helped bail them out too small to help? can we continue to end programs that help people stay in their homes that did not create the exotic products, that did not create prepayment penalties that coincide with teaser rates, that did not create loans wherein you qualified for your teaser rate but you don't qualify for your adjusted rate, can we continue to allow them to be evicted when we can help some of them? we may not be able to help everybody, but when you can help somebody, you ought to try to do the best that you can and help those that you can. . with reference to the f.h.a. refi that passed in this house, that bill did not lose money unless persons failed to pay their mortgages. it was only if mortgages were not repaid that f.h.a. came

forward and covered the cost. so to say that it cost $8 billion is incorrect. it cost whatever at the end of the program may have been spent but that money has not been spent so the money was there. there was also a premium to be paid by persons who got the reify -- refis. it helped neighborhoods maintain property values. we can help people with emergency mortgage assistance. people who have lost their job through no fault of their own because of the downturn in the economy. it's a very simple premise. will we allow ourselves to save major corporations and deny the people, the taxpaying americans some help during their time of need? if there is one thing i heard

from the american people was, where is my bailout? well, when we come up to the plate and actually help people who need and merit the help, somebody comes forward and finds a reason why we can't help them. this is the day to help those american people. let's not let them be too small to help while others will allow banks to be too big to fail. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: mr. chair, at this time i yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, madam chair. again, we cannot lose sight of the fact that our nation is drowning in a sea of red ink. it is a sea of red ink that continues to hamper job creation. job creators today are uncertain of our future. they know, though, they know

that historic levels of debt lead to historic levels of taxation which can only lead to historic levels of unemployment. they are looking for some signal from this body that we get it, that we get it, that we're going to stop borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, much of it from the chinese, and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren. again, when the annual deficit, the annual deficit was $200 billion in dropping as opposed to the monthly deficit which is now over $200 billion, but when the annual deficit was $200 billion, the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip said that was fiscal child abuse. now, my friends on the other side of the aisle are introducing the term

mean-spirited. i don't know. is fiscal child abuse mean mean-spirited? it's their term, madam chair. i'll let them reflect on that. now, i hear the ranking member talk about fiscal responsibility, and he points to one item, cotton. we heard cotton throughout this debate. but i would note that the chairman, the ranking member apparently voted for the conference report on the farm bill which includes cotton subsidies that he comes to this floor to decry. he speaks about a w.t.o. decision, but it's the obama administration that says that countervailing measures would have cost this country more than $800 billion. mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. hensarling: i would recommend that the ranking member have the debate with the obama administration. mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. hensarling: because that's where we got this information. i will yield to the ranking

member. mr. frank: there were two ways we could do it. i disagree with the president. we could have avoided that by reducing american cotton subsidies to the same amount as they do in brazil. so we could have either saved $300 billion or not. mr. hensarling: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. i would just point out to the ranking member that was not the vote before us, and if there was a chance to get out the cotton subsidies -- and i must admit that both sides of the aisle voted for them -- but the opportunity was at the point on the conference report of the farm bill which the gentleman from massachusetts voted for. but to put this again in a larger context, we on this side of the aisle federal reservently believe that you will not have -- fervently believe that you will not help anything unless you put this country on a fiscal path. if we can't do it on this program what program can we do it on?

i think it's ironic. how many of my friends on the other side of the aisle will come to the floor and say, you know what, there are people in this nation trying to force loans onto people who are unemployed, people can't afford to pay it back, it's predatory lending, and now they want the government to do the same thing. mr. bachus: chair, i yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: we heard throughout the debate there needs to be a consistency, a consistency of debate. let me get this right, a payday lender is guilty of predatory lending if they lend money to somebody who is underwater, somebody who may be struggling, but if the federal government does it it's something else. it's noble. i don't see the consistency in the debate there, madam chair. but, again, most importantly when does the day arrive that we quit spending money we do not have?

i say today is that day. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: how much time is remaining, madam chair? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 3 1/2 minutes, and the gentleman from alabama has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: do we have general leave? the chair: yes. mr. frank: thank you. i yield myself the remaining 3 1/2 minutes. first, the last comment was contradictory to the gentleman from texas. if it's forgiveness, then it's a predatory loan. the fact that it has very generous loans, it's scored at 84%, not 98%. the gentleman is self-contradictory because it cannot be both. secondly, as to agriculture, i did vote for a -- an amendment that would have changed it but the gentleman -- spectacle of my republican colleagues hiding behind obama is bizarre.

you could have done what we offered which was to cut the $150 billion from going to brazil and then cut it out of america. but it's not the only item i mentioned. i mentioned $1.2 billion the gentleman wanted to send to the iraqi forces. the $250,000 limit the republicans rejected on individual entities. so, no, there are billions in agriculture and the military. i didn't just mention one item. the gentleman does understand they're vulnerable so they blame obama. they are both wrong sending money to brazil. i hope in his final time the gentleman from alabama will address it. in the first place, on two of these programs, the hamp program, which we will deal with next week on the floor, and the f.h.a. refi, the money doesn't come from the treasury. they keep saying it but they are wrong. and ignoring a fact doesn't

make it go away. those are funds that come from tarp. in the financial reform bill we reinforced an earlier provision, and i will subject it to the record. i'll put it in the record. it says the fdic is authorized to conduct risk-based assessments on financial companies to pay for this, the money that's left in the tarp. we have a mandate to the fdic so that when the tarp is finished, large financial companies will have to pay this, not the treasury. so i know that troubles people on the other side. they are solicitous of these large financial companies, but when they talk about adding to the deficit they're wrong. it's statutorily required that this will come over their objection from the large financial institutions, and as to the other two programs, including the one today, we had similar language in our bill to do that. it was rejected by the republicans because we needed to get 60 votes in the senate. so, yes, for now, that $840 million will come out of the taxpayer.

if we had our way and the republicans had not been successful in frustrating us, it would also come from goldman sachs and from morgan stanley and the other large institutions, and i will give them another chance. so the fact is the bulk of this money does not come from the treasury. it is mandated that it will be repaid back to the tarp, and i hope the gentleman from alabama will address that in his final remarks. is he for repealing that? does he believe we should not, as we have said we would twice legislativively assess the large -- legislatively assess the large financial institutions and take it off? because if he doesn't it may reduce the bonuses at some of the large financial firms, it may reduce the dividends at some of the large financial firms but that does not reduce the deficit. as to the other money, the stabilization program and for this program, if they will come back with us and join that also will come from the large financial institutions. so let's drop the phony

argument about the deficit. if you want to protect the large financial institutions be honest about saying so. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: madam chair, i claim the remaining time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bachus: the american people have sent us here to tell the truth, and the truth is there are too many government programs that do not work and actually make things worse. and these government programs are paid for by the american people. you can say that it's not from the treasury or that it's from the treasury, it's from tarp, it's not from tarp, but the fact remains that it's from the american taxpayer. in fact, the tarp fund, which

the gentleman at one time said it comes out of the treasury. then he said it comes from tarp , but the promise in 2008 was it would go back to the american people, it would go back in the national treasury, and in fact it does not and i'll address where it goes and i think the american people would be when they find out where it goes under this program they are going to be even more upset. and i don't think they'll be surprised because i think they've come to realize that there's not a lot of will in washington to protect them, the taxpayers. but the american people already know that there are too many effective government programs that cost too much. and this is a poster child for those programs. if you can't cut this program i'm not sure you can cut any. and when we find such programs we as the representatives of

