do, but i understand. we're going to lose, and the members on the opposite side of the aisle has made up their minds and they have decided that this is important and this is what they're going to do. so i would simply like our citizens to know that this program that they may start to hear about is no longer in existence.

if they call us we will agree that we can try and help them in some modest way with helping to get to their servicer or leppeder. so i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. bachus: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. mr. bachus: thank you. let me say this. i would prefer that this amendment notify all americans, particularly taxpayers, that we are stopping a program that authorizes $8 billion worth of spending. but i do -- having said that, i think this is a good amendment. i know there may be members who say, well, i don't want to be contacted. but i will tell you this. our office -- people do call us from time to time and they say, i'm having trouble with paying

my mortgage, i'm facing foreclosure and i can't contact my -- can't get in touch with mylander or servicer or i'm not sure who i should talk to. and we put them in communication many times with the servicer or the lender. we actually go further and actually help some of them with their applications. on 18 occasions, we have helped this last year we've helped citizens with applications to lenders for modification. i think it's a good service, particularly with the recession we have now. i think it is a far, far better approach than a government program using taxpayer dollars because we're contacting the

lender or servicer. that's who has -- or could have an obligation or has an interest in working it out because it almost in every occasion with the mortgage it isn't in the interest of the borrower and the lerder to work it out. ms. waters: will the gentleman yield? mr. bachus: i will yield. ms. waters: thank you. first of all, i want to thank the chairman for your cooperation on this amendment, and i know that there are some other kinds of words, other words that you would perhaps use to explain to the homeowner or the citizens from your point of view but you did work with me on this and you thought this kind of transparency was good. and i do commend you because i know that you have worked directly with some of your constituents, and we found that out as we talked with you the fact that you had helped 18

with loan modifications. and you are willing to contact the servicers and as you know, there are those who tell us that we shouldn't be doing any of this. but i think you and i agree that we should offer some assistance to the homeowners who contact us. and i would like to thank you for that. mr. bachus: thank you. and let me say this in closing, if i continue to have time, i do want to caution the members that it is not an obligation of the congress or members of congress, and i think ms. waters would agree, to intervene and to suggest to the lender that they do anything other than give due consideration. and we simply put them in communication. now, we will help them with the applications. i think it's important that we don't, in all our dealings, that we do not try to intervene in legal obligations and in any

way appear to coerce or influence that outcome. so -- but this, i think, is a very good amendment and i would encourage members -- there are also v.a. programs, f.h.a. programs that we can put lenders in touch -- i mean, borrowers in touch. this, i believe, is an amendment i will support. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlelady from california. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mrs. biggert: on that i would request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentlelady will request a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentlelady from california, will be most poned.

-- will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 3 by mr. lynch of massachusetts, amendment number 6 by ms. waters of california, as modified. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. lynch of massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.

those in support of a request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the natithe national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commeral purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 184 and the nays are 243 and the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the reest for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, as modified, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6

printed in the congressional record, as modified, offered by ms. waters of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for a vorded vote will rise and remain standed until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 278 and the nays are 147 and the amendment is agreed to. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rised. -- rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has been under consideration h.r. 830 and reports to the house a

resolution. i record the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole on the state of the union reports the committee has under consideration the bill h.r. 830 and pursuant to house resolution 150 reports the bill back to the house with the amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported in the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on the adoption of the committee's amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and the third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to rescind the unobligated funding for the f.h.a. refinance program and to terminate the program. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: we'd ask members to vacate the well. the house will be in order. members would please take their conversations from the well. the house will be in order. members and staff would please take their cushions is it -- discussions from the floor.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mook, i have a motion to re-- mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the chair: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its current form. -- the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. if members would please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. deutch of florida moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 30, to the committee on financial services with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments.

in section 3-b before shall continue, insert the following, add any comments made available for use under such program pursuant to subsection 2 and section 3-c after such enactment, insert or pursuant to a commitment to insure -- made pursuant to amounts made available, pursuant to subsection 2. and section 3, strike subsection d. the speaker pro tempore: is there an objection? hearing none, so ordered. the house will be in order. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. deutch: mr. speaker, i present an amendment to this legislation that will help the seniors who built america from the bottom up. this amendment provides us with an opportunity not to stall this bill but improve it right here

and right now. the contribution of the men and women who became known as america's greatest generation should humble us all. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman is recognized. mr. deutch: as teenagers, mr. speaker, they confronted unspeakable evil and endured incredible sacrifices during n the aftermath of the great depression, their love of country and commitment to hard work created this nation's and the world's most vibrant economy. they were doctors and nurses, teachers and engineers, steel workers and pipe fitters, secretaries and truck drivers. today they are seniors who deserve to live their retirement years with dignity and self-sufficiency.