the people have a duty and a responsibility to the taxpayers to end these programs. and that's what we're doing this morning. we are going to end this program. that's what we're here for. we are in this legislation by mr. hensarling we stop a $1 billion failed spending program. that's a well-intentioned program. but just as the road to hell is paved with good intentions so is the road to higher deficits and a record-breaking debt, a debt that our children and our grandchildren will have to pay. you know, when we talk about the taxpayers ultimately fund this program, when we borrow 42 cents out of every dollar it's our children and our grandchildren that will have to pay for these programs. we're charging something and we're telling them to pay the

bill. today we have an unthinkable debt of $14 trillion. $14 trillion. a debt that imposes a birth tax on every child born in america. it's $45,000 today. just last year it was $35,000. it's grown by $10,000. even worse this debt or birth tax is growing every day because our government is spending some days $5 billion, some days $8 billion more than it takes in. and adding to what our children and grandchildren will have to pay. one question that the american people often confront is, are they better off their parents and will their children be better off than they will and their grandchildren? it's interesting that -- in

survey after survey, poll after poll, the american people say we're better off -- we were better off than our parents. our parents fought for our freedom, they preserved it in numerous wars, they saved their money, they watched their money, they worked hard and they left us in good shape. but when that same question is a little different question, do you think your children or grandchildren will be better off, the american people, they know, they instinctively know. no is the answer sadly, and that's because of our national debt and deficit. in fact, both our secretary -- both our joint chiefs of staff and robert gates has said that it's a national security problem. our debt threatens our very existence as a country.

. ? washington spending binge is driving our country right off a cliff. we have seen the effect of overspending on our economy today. the government absorbs so much money from our citizens that it's hard to create private jobs. each dollar out of the economy is a job that the private sector can't create. now, actually governor -- president reagan and president clinton both realize this and they grew the economy. and those were the only two years with a growing economy. and government spending either level or going down. that's the only time in our country we had a surplus. they both realized that it was the private sector that would see us out of this. so this growth, growth in the federal government and spending is hampering job creation.

and that's what these homeowners need. they need a job. let's look at this program. and this is from the obama administration, this is their budget that was just filed. here's what the american people need to know. what does this program do? it offers a loan of $50,000, up to $50,000 to pay all arrearages to homeowners on their first mortgage. $50,000. and then to pay up to 24 consecutive months of mortgage payments. 24 months of their mortgage payments. now, both the gentleman from texas and the gentleman from massachusetts kept talking about the large financial institutions . that's who is owed the money. and in fact we are not getting this money from the large

financial institutions, just the contrary, we are paying them. because they are the ones that hold this mortgage. so when the taxpayers write a $50,000 check under this program to pay a rearages on the mortgage, who do you think it goes to? it goes to bank of america, it goes to morgan chase, it goes to citigroup. and it's shocking that the gentleman from massachusetts would actually say that this money is coming from the very institutions that are going to receive this money. this billion dollars is not going to homeowners. it's going to these large finance igs tuesday the -- institutions. he says they are the one that is ought to be paying this not the homeowners or not the taxpayers. we always thought the homeowners were supposed to pay their mortgages, but i think we could all agree, i think we could all agree that it's not the taxpayer.

it's just an astounding thing. and he says that flip wilson, if flip wilson told us to vote for something, we would. it wasn't flip wilson. it was ron kirk. and would did he tell us? listen, if i were chairman frank, i would talk about anything but this failed program. i mean i think that's why they have talked about everything but this failed program. mr. frank: would the gentleman yield? mr. bachus: because it was ron kirk that told us that our automobile sector would suffer, our pharmaceutical sector would suffer. he said that this would cost jobs and medical equipment, electronics, textiles, wheat, fruit, nuts, cotton. he did include cotton. he said $60 billion worth of exports were at risk.

do the math. 7,000 jobs for each billion dollars worth of exports, that's 420,000 jobs. do you want to vote against something that would put 420,000 americans out of jobs? and then they would all line up for another government program. that the minority would design. the other thing, this is the last thing i'll say, they keep saying that taxpayers will get paid back. well, let me introduce this. this is from the obama administration, this is their same budget for the physical -- fiscal year 2012. it estimates the losses on this program, they have accused us of making up these figures, 97.72, that's the loss on this program. the chair: the gentleman's time

has expired. mr. bachus: thank you, madam chair. it's time to end this failed program. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired -- has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature f a -- of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order except those received for printing in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in a daily issue dated march 9, 2011, or earlier and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. each amendment shall receive may be offered overwhelm by the member who caused it to be printed and shall be considered as read if printed. the the clerk will designate section 1. the clerk: be it enacted, section 1, short title. the chair: are there knits amendments to section 1? the gentleman from texas. for what purpose does does he rise?

mr. canseco: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: section 1 is currently pending. and the gentleman's amendment is to section 2. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kucinich: i yield for unanimous consent to the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pastor: madam chairwoman, unanimous consent to revise and extend on my opposition to this bill. the chair: without objection. mr. kucinich: thank you, very much, madam chair. it's very strange congress. at a time when wall street has been bailed out, banks have been bailed out, banks bailed out who kicked people out of their homes, a lot of programs that have been created to help keep people in their homes, these

programs are going to be canceled by the majority. which of course will cause people to lose their homes to the banks. so the banks in america have people coming and going. and they keep getting more and more money. madam chair, millions of americans are facing or will face foreclosure in the coming months. the hold on their homes has been endangered by unemployment or predatory loan terms or falling house values. we are in the worst crisis facing homeowners in the history of this contry. and the facts are well-known, no one in the house can feign lack of knowledge of the misery that has gripped american homeowners,

yet today this house takes up a bill to terminate a program intended to assist distressed borrowers. next week the house will consider more bills to eliminate two other assistance programs. what message is this congress sending? if you are a distressed borrower or relative who is in trouble or neighbor in distress, the message of this house is tough luck. what about losing your house? tough luck. government assistance to distressed borrowers should be effective. i can agree with my colleagues on that. i share the belief that some of the programs intended to assist distressed borrowers do not help enough people. but is that an argument to just end the programs?

you know people need help. the programs aren't effective. just say, well, we are going to end the program. how does that help people stay in their homes? it doesn't. i submit that the fundamental problem with these programs, fundamental problem is they depended on the voluntary participation of the very banks and service that is created the housing crisis in the first place. so the programs are set up where you need the banks to participate, banks don't want to participate or they slow walk the applications and before you know it people are just left in a desperate strait where their homes are being lost. now, when the banks were in trouble, taxpayer assistance was rushed forward. i voted against the bailouts. now that the banks have emerged from a crisis, unfortunately our friends in the majority are determined to dismantle the few legal efforts that are there to preserve and protect homeowners. we should be reforming these programs. not dismantling them.

if the house approves the bill before us today, h.r. 836, congress will be turning its back on people whose lives have been wrecked by a crisis created by irresponsible banking practices. so i'm urging a no vote on the bill, madam chair, but i also hope that we take a very cold and sober look at what we are doing here. we are attacking the very victims of this housing crisis. we are giving comfort to those who created the crisis. yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back. any other amendments to section 1? if no further amendment, the clerk will designate section 2. clip section 2, rescission of funding for emergency mortgage relief program. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. canseco: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate.

the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. canseco of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. canseco: thank you, madam chairman. i want to thank my colleague an friend from texas, mr. hensarling, for offering the bill to terminate the emergency mortgage relief program. the amendment i'm offering will ensure every penny of savings that comes from terminating the emergency homeowner relief program will go back to the treasury's general fund in order to reduce the debt of our country. we are in the midst of a spending driven fiscal crisis. today every child born in the united states is responsible for mortgage than 45,000 -- $45,000 of the debt. if we don't stop spending and put our nation back on a sustainable fiscal path, we will ensure that the future of our children and grandchildren drown

in a sea of red ink. the total debt of our nation is on track to equal the entire size of our economy. the debt held by the public today is $10.43 trillion, that represents 69.4% of g.d.p. per household, this is $89,007. the gross debt according to the monthly treasury statement through february, our gross debt is $14.194 trillion which is $94.41% of g.d.p., or $121,128 per household. no nation in history has ever survived a debt burden the size towards which we are hurling. as i travel across the 23rd district of texas, over and over

i hear of every very real concerns my constituents have over our out-of-control washington spending and our exploding deficits and debt. the facts are really frightening. there's over $14 trillion of debt on the backs of the american families. we have had two straight years of trillion dollar-plus deficits. the c.b.o. projects that the deficits for fiscal year 2011 will be $1.5 trillion, and the president's recently released fiscal year 2012 budget projects more than $1 trillion in deficits. admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has warned that the most significant threat to our nation and its security is our debt. these are dire facts.

and are mortgage than just -- more than just numbers on a ledger, they represent a real threat to our economy and our security and job creation. yesterday, moody's announced that they had downgraded the debt of spain. another country in a long line of downgrades in europe. well, the deficits and debts realization, you cannot say that would never happen in america. . spain is expected to have a budget deficit of 15% in 2011 while america is expected to run a deficit of 9% of g.d.p. in 2011. without a change in our course we are on track to become the next spain, the next greece. the writing is on the wall. we are headed for fiscal and economic nightmare if nothing

is done. this is an unsustainable path that will end one of two ways. either we have the courage to tackle our nation's problems or we continue throwing money at wasteful programs and revert to the status of a third world country. my colleagues on the other side have made clear which option they would choose. they want to continue to create wasteful programs hoping that the magic one will come along and fix all of our problems. we have to stop kidding ourselves. this is the way to create jobs and economic prosperity. not only do we have an obligation to reduce our debt for the sake of our economy but we have a moral obligation to our children and to our grandchildren to leave this country to them better than we have found it. unfortunately, that's not the case right now unless we act.

this congress has a clear mandate from the people who sent us here to do our job. cut the spending, reduce the debt. with this bill and my amendment we will do both, and i urge passage of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i rise to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: we heard just the other day the leader of our great ally, australia, in this chamber talk about the greatness of our nation and how it is the belief that we can achieve anything. this lack of confidence illustrated in the rhetoric here on the floor today about the greatness of america, maybe we need to walk back a minute and look at how we reinvested and rebuilt japan and germany after the war, how we bailed out mexico over $40 billion.

how today, this day alone, we're spending $2 billion this week in afghanistan and we have people all over the world trying to assist others. we will be one of the first nations rushing to help those affected by the tsunami this morning in japan. this is a great nation. we come today, however, to say to law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who lost their job because of the shenanigans on wall street that even though we were able to help the banks to the tune of trillions of dollars that we can't provide a small loan to help a homeowner who has been paying their bills, abiding by the law and has been affected by because of the actions or inactions of the government and wall street. now, this is not a new program built on homes and dreams. this is a replication of a program that has been operating

in pennsylvania for 20 years. it actually has a history in which the state of pennsylvania put in $235 million and got back $250 million, in which 440,000 homeowners have been able to secure their homes over a small interruption in their employment by getting help over 24 months. this -- yes, i'll be glad to yield? mr. frank: from what party the governor of pennsylvania has come in this period? mr. fattah: this started under a republican governor, governor thornberg. i started this as a young legislator with no gray hair, and it's worked very well in the state of pennsylvania and i offered it here in this chamber. in 2007 we hit a 50-year high in mortgage foreclosures. it makes no sense to move someone out of their home, ruin their credit for a decade, have

their family be homeless. for the pennsylvania incidence, for less than $7,000 on average you can help them over a period of difficulty. so here is a republican majority. they say, look, we can't find it within us as a nation, even though we tell people all across the globe to actually pause for a minute for a putry sum and help a citizen in our -- putry sum and help a citizen in our country with a burden. we should reject this. we should reject the notion that we are so much in debt that we can't afford our own citizens. the fact is we are the wealthiest country in the world. what we should know is that yesterday we should read a story of how we have a few billionaires that have trillions of dollars. we should remember that last week on the front page of the

"usa today" we had a story saying that for a quarter of a million dollars seats onboard of the directors were going wanting in our country because they weren't being paid enough for $6 million a year. we can't afford to pay our bills. the republican majority says let's cut 1.5% of what the federal government is going to spend this year in the face of a $1.5 trillion deficit. if they want to balance the budget they should step forward with a much more aggressive plan. this is not about balancing the budget. it won't get anywhere close to balancing the budget. this is about somehow being willing to help big banks when president bush stepped forward and said we had to do tarp. but when it comes to help a homeowner meet their obligation somehow we have to do less than our best as a nation. this is not the america that has come to have good allies like the leader of australia

who spoke from that podium who said we can do anything and how the whole world looks at us as a beacon of hope. we should think again. this is ill-advised and i hope that this house rejects this bill and today stands up for an american citizen who needs a little help. thank you very much. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. nuring bauer: i thank the gentleman from texas -- mr. -- the flaw in this program is the level of debt that they have is their primary problem. and it's the same mentality that's kind of gotten our country the jam that it's in that we are going to have a vote in the next few weeks to raise the debt ceiling.

the reason that individuals and companies and governments around the world are overleveraged. and so what we're saying is the way to fix someone's problem that has too much debt is for them to take on more debt. it's absurd to think that it's good for these borrowers. i'd like to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from texas, mr. canseco. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. canseco: thank you, sir. thank you for yielding time. i think what we need to focus -- the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. canseco: i think we need to focus on what this amendment does and the purpose of it. the purpose of it is to bring back those funds that are allocated to this failed program and bring them back into the treasury so that the treasury can use those funds in order to reduce the debt that we have. it is but a small return into the treasury but it goes a long way into fiscal responsibility

so that we can continue on that path and reduce that budget. now, with regard to the program itself that this bill or this amendment addresses, we have to realize that this program spends an enormous amount of taxpayer money that came out of dodd-frank, a $1 billion h.u.d. emergency homeowner relief program which provides loans or credit advances to unemployed borrowers. and this program would spend 98 cents per every dollar that does not come back. those are very important to realize that these funds are taxpayer funds that would otherwise go as a grant to the borrower, not any repayment program but grants to the borrower that does not get repaid. so with that i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: i yield. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: make will he correct the wholly contradictory statement by mr. neugebauer. one, this is too lavish a subsidy to the homeowner and, two, that it will further indebt the homeowner. members do understand that it possibly both can't be true. there is an element of subsidy here. and those who take this money and pay off those mortgages will get a subsidy so they will not be further in debt. the argument is wholly without any basis. the argument that it is a more generous one is a more accurate one. paying them back without late fees and interest helps them

out. so the nation -- i will yield to the gentleman from texas. mr. neugebauer: well, the ranking member knows it's been build as a loan program. what we're saying it's a grant program. mr. frank: i take back my time. no, that's not what the gentleman is saying. the gentleman is completely contradicting himself. he said it's a grant program. he just said before that -- first, he was contradicting the other the gentleman from texas. now he's contradicting himself. he said it's a grant program. well, if it's a grant program why did the gentleman say it's getting people further in debt? the gentleman has been caught with a totally contradictly argument. he said it was getting further in debt. mr. neugebauer: will the gentleman yield? mr. frank: yes. mr. neugebauer: it points out how terrible this program is. mr. frank: sorry. i'll yield if you want to clarify what you said. you had your five minutes. i will not yield for general -- i will not yield for -- i'm sorry. it's my time. i was yielding if the gentleman thought i was misinterpretting him.