unfortunately, unfortunately throughout the financial crisis and this devastating recession, seniors have often gone forgotten. for many their pensions dried up or have come under attack. their life savings were decimated by recklessness on wall street. they have not received a social security cost of living increase for two years. finally, finally, mr. speaker, their homes, often their last standing pillar of equity and economic security, have lost their value through no fault of their own. the community of south florida i am so privileged to represent is home to one of our nation's largest populations of retirees. but it is also ground zero for the foreclosure crisis. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct.

the gentleman may continue. deutsche deutsche in 2010, mr. speaker, -- mr. deutch: in 2010, mr. speaker, the counties of palm beach and miami-dade suffered a majority of these foreclosures in florida and my office fields calls from suffering homeowners every day. statewide in florida, nearly one million families and seniors have lost their homes since 2009. today nearly half of all florida homeowners are underwater. underwater on mortgages, they owe banks more money than their homes are worth. through no fault of their own thousands of seniors who built this nation face the tragedy of losing their homes. now america's greatest generation has never been one to ask for handouts and today's no exception. what we have the opportunity to do here today is to give our seniors a chance, a chance to rearrange their deals with their lenders, make their payments and

keep their homes. the mortgage program abolished by the bill needs to be fixed. so let's start by fixing it for seniors as my proposal will do. before us is a real opportunity to amend these programs for the future. it will not send this legislation back to committee, it will not stall this bill, it will simply preserve these mortgage modification programs for seniors and open the door to improving these initiatives. according to leading economists, high foreclosures rates in our struggling housing sector remain the biggest challenge to our economic recovery. in florida one employment at 12% -- in florida, with unemployment at 12%, we must stem foreclosures noord to grow the private sector and create jobs. we can begin stabilizing the housing market today and do right by americans who made this country great for every one of us in this chamber.

seniors answer the call of uncle sam every week of their working lives, paying taxes for america's schools, roads, military and health care. when asked to serve, these americans always said yes. now when these same men and women are asking for a modest amount of time to renegotiate in good faith, to prevent foreclosure, to remain self-sufficient as retirees, what answer will this body give them? every day it seems mortgage lenders have their day in washington. every day wall street executives have their day in washington. every day, mr. speaker, banks have their day in washington. isn't it time to give the seniors who made america great their day in our nation's capital? -- capitol? let's make today a day for the people who rebuilt this country after the great depression, who started the businesses small and large, so important to our economy. the people who are our parents and our children's grandparents,

who served our nation, who made america what it is today, the speech who taught us what it means to be americans. they're not asking for credit or recognition or attention. but we honor -- we owe it to them to honor their lifetimes of hard work. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. deutch: by making it -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. vote yes -- the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. bachus: mr. speaker, in opposition of the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bachus: thank you. mr. speaker, this is simply a procedural measure to stop this legislation which cuts yet again another wasteful government program. this program has already allocated $50 million and it's

only helped 42 american families. do that math. it authorizes -- it authorizes $8 billion. that's at a time when this country has a record deficit for this year. and yet they don't get the message, my democratic colleagues, they simply do not realize that this money goes to the lenders. this goes to the banks. that's who the checks are made out to. and who pays for it? as it payers. and ultimately this is who pays for it. our children and our grandchildren. because we can't pay it back. because we borrowed 42 cents out of every dollar. and let me tell you, a lot of them have grandparents, when you talk about seniors, let's talk about our children and our grandchildren. let's talk about that we're in dange -- endangering their future. i yield the balance of my time

to mr. graham. mr. grimm: thank you, chairman bachus. thank you, speaker. you know, i just came back from my district in staten island in brooklyn and i visited several senior centers and i'll tell you, the seniors are nervous. they're worried. you know what their number one fear is? their number one fear is that their children and grandchildren will not have the opportunities that they had. i heard countless story after story that chair children are out of work -- their children are out of work. so when i hear about another failed program i think of the mandate and it was the mandate, i'm not sure if everyone in this room heard it, in this chamber,

but i heard it. and the mandate was very simple. cut the spending. grow the economy. and create jobs. this program is broken. and to think that somehow suddenly, miraculously it's going to work for seniors is outrageous. and i have to tell you, i cannot in good conscience go back to my district, go back to those senior centers, look those seniors in the eye and tell them that i supported another failed program because someone stood up and said, well, it's for seniors. we can label it any way you want. you can put anything you want object this. but at the end of the day it's a failed program -- on this. but at the end of the day it's a failed program. for that reason i strongly urge, strongly urge my colleagues to support the chairman and end this reckless spending.

thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote. mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. deutch: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20rks charity will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this will be a five-minute vote. a 15-minute vote, 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 185, the nays are 243. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted.

a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 256 and the nays are 171. the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of h.r. 830 the clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation and cross references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair is prepared to entertain

motions for one-minute speeches.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011,, the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, please take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. akin: thank you, mr. speaker. we're going to talk a little while here this afternoon about a subject that is on i think everybody's minds, regardless of their political affiliations. and the more we look at it, the more significant it seems to be. in fact, the more frightening it

seems to be. and that is the simple situation with our economy and the level of what the government is doing in the spending money department. this of course ties into the job situation in america, the many people who are looking for work, some of the businesses that are struggling and the families that are struggling as well. all of it is tied together in the economy and this is also of course tied to the federal government and its spending. so what i have done here is i'm going to try to paint a picture in simple terms. sometimes economists make things seem a little bit too complicated. this doesn't have to be so complicated. in fact, the less complicated it is, the more frightening it becomes. and so what i would like to suggest first of all is i'd like to talk about some words that we use in washington that maybe you aren't familiar -- that maybe aren't familiar with everybody here, particularly our freshmen members. the first word is entitlements. entitlements, i'm an engineer by

training and entitlements you could think of as a machine. in fact, it's a little bit like those machines in the bathroom that you put your hand in front of them and they spit out those brown pail paper towels -- brown paper actuals -- towels. except the entitlements we're talking about here spit out dollar bills. what happens is a legislator, maybe a legislature maybe 30 years ago created some bill which automatically gives money to certain people that come and put their hand from front of the machine. and these entitlements, the biggest ones are social security, medicare, medicaid. those are programs that have been around for quite a while. but they're a little bit like that. if you think of them as something that spends money automatically. so those of us here on the floor of the congress, we talk about whether we're going to fund this or fund that or how we're going to run the government. these things, these things were created a long time aked ago and they keep running and spending money and those are called entitlements. there's another thing that's

like the entitlement and it's the interest on our debt. when the u.s. government issues a treasury bill, the treasury bill is supposed to pay some interest. so it's a little bit like that machine. it spits out some dollar bills and so it being like an entitlement is something that's spending money. now here is the thing that i think is frightening and i think you'll think it's frightening as you give this a little bit of thought. and that is that if you add up, for this year, this isn't some time way out in the future, but if you go just this year, you add up the social security, the medicare, the medicaid, the other entitlements, there's some other smaller entitlements, and you put those together with the interest on our debt, that comes to $2.2 trillion. now, i don't know what $2.2 trillion is in terms of trying to visualize the money but it's very easy to visualize this. and $2.2 trillion is also the

total revenue that the federal government brings in taxes. so that makes it easier to see. in other words, these entitlements and the interest on the debt, $2.2 trillion, is the same thing as the revenue that we get in from taxes. now why is that frightening? well, it's because it doesn't include two other things. the defense budget and the what's called nondefense discretionary. so what are these two things over here? the defense budget's pretty obvious. it's obviously tanks and airplanes, it's ships, it's men with rye faffle -- rifles and the national security. and that's a piece of that, you can see that's almost $700 billion, and then nondefense would be things like the building that we're in, be the capitol building, it would be the federal parks, it would be the federal prisons, it would be the department of energy or commerce or justice or education, all those different government things that we spend money to on and that's in this

nondefense. so in other words if you want to balance the budget, if you want to balance the budget today what do you have to do? well, what you'd have to do would be cut defense to zero. not one soldier, not one rifle left, not one uniform, cut that to zero, that's not enough. then cut all the rest of the stuff the government's spending money on, close this building down, close the capitol down, close the senate and the house down, close down the federal parks, close down all of those different departments of commerce, justice and education and energy and all those things, close them all down. when those are all zero you now have a balanced budget. now how is that going to work? not very well. so that's why i say what we're dealing with is a far bigger problem than i believe most americans are aware of. if you think about that, you say how in the world can our