for him to repeat what he already says takes time that i don't want to give him. he did contradict himself completely. first it was a program that was going to put people further in debt. now it's a grant program. he can decide which it is. i want to go back and make my central point which is the only reason this has any impact on the taxpayer is that the republicans insisted on protecting the large institutions. the gentleman from alabama said all this money is going to the large institutions. well, that's not true because it does go to pay off loans to keep people from paying off loans. some go to credit unions. some to banks. under our proposal which the republicans temporarily bought, i hope they'll repent, all of the funding will come from the large institutions and the members don't want to address that. under our proposal in the bill that passed, and we had to amend it. we'll try to come back and change it again. every single penny that will be expended here will come from

institutions of more than $50 billion in assets and hedge funds of more than $10 billion in assets. so if you do it our way, not a penny will come from the taxpayer. it will come from the large financial institutions. and, yes, it will be a help to these individuals. some will pay it back but they won't have late fees and, yes, the gentleman was correct when he said the second time around it could become a grant program. i don't understand how it can be a grant program and something that gets people further in debt. i yield to him. mr. neugebauer: do you think this is a loan program or grant program, which do you think it is? mr. frank: i understand -- i think it's going to be primarily -- sorry. it's my time. i will note you don't want to answer the question. i am being consistent. yeah, i think it will work out as primarily a grant program. maybe 4%. i point out that the gentleman is trying to cover his own embarrassment because he made the argument without any basis that it's going to put people further in debt. he then acknowledges it's a

grant program. people do not become further indebted when they receive grants. so, yes, it will work out for people who are responsible as to a great extent a grant program. that's why c.b.o. says 84% will be spent. that 84% in our bill, which we did it, which comes from the large financial institutions. i don't want it to come from the taxpayers. and while temporarily it now does we will be offering a bill -- i hope the committee of which the gentleman is an active member will give us the consideration and we can amend the law under which this program is in order so every penny, whether it's loans or grants, in some combination it will be primarily grants, will come from the large financial institutions and not a penny from the taxpayer. now i yield. mr. neugebauer: does the gentleman think that the language in the legislation as it's written now says -- representatives -- represents as a loan or a grant? mr. frank: a grant. i'm struck by the gentleman from texas.

he said it was an excessive loan program and grant program. he made two entirely inconsistent statements in a very short period of time. even for a politician that's a record for self-contradiction. mr. neugebauer: will the gentleman yield? mr. frank: no. i'm finishing talking to one gentleman. i can't talk to two no matter how fast i talk. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. frank: it will be a loan that will primarily be a grant. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. waters: i have an amendment -- the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. all those in favor 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. . any other amendments under section 2? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

>> i offer amendment number 3 as the designee for the gentleman from michigan -- minnesota, mr. paulsen. the chair: amendment number 3. the chair: the gentleman from texas offered an amendment under section 3? mr. neugebauer: i offer amendment number 3 as the designee for the gentleman from minnesota. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. neugebauer of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. neugebauer: thank you, madam chairman. i offer this on behalf of my good friend, mr. paulsen, from minnesota. this is a good amendment. it would add military service members and veterans who have served -- service related injuries as well as survivors' and dependents of such individuals to be included in the study in this bill. these families often face hardships. they will likely need modifications to their houses to help them get around. especially if the service member is disabled. there may be significant changes in the ability to move around and the skills that they are able to perform.

this will ultimately have a significant impact on their livelihood. it's my hope that we can gain a better understanding how we can best provide for the families of those who have served our country and pay the ultimate price. with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman may not riff the balance of his time under the five-minute rule. does the gentleman yield back? the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to strike the last word. i didn't get -- the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: the gentleman from texas who simultaneously -- not simultaneously but consecutively denounced this program for putting people in debt and being a give away grant asked me whether it was designated a loan or grant. the answer is neither. the program is called the emergency mortgage relief program. so it leaves open what kind it would be. that's the answer to his question. that's why some of us were less confused than others. mr. neugebauer: would the gentleman yield? mr. frank: yes. mr. neugebauer: the bill says it's a loan. as soon as that individual takes an advance in this program, it

becomes a liability of that individual. there are certain ways in this bill either from forfeiture or through some of the provisions in this bill that indebtedness is forgiven, but i will tell you the proper accounting is that today the individual payment is made on their behalf, it becomes a liability of an individual. mr. frank: i take back my time. the gentleman gets himself further and further in the hole trying to explain this. the facts are very clear. he began by saying he was going to put them further and further in debt. that contradicted his colleagues who said it was going to be too much of a subsidy. in fact it does not say loan or grant in the title. it says emergency relief and it does provide for a loan and forgiveness. i am sorry the gentleman got himself tongue tied. don't blame the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. waters: i have an amendment at the desk. number 4. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. waters of california. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much, madam speaker. i rise to present my amendment which i believe is a commonsense provision that provides transparency and clarity for distressed homeowners. specifically this amendment would require the secretary of housing and urban development to publish to h.u.d.'s website a statement indicating that the emergency mortgage relief

program has been eliminated. the amendment explains that this program would have provided unemployed homeowners with low or no interest loans to assist them in paying their mortgage. further, my amendment directs unemployed homeowners to contact their members of congress directly since the emergency mortgage relief program is no longer available. and if you listen to the recent debate, you can understand why this is important. first of all, we need transparency in what we do and the public policy that we make. we need to be able to communicate better and clearly with our constituents. and so they have been told and started to get involved with this program that would assist unemployed homeowners to be able to stay in their homes. as you know, this program was

specifically developed so that it could deal with the high unemployment rates and the fact that people who had been working, some of them all of their lives, were now unemployed or under employed, or had medical conditions that caused them not to be able to pay their bills in the way that they had been paying them in the past. and so now that we are coming a long just as this program has started and saying, oh, sorry, the program is eliminated, we need to be able to communicate that and this is what this amendment would do. american homeowners deserve our assistance. and they deserve our help. and we have just experienced a resession, almost a depression where small businesses and big businesses alike had to close their doors or to downsize and it has left us with some of the highest unemployment rates that

we have experienced in many, many years. and still the unemployment rates are unacceptably high. still hovering around 9%. and in some communities it's even worse than that. it goes up to 15% and 20% and some communities even 30%. and so our american citizens have turned to government and say what can i do? can you help? this is the one of four programs that was designed to help them. unfortunately my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have decided that not only are they going to eliminate this program, the emergency mortgage relief program, for unemployed homeowners, but they have decided they are going to eliminate the hamp program, that is the home affordable modification program, yesterday they voted offer this floor the f.h.a. program that would assist homeowners in refinancing. don't forget, this f.h.a.

program was really for middle class citizens who paid their bills who were not in default, had not lost their homes yet but their homes were under water. and they were trying to stay in them by reducing the mortgage and this legislation under the f.h.a. would have helped them to do that. you're going to hear more about the n.s.p. program that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle is eliminating also. but today perhaps this is the most sensitive that we are doing now. this is the most sensitive because we have seen in pennsylvania as was described by my friend, mr. fattah from that state, how this program has worked well. for the last 20 years. in assisting unemployed homeowners. we will set the regulations for how this is done and of course they will look at these individuals in terms of how long they have been unemployed, how they paid their bills, and

whether or not they believe they are capable of not only utilizing the program but repaying these loans at some point. i don't think it's too much to ask of us to be be of assistance. i noted that my colleague from texas referred to it as these people. these people are our people. these people are american citizens. these are constituents. who vote and send us here to make good public policy. it has been said over and over again that we bailed out the too big to fail institutions. that we were generous in our loans to them. billions of dollars that went into those too big to fail institutions. so i would simply ask for an aye vote on this very simple amendment that would bring some transparency -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. waters: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does -- mr. neugebauer: i claim time in

opposition to the amendment. the clerk: -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neugebauer: i want to read a portion of this amendment the gentlewoman from california says the emergency mortgage relief program which would have provided unemployed homeowners with low interest rates loans to assist them in paying their mortgage has been terminated. if you are unemployed and concerned about not being able to pay your mortgage, please contact your member of congress. that's what is so confusing about the arguments that my colleagues on the other side, they can't decide if this is a loan or grant. one time it's a loan. one time it's a grant. but in fact the program says it's a loan. in fact the h.u.d., department of housing and urban development, the title of their rule is emergency homeowners loan program. the other reason i rise in opposition to this is that this -- we are terminating a program that has had zero customers.

so it seems ambiguous here to have the federal government go through a process here where we are going to notify homeowners of a program that never was instituted, never was used, that it does not exist anymore. that seems a little wasteful. i think in many ways could be misleading because according to -- obviously when you look at the way the program is structured, it becomes a grant program, so we are misrepresenting them in the sense that, well, it says it's a loan, but it's not a loan. it's a grant. and so i think this is something that is one of the things that the american taxpayers -- ms. waters: would the gentleman yield? mr. neugebauer: for the government out there misrepresenting or creating confusion to homeowners that may be seeking assistance. i will not. so i would just say that at this particular time that this is not

necessary and that it was a -- we should not put confusing piece of information out there on the website. and with that i yield to the gentleman. >> i need to clarify this. i was not around. i am a freshman here in washington, d.c. i was not here for the creation of this program. it's my understanding, and i am hoping to hear some clarification from you, that there has not been a single application that's not even been put in much less denied or accepted because this program has not had the regulations promulgated. that is correct, right? it strikes me -- it's like giving a job layoff notice before you have even hired anybody. and that really is the issue it seems to me that we need to make sure we are getting people back to work. that is the best protection we can possibly give to any program out there for people to make sure that they cake mare mortgage payments is by giving

them a job. but i yield back. thank you. mr. neugebauer: i think he makes a great point. it is a program that has not had an application. has not been promulgated. ms. waters: would the gentleman yield? mr. neugebauer: this is reason we feel like this is not necessary. i encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman yield back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. wasserman schultz: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for five minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 836, the emergency mortgage relief program termination act. this legislation like the other war on affordable housing bills being brought to the floor by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seeks to terminate a much needed federal program that helps struggling homeowners. to be clear, shutting down a badly needed foreclosure mitigation assistance program is not a solution to federal deficits. it would simply hurt homeowners and the current economic recovery. rather than turn our backs on homeowners, we should be working

together to improve and expand programs to help the millions of americans and communities affected by the housing crisis all over our nation. for several years now, many americans have struggled with foreclosures, underwater mortgages, and ann aband -- abandoned and blighted properties. it has decimated the towns' tax place producing funding shortfalls for basic services like police. this creates deficits at every level of government. i keep hearing from my republican colleagues that the debt is crushing americans and we must act now. what about the crushing debt of negative equity facing almost a quarter of all homeowners in this country? nearly 1/4 of all americans owe more than -- on their mortgages than their homes are now worth. there are nearly 11 million families who feel trapped in their homes unable to sell or move if they wanted to or even refinance to lock in at better interest rates. and the statistics in my home state of florida are far more staggering than the national average. 45% of all mortgages in florida are under water.

in broward county where i live, that number is more than 50%. yes, over half. more help is needed not less. however what is offered today is a repeal and abandon approach, leaving homeowners with few or no options. this is simply unacceptable. for 10 weeks now the house republican leadership has failed to bring to the floor a single piece of legislation to create jobs despite making occasional casual references to jobs. what they have done instead is push legislation that will destroy jobs. just like the spending bill pushed through the house a few weeks ago that would cost our economy $700,000 jobs. these housing bills would injure our economic growth. i-k a appreciate the argument that the current housing programs have not done enough to help openers, i agree. that's why i support legislation offered by congressman cardoza to require fannie mae and freddie mac to refinance underwater mortgages so homeowners struggling to stay out ofer from closure -- stay out of foreclosure to stay in

their home. and i look to how we can improve the program. my republican colleagues have no plans in the -- to helping make housing more affordable or keeping people in their homes nor will they. that's because they believe the lending industry will take care of it. . that's the same approach that caused the wall street meltdown in the first place. the republican leadership began the 11th congress with a lot of fanfare by reading the constitution on the floor of the house. well, it's not enough to simply read the constitution but to abide by it and carry out its charge. article 1, section 8 of the constitution vets the congress with the duties to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce. however over the decades -- over the decade leading up to this housing crisis, the congress abandoned this, it led to an anything-goes attitude. banks were making subprime loans people couldn't afford and then bundling these loans and selling them off, becoming toxic assets that crashed our financial markets. we owe more to our constituents

than speaker boehner's so be it attitude. we must do more than just stand by and say the lending industry will take care of this crisis. a foreclosure has a devastating affect on each and every homeowner and tears at the very fabric of the family. saying you support family values is mere lip service unless you take actions to value the family by striving to keep families in tact with a roof over their head. and that's why i support the amendments offered by many of my democratic colleagues, most of which have been ruled nongermane because as far as i can tell, they oppose helping too many homeowners. apparently nell federal effort that would help zero homeowners is too broad and unacceptable to the office of this legislation. perhaps this boils down to a fundamental disagreement on our role of looking out for constituents and assisting at the federal level. the democratic minority remains committed to our goal for the 112th congress, to create jobs, strengthen the middle class and responsibly reduce the deficit. we will continue to judge each of your bills by this standard. the legislation before us today fails on all three counties --

counts and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from florida yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> move to strike the last word. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. hundreds of times since i took the oath of office just a few weeks ago i've heard references to kicking the can down the road. kicking the can down the road. this kicking of the can, the can being the deficit and the debt, has come to the end of that road. in fact, we have used this term so many times america has a chronic case of turf toe. mr. womack: washington is in a state of denial. we continue to give away taxpayer dollars -- correction, borrowed dollars to people who

can't afford to pay it back. our friends from the other side want to you believe that we don't have a heart, that we're insensitive to the plight of those who are struggling because they've lost jobs and can't afford their mortgages. let me tell you what americans understand. americans understand that we cannot continue to live in this irresponsible way, giving away borrowed money, program after program, knowing that it's going down a rat hole, just another kick at the per verbial can. if you can't cut an expensive, irresponsible program like this one, then what can you cut? look, we're all about job creation. job creation is the preferred way to deliver us from this financial plight that we happen to be in. but the problem with job creation right now is that there is a dark, dark cloud hanging over america as we know it. with a huge deficit, a record

deficit and a mounting debt, a debt so large that very soon in this very chamber we'll be taking up the issue of a debt ceiling increase. that dark cloud includes higher taxes, that dark cloud includes burdensome regulation and that dark cloud certainly includes deficits and debt. this program must be eliminated. the savings must go to deficit reduction. we have come to the end of the road, we can no longer kick this can any further. my colleagues and i are demonstrating leadership in this arena, something this congress has lacked for several years. i encourage support of the amendment, strike that, i encourage support of h.r. 836, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. sanchez: i rise to strike the last word.