government, how could america continue when we're doing this? these numbers, i'm republican a conservative republicans, these aren't republican or democrat number, these are just the numbers. this is just our cupry. this is the country that we inherited. this is really our country. and these are what the numbers look like. this is pretty frightening. what that means is we're going into debt, deeper and deeper in debt, at an incredible rate right now, trying to do something that mechanically, economically, mathematically, just will not work system of that's the nature of the problem. so, if anybody has a little bit of sense of intuition, if anybody has a good american spirit, one of the first things you say when you see a good problem is, oh, how can we fix the problem? because this is something all of us have to deal with.

well, let's take a look at what the possibilities are. possibilities remind me a little bit of all these kind of funny weight watching programs out there. i think it's interesting, there are people that says you're going to go on the low carb diet or this diet or that diet and yet when you come to be a little bit older, such as i am, you're faced with two realities, either get more exercise or don't eat so much. you don't have to have a lot of fancy dietary programs this situation suggests it's simple, either don't spend as much money or tax everybody a whole lot more. the trouble is, in this situation to tax everybody a whole lot more doesn't really work. let me explain why it doesn't. we'll take a look at another chart. what happens to our economy is that we have these different taxes that we run, and in spite

of all the different taxes, sometimes we raise them, sometimes we lower them, what the experience of the federal government is, is that our revenue kind of comes in in this 18% average is what our revenue comes in. you say, so look, we are -- we've got way, way too much spending and not enough revenue coming in and we need an extra $1.5 trillion in revenue, we're going to just raise the taxes about 30%. the trouble is, if you do raise the taxes, the problem is that you don't get more revenue coming in. that's sort of a weird thing, isn't it? let's talk about that for a minute. why would it be that if you raise taxes, the government wouldn't get more revenues? well the reason is because you tax the economy to a certain degree and then you start to collapse the jobs and the economy the economy goes south, and when it does, then it

stalls and you don't get as much tax revenue. but think about it this way. i'd like to explain it by just picturing yourself, you will, to be a king for a year. and your job is to try to raise tax revenue for your kingdom and the only thing you can do is tax a loaf of bread. you start thinking about this. let's see, my kingdom they eat a lot of bread. i can tax a loaf of bread for one penny a loaf. or you could say to yourself, ha, i know how to get a lot of taxes, i'll put a $10 tax on every loaf of bread. then you think, i bet nobody would buy any bread if we did that. your common sense would say somewhere between a penny and $10 for that loaf of bread, there's an optimum tax, if you raise or lower it either way, you won't get as much money raised in taxes. that's what's going on here. you can raise the tax rate, but what happens is, people find

out ways to avoid it, the economy stalls and so in fact your revenue starts to fall off and you don't get any more money in. and of course the problem is, your spending is still going like mad. so the solution to this problem isn't even as easy as try to lose weight. you really don't have two alternatives. what you have is really one alternative and that alternative is you have got to get these entitlements under control. now, the fact of the matter is, is that even if you look at a snapshot of this year, you have to get the entitlements under control. but particularly this graph shows that the entitlements here, these are just three of them, medicare, medicaid, social security, that these entitlements are growing rapidly over time. so even if we went to the scenario of here and we got rid of defense and nondefense spending and balance the budget with government spending nothing except just

entitlements, even if we did that, in a couple of years, these entitlements, this is, where are we, 2011, in a couple of years, these entitlements are going to eat our lunch. so the problem is, you can't fix it by get manager rev mue in, so what's your alternative? the alternative is the uncomfortable fact that america cannot continue to afford these entitlements. of course that's radioactive to say that politically. i'm surprised i haven't been hit by lightning yet but that is unfortunately the pure mathematics of it. some people in politics like to sugar coat things and may not tell you absolutely all the truth but that's the facts. that's where we are. now are you going to deal with these things? none of us really know. we have a bunch of ideas. we're struggling with how you're going to do it. there are a lot of people dependent on these

entitlements. yet the money is not going to be there. we can't keep borrowing money from the chinese to pay for these things because sooner or later what's going to happen, the interest rates will go up on that money and the whole nation would be bankrupt and i don't know what that would look like. what does it look like if you picture, you get up one morning and find out the dollar bill doesn't work anymore? you go to your grocery store and it seems like everything stopped moving the strucks aren't move, you can't get food for the shelves because the trucks don't have gas and the whole thing just kind of comes to a stop because the dollar bill, the whole country has gone bankrupt. yop what that looks like. i don't think it's particularly pretty. but that's going to be the picture if we don't deal with this problem system of what i'm suggesting is that first off what we have to do, every one of us as americans, we have to educate ourselves on the simple facts.