the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. sanchez: it amazes me that somebody could say that homeowners, american homeowners losing their homes and it's trying to help them stay in it is like throwing money down a rat hole. i might suggest that we might look at afghanistan or the war in iraq where we're spending $2 billion a week as place where we could find the money to balance our budget. but at this moment, madam speaker, i'd like to yield the rest of my time to my good colleague from california, ms. waters. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i thank the gentlelady for yielding time. madam chair, i rise to oppose the statements that was just made by the new gentleman from arkansas. the one who claims that he and others are providing legitimate leadership for the first time. i would like to be in opposition to the fact that he describes what we're doing as pouring

money down a rat hole. let me just be very clear about my opposition. i do not like the american people being referred to that way. one of the other gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle this morning referred to our citizens as these people. now i hear our citizens being referred to as people who are receiving funds that are going down a rat hole. the american citizens are not rats, the money that we are appropriationed through good public policy is not money that's going down a rat hole. as a matter of fact, he knows, if he knows anything about this crisis that we're confronted with, that not only have we bailed out the biggest institutions in america that are too big to fail with billions of dollars that we loaned to them and i didn't hear anybody talking about that money going down a rat hole or those people

or these people. let us be a little bit more respectful as representatives of the people in the way we describe our public policy here. i don't consider that credible leadership, madam chair, and i would ask the gentleman to refrain from referring to the citizens of this country in that way. and i would ask the members of congress to reject those arguments and to look at what we're doing and to understand as the gentlelady from california has said, if they want to be credible in how they reduce the deficit, they should look at the money that we're spending on a war that we can't win. money, the billions that we're putting into afghanistan, but no, they choose not to do that. they choose to attack the most vulnerable in our society, people who have worked all of their lives, who are asking their government for a little assistance because now they're underemployed. or unemployed or they have

medical conditions that don't allow them to meet their obligations. i stand with the people. i stand with the citizens. the people on this side of the aisle generated the public policy under these four programs to help american citizens. and for those who don't want to help people whose homes are underwater, who don't want to help people whose neighborhoods are being decimated by these boarded up properties, who don't want to have hardworking zwhones have worked all of their lives, who don't want to rise to the occasion of this crisis in our economic system, let them continue to identify themselves. i have an amendment here that says, ok, if that's how you feel then let's post on the website exactly what we're doing. we're eliminating this program. and let the citizens call us so that we can tell them, yes, we had a program, they would like to save this program -- say this program has not been started, it has. as a matter of fact, we started

to get calls right after the dodd-frank bill was signed into law. with people asking about the program, wanting to get into the program, being thankful that we had somehow come up with ways to help them. it's not a program that has not begun, it has begun. and this amendment that i have before this floor would simply say, tell the people that you're eliminating the program. let them know that it no longer exists. clear up any confusion about whether or not we stand with the people or we're going to work against the people. i yield back the balance of my time to the gentlelady from california. ms. sanchez: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from is -- the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate that, madam chair. everybody needs to understand a little history here. all right? this program was put first in place in 1975. i would i was 6. all right?

this vital program has been in existence since 1975 and i understand some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may have been here for either the creation or shortly thereafter, but this vital program for 36 years remain unused, unfunded and ineffective because it didn't exist. now we hear that it's a vital program. we hear that we cannot continue to protect the homeowners of america without this program. it is absolutely nonsensical that we are going to put people further in debt and call that helping them. here's what happened the last time government started going in and demanding that credit be eased and all these other things and i have some experience in this. i was a former realtor, a licensed realtor in michigan, and i -- my family's involved in construction. it used to be not that long ago, it used to be that you either had to own your lot or you had

to have 20% down to go get a mortgage and a loan. well that 20% quickly became 15% which quickly became 10% which became 7%, which became 5%, which became 2%, which became zero down, which became 120% loan to value. because we needed to get people in homes. well, that was not because the private sector and the free market was dictating that, it was because this body and others were directing them to do that. we have an opportunity here, we have an opportunity here to wind, unwind some things that have been done. and as i said, i wasn't here for the creation of this, well intentioned but crazy initiative, but i'm here for the unwinding of that program as are many of my other new colleagues. and it's about time that we do that. and how we, madam chair, how we realize what we can really, truly help people, how we are going to help homeowners is we're going to get them a job.

we are going to create an atmosphere, not a government program, we're going to create an atmosphere that's going to allow the private sector to go out and be productive. prosperity is created by the private sector, not the public sector. the public sector receives the dollars that it gets from us, taxpayers, from me, as a small business owner, from my employees. it's not a government program that's going to create that prosperity, it's the private sector, it's our job to create an atmosphere that's going to allow that private sector job creation to happen. i yield back the balance of my time. ms. waters: will the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to strike the last word. the chair: i recognize the gentleman from massachusetts for five minutes. mr. frank: thank you, madam chair. i have to respond to what i just heard because it simply isn't true. the notion that the government directed people to make these loans is not true. i don't understand what directive the gentleman is referring to. and i'd be glad to yield to him. what policy, what law directed people to make loans of 120%

loan to value. i yield. >> i appreciate the opportunity from the gentleman from massachusetts. fannie and freddie. mr. frank: i take back my time. understand the difference, directed and allowed. fannie mae and freddie mac never originated a loan. they could not have directed anybody to do anything. they were the secondary market. fannie mae and freddie mac could only get into action if some private entity made the loan in the first place. and beyond that, during the period when we had the increased subprime loans which some of us were trying to ban, fannie mae and freddie mac were a declining percentage. but i'll yield again to the gentleman to tell me who directed the private sector to make these loans. >> i appreciate that. it was an encouragement that happened and it was allowed. we're talking about regulation -- mr. frank: i take back my time. we're here in the house of representatives making policy.

you've got to be precise, i would say to members, about what you say. directing and allowed are two very different things. it is one thing to allow it. by the way, when you were talking from the perspective of the private sector, it's a very big difference and there are many things that the government allows but i wouldn't direct, there are things that are allowed which i wish people wouldn't do. but the gentleman didn't say allowed, he said directed. that's wrong. i ask because -- he didn't say this and i acknowledge that, but there are some who try to blame the community re-investment act. in the testimony -- reinvestment act. in the testimony, in the financial crisis inquiry commission, three of the four republican appointees, including bill thomas, our former colleague here, chaired the ways and means committee, and douglas who was the chief economic advisor to mr. mccain, specifically repudiated the notion that the c.r.a. had caused this. >> will yacht jealed -- will the gentleman yield? mr. frank: yes. >> i will be the first to acknowledge that republicans

make mistakes as well. thank you very much. mr. frank: i was not talking about republicans making mistakes. i have no idea what that's supposed to contribute to this debate. i was citing two thoughtful and responsible republicans, plus all of the budget, all of the financial regulators under both bush administrations who said c.r.a. wasn't the problem. now the gentleman didn't say it was. some people said that because c.r.a. did have some kind of more mandatory position but it wasn't for those subprime loans. in fact, with regard to the oans the gentleman is with regard to the loans the gentleman is complaining about it was those on the democratic side trying to abandon them. beginning in 2004, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. miller, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt, i joined them later, tried to outlaw those loans. we were blasted by people who said no, that's a mistake. in fact in 2007 when this house, when we became the majority, finally did make illegal many of those loans in the bill, the

"wall street journal" denounced us and said we had created a sarbanes-oxley restriction for housingment i just want to make it clear that there was no direction by any entity of the federal government. the gentleman appears to acknowledge that when he said fannie and freddie -- i'll finish my sentence first. when he said that fannie and freddie allowed it, that's a long way from saying that it was directed. now i yield. >> i appreciate that. i'm curious, though, how getting back to this particular amendment in this particular bill as we are removing this program, why is this program so vital if it was authorized in 1975, and in 1995 the clinton administration under h.u.d. used this language -- mr. frank: i got time. >> the language that they said, they wanted to remove this outdated obsolete -- mr. frank: taking back my time. the gentleman's using up with the papers. here's the deal, 1975 is when it

happened in pennsylvania, not america. if you had been listening carefully. secondly, in 1995, we didn't have the foreclosure crisis. third, as to just a new program, in fact this program for the 32 states where it will operate is based on the program which operated in 18 other states. we have had a bad experience with it. the gentleman from alabama as governor praised this program. the governor of new jersey praised this program. this is a new program for these 18 states, but it is modeled on a program that has worked successfully in these other 18 states. in 1975 it was pennsylvania not the united states. 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 offered by the gentlewoman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. waters: recorded vote.

the chair: the gentlelady from california. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. sanchez: i have a an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in the congressional record, offered by ms. loretta sanchez of california. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: i reserve a point of order against this amendment. the chair: a point of order is reserved. the gentlelady from california. ms. sanchez: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. sanchez: i would like to offer an amendment to house resolution 836, the emergency mortgage relief program termination act. my amendment would simply delay implementation of h.r. 836 until the unemployment rate is at 7.5% nationally or lower. why 7.5%?

because if my republican colleagues really want to terminate this program, vote on what people in america really want. jobs. 10 weeks into this congress and not one single bill has come from our republican colleagues with respect to jobs. we haven't even had a chance to see how this program can be beneficial to the people we represent, to our neighborhoods, to the economy. i know that shortly after the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act the phone was ringing off the hook in my offices as people were trying to find out how they could get some help to stay in their homes. the emergency homeowners loan program was designed to assist homeowners who have experienced a significant reduction in income. in income not because they got

into a bad loan, because they have lost their jobs. because they have found another job but it doesn't pay enough. because they are underemployed. because they have found a part-time job which doesn't give them benefits so they have to to use cobra and they have to pay for their health care simply because they have less money right now. during this time when you all have not been able to help us create jobs. this would put and provide as many as 30,000 distressed homeowners with loans until they are able to find better jobs or find jobs. assistance terminates when the income is 85% of their pre-crisis level. this is limited to 24 months, or $50,000, which ever occurs first. you know, unexpected situations,

they occur in our lives. many people who are unemployed today are underemployed today didn't expect to lose their jobs. they went every day, they worked hard every day. as people were losing jobs, they worked harder, they saved longer, they became more productive, and still because of decisions made by other people other than those who are working hard, they lost their jobs. or medical problem came up. you get cancer, you got to go to the doctor, you got to do chemotherapy, your employer says, hey, don't need you around because you are out. you got bills piling up. you have no job. and you are working and you can't work and now you are going to lose your home. you are going to put people who have cancer and other serious problems like that, health problems, out of their home? this is a program to help those kind of people.

i don't know, the last time i checked americans cared about each other. if we can even save one family in their home, then it is worth it. the banks have proven that working to keep our neighbors in their homes is not a top priority for them. don't join them. don't join them in sending the message to america's workers, to america's families, to america's homeowners that you, too, do not think that they are a priority. i urge you to allow this amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: madam chair, i would note that the gentlelady from california's economic program known as the stimulus has helped another three million

of our fellow citizens lose their jobs. madam chair, i make the point of order that the amendment violates clause 10 of rule 21 known as the cut go rule. i have been advised by the chair of the committee on the budget that the amendment would cause a net increase in mandatory spending relative to the bill in the period specified in the rule. accordingly the point of order lies, and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? ms. sanchez: i wish to be heard. the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. sanchez: i think this is directly related to what is going on. i don't understand -- people understand what's going on here. because we have this program, this side, the republican side says, let's eliminate this program. and then if you want to help people, you need to find -- the chair: does the gentlelady wish -- mr. hensarling: madam chair -- the chair: does the gentlelady

address the point of order. ms. sanchez: i do believe it's germane, madam chair. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from texas 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 as compared to the bill. accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. cummings: thank you very much, madam chair. as i stand here and sat here and listened to all of this, there are some things that are missing from this discussion which i

think that we are forgetting. and that sometimes i think do we forget that this is america? this is a country that has gained its power through its moral authority, not necessarily by its military might. and we have heard discussions this morning about kicking the can down the road, putting money into a rat hole. and the more i think about it, madam chair, i think it is a very sad day when somebody from a state with high foreclosures can get up and talk about destroying a program that will help his own neighbors.

there's something wrong with that picture. president barack obama uses a term i wish i had invented. he says that we have an empathy deficit in our country. i wonder what it's going to feel like on sunday when my colleagues go to church, read from the same bible that i read from, and can brag about the fact that they was able to kill a program that would allow some 30,000 people to stay in their own homes. while at the same time when i go to church i'll have to explain to them why they did it. we are better than that. we are better as a nation, we are better. and it's easy for people to go home. you'll go home tonight, you'll fly home, you have a nice warm

house, but let me tell you about the other america. the america that has come to find foreclosure to an event i held in my district 40 miles away from here. they come in with papers in hand because they simply want some relief. they have lost their jobs. through no fault of their own. they come in with tears running down their faces, they are black, they are white, they are hispanic, they are asian, they are americans. so you say to them, the dollars that you pay, i don't want to use them to help you stay in your house, in their houses, they are the same americans that i used to see get on the early bus, the early bus, and then go

to work. but now they have no jobs. in part because of the same kinds of efforts we see over and over again about getting the regulations. the regulations that were not adhered to, the ones not in place, are the very ones that got us where we are, and that's why many of them don't have jobs and losing their homes. we are better than that. that's why i was one of the authors of this provision. i'm tired of seeing my fellow citizens come in, your neighbors and my neighbors, people that look like your mother and my mother. people that look like your son and my son. tears running down their faces, simply wanting a break. they are not looking for a hand out, they are looking for a bridge.

and so it is when you go to church on sunday, when they ask you what did do you this weekend, what did you achieve? you can say to them, stick your chest out, and say, yeah, i stopped some 30,000 people from staying in their homes, americans. then there's another argument that bothers me, madam chair, they act like we cannot create jobs and keep people in their homes statement. . we can do better than that. so i hope when you go back and you talk to your neighbors and you say -- save a $1 billion program, $1 billion, we were trying to get more but even in the conference committee the republicans cut that down and now they're back at it again. with that i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: madam chair, we can do better than trillions of dollars of debt that is borrowed from the chinese and the bills are sent to our children and grandchildren. when the annual deficit was $200 billion and falling, another gentleman from maryland, the distinguished democratic whip, said it was fiscal child abuse. now we have a monthly deficit, a monthly deficit equaling that annual deficit so i'll listen carefully to this gentleman from maryland and when i go to church on sunday i'm going to be very glad in my heart, in my head,

that i did not commit an act of fiscal child abuse on my children or anybody else's children or grandchildren. we have got to stop spending money we don't have. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. who seeks time? pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on the amendment on which further proceedings were postponed. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in the congressional record by the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, 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 4 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. waters of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.

those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is those oppose ld say no.