you don't have to be a wizard of the budget or economics, all you have to realize is that the entitlements are using up all of the tax revenues. now, so that's a problem. plus the entitlements are also growing an you don't really have flexibility to raise the taxes too much more. so let's take a look at the problem a little bit more closely. this is a picture of what's going on relative to the national defense. i'm on the armed services committee. we have spent 10 years, all kinds of hearings, listening to what the russians do, what the chinese are doing, what the different threats are, and also understanding the logic of why america has a strong national defense. why that buys us a great deal. you might ask yourself why in the world do we have nuclear aircraft carriers, what do they do? other countries that are allies of ours don't have ships like that, why would we? the reason is, if you think

about america and the globe, america is sitting there a little bit to a degree by itself, and our two main trading partners, europe and all the way around to china, japan and india, those trading partners are a considerable distance around the world. it is in our interest because of all the things that we buy that are traded that we protect those trade routes from some hedge monothat might want to cause trouble. -- from some hegemon that might want to cause trouble. so we have our nuclear aircraft carriers to go to the other side of the world and conduct operations without worrying about filling these things up and that's the reason why we have a lot of national defense. this started a long time ago. you can see this blue line here talks about our defense and what's going on with defense spending and then what's going on with entitlements. you see entitlements back here in 1965, this is medicare,

medicaid and social security. this chart says it's 2.5% of g.d.p. you see defense is much, much higher, jumped up to above 9% here. then over time the entitlements are going up. that 9.9% is low because that's only three of the big entitlements and defense spending is going down. people say, well aren't you open minded? shouldn't we be cutting defense and other things as well? the answer is, no, not really. because, you see, any freedom you enjoy in this country isn't worth anything if we're being attacked by an enemy and there's bombs falling and chaos around us. so our national defense provides us with what we enjoy in a peaceful and decent world to live in. as you see the defense budget is going down and yet the entitlements are going up system of this gives you a sense, again, that you can't fix this by cutting defense. you could cut defense to zero and you're still not going to deal with the problem here.

here's another way of saying that you can be the really fix the problem by raising taxes. this is a curve of the very highest marginal income rate. back here in 1960, you were very well to do, your tax rate is 90%, so if you earn a dollar, you give 90 cents to the government. you can imagine the people that are making a whole, whole lot of money aren't dumb enough to give 90 cents out of a dollar away. so what they find a way to do is move to another country or find different tax shelters and things to avoid paying this. but anyway, you have a high tax rate here on the people that are very well-to-do, and this -- these lines here show how much revenue comes into the federal government. and you see as this highest tax rate is decreased, that's the

red line, what you see is that actually the revenue that the government's collecting goes up. this is reflecting that same idea that we talked about, the loaf of bread, the loaf of bread is overtaxed, people won't buy much of it and you won't get much tax. if you put $100 tax on a loaf of bread, nobody would buy any. you have nice, high taxes, should you have a lot of money coming in? no. because it doesn't make sense. that's what this chart is showing, as the taxes come down you get more revenue in the government. has this been proven to happen? yes, historically, it has. there are several times when it did. and those times were first of all when j.f.k. inherited not a very good economy. i mention this because j.f.k. was obviously a democrat. democrat president and he understood these principles and when the economy was bad, what

j.f.k. did was, he decided to cut taxes. doesn't that seem like an odd thing? the economy is bad, the government needs more money, and yet he cuts taxes. what an odd thing to do. yet it certainly worked. it worked beautifully. so how did it work? well, over a period of time, by putting more money back into the economy, the people that were small business owners took the money, invested in their businesses and built warehouses, new machines, new technology, new research to develop better products and as their businesses grew, they hired more people and as they hired more people, the government got more tax revenue. and the economy got better and better and as the economy got better they made more money. so the result was, by actually cutting taxes, particularly cutting taxes in certain ways, that is, you cut taxes on the people that own the businesses, when you do that, you can actually pick an ecy