the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: unobligated funding for the emergency mortgage relief program, and to terminate the program. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. please vacate the well. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. connolly: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. connolly: i do in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the

motion. the clerk: mr. connolly moves to recommit the bill h.r. 836 -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the house will be in order. members will kindly take their conversations from the floor. the clerk will read. the clerk: mr. connolly of virginia moves to recommit the bill h.r. 836, to the committee on financial services, with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. section 3 -- mr. connolly: i ask unanimous consent that further reading of the motion be dispensed with. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. connolly: i suggest the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct.

the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the speaker. this amendment, mr. speaker, which i submit with mr. green of texas, who led this battle in committee, protects -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will please be in order. members and staff will take their conversations from the floor and please clear the aisle. the gentleman may continue. mr. connolly: i thank the speaker. this amendment, mr. speaker, protects our men and women in uniform who risk their lives to keep us safe in our homes by protecting theirs. it would continue providing emergency mortgage assistance to service members, veterans, and gold star families amending the underlying bill that would otherwise strip away this vital assistance to homeowners in distress through no fault of their own. whether it is the result of being laid off or a severe medical condition or emergency,

congress has not turned its back on our nation's veterans when they are in need, and now is no time to start. as my colleagues are well aware, the foreclosure crisis has affected millions of american families. mr. speaker, we are not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. the gentleman may continue. mr. connolly: sadly, our military families have suffered some of the worst parts of this impact. last year, 20,000 active duty reservists and veterans lost their homes. the largest number in recent history. did you know the foreclosure rate around our nation's military installations is four times higher than the national average? from 2000 -- 2011 to 2008, the rate of foreclosure -- 2007 to 2008 the rate of foreclosure --

mr. hastings: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman may continue. mr. connolly: from 2007 to 2008 the rate of foreclosure within 10 miles of a military facility swelled by 217%. compared with 59% in the rest of the country. right here in our own backyard in my district, the community of woodbridge, virginia, the foreclosure rates spiket an astounding 414%, around the quantico marine base. . why is that? because the unemployment rate for our military heroes are 15% higher than the national average. we all know how difficult the transition back to civilian life can be. particularly the disabled as they try to find work. congress has repeatedly single out veterans for additional assistance whether it is work force training or small business assistance. in fact, the house itself initiated a wounded warrior

program to place veterans in our member offices. but even with that assistance to men and women who so bravely fought on behalf of our nation find difficulties succeeding here back home. that's why we had more than 75,600 homeless veterans in 2009. i know a young man in my district who returned home from a tour of duty in iraq with a severe disability. thankfully the modest financial support he currently receives has enabled him barely to remain in his home. but he's only one adverse event away from foreclosure. we are not in order, mr. chairman. and our veterans deserve better. the chair: the house will be in order. cancel cancel -- mr. connolly: what if his situation worsens? what if he suffers the loss of employment or developed a catastrophic ill snns how am i supposed to tell him or his family, not to mention the thousands of others like him in our communities that we're turning our backs on him?

rather than continue to provide for the needs of our veterans when they need us the most, this legislation pat ronizes them by calling for yet another study to tell us what we already know. that our military families suffer disproportionately from foreclosures. we don't need a study to tell us the right thing to do. mr. speaker, many of my colleagues post pictures outside their offices of lost service members who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the sincere attempt to honor their memory. those men and women fought and died protecting our homes. how can we now tell them and their families we're not going to fight to protect theirs? mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the final amendment and help preserve the american dream for those who are out there protecting that dream for each of us. and with that i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. -- the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. one minute remaining. mr. green: i thank the speaker and i thank the house for being in order because this is about our veterans, i have but one minute so please allow me to speak on behalf of veterans for one minute. this is a moment of truth for us.

our veterans have been there for us. we have the courage of our convictions to send them to war. they've done their job but many of them are returning home to properties that are being foreclosured upon, that will be abated. this is an opportunity for us to spend .859% of the $1.6 trillion that we spent in iraq and afghanistan to help our veterans retain their homes. they have been there for us. the question is, will we be there for them today? i yield back the balance of my time but don't you take up time to make sure that the veterans don't get what they deserve. veterans have worked hard for us. we've sent them to war, let's now make sure -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded his time back. mr. green: let's take care of our veterans. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise to speak in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman may continue. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to the distinguished chairman of the financial services committee. >> i thank the speaker and i thank the gentleman. mr. bachus: we're talking about our soldiers, our veterans. what do they do? they fight for our freedom, for our national defense. and what is the greatest threat to our country now? what is the greatest threat to our national security? it is the debt, don't take my word for it. admiral mullen said just two months ago, the most significant threat to our national security is our debt. defense secretary robert gates said on cnn recently, the country's dire fiscal situation and the threat it poses to american influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the

united states government faces its financial -- mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. bachus: and we can start representing -- we can start representing our soldiers and our veterans and those they defend by cutting out this worthless billion-dollar program where 98 cents out of every dollar is never repaid. let's move today, let's defend our country, let's start cutting our debt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, the distinguished chairman of the financial services committee brought to our attention something that i believe every veteran now knows. and that is the biggest threat to our national security is our national debt.

mr. speaker, i am not a veteran. my brother was, he fought during the cold war. my father was, he fought during korea. my grandfather was, he fought during world war ii. so i know veterans, mr. speaker, and there are no citizens in our country that are more passionate about the preservation of our national security than our veterans. there is no veteran that i know of that would not put country before self, there is no veteran i know of that wants to mortgage our nation's future to china. there is no veteran i know of who wouldn't be ashamed and embarrassed to have china foreclosure on our nation because of the national debt that has been run up by our friends on this side of the aisle. if we want to have a secure

nation, if we want jobs, if we want to save america for our children from bankruptcy, we've got to quit spending money we don't have. veterans put country before self. mr. speaker, at this time i yield to the distinguished chairman of the veterans' affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> members, what we're talking about is trying to eliminate a program that is duplicative, a program that has been wasteful over the last few years. i think the colleagues that are speaking against what we are trying to do don't quite understand how the v.a. home loan program works. mr. miller: they have their own program that they can go to and borrow money. they're not being disadvantaged

by doing away with the program that we are talking about today. in fact, if a v.a. individual has a loan that is guaranteed by v.a. and their home is underwater they can go back to v.a. and get, in some instances, get that loan refinanced without an appraisal, including all the fees, including all the closing costs and remind you again, even if the house is worth less than what the original loan was all about. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. miller: we heard great large increases of numbers of foreclosures just a moment ago. let me tell you what the number is in regards to foreclosures with v.a. loans. the foreclosure rate is 2.5%. why? because the v.a. works with the people who have these loans to make sure that they don't get into a serious delinquency, more

than 90 days in arears, so that they can stay in their home and if something happens that they have a problem, v.a. has a program to take care of that too. but here we have our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in some instances some of my colleagues may not have heard this, questioning what we do on church on sunday, because we're not committed as the lord requires us to do to other people, that's not right. both sides of the aisle are committed to what we think is right and what we think is right is not mortgaging our country on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. 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.

the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: on that matter i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. 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.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 182. the nays are 238. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a recorded vote will rise. 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 this 242, the nays are 177. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent 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. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute for the purpose of making an announcement to our

colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: meeb, the committee on rules is scheduled to meet on tuesday, march 15, at 3:00 p.m. to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for consideration of h.r. 839, the hamp termination act of 2011, and h.r. 861, the nsp termination act. any member wishing to offer an amendment to either bill must submit an electronic copy of the amendment and description via the committee's website. members must also submit 30 hard copies of the amendment, one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment, and an amendment log in form to the rules committee in room 312 by 10:00 a.m. tuesday, march 15. bothlike reason toic and hard copies must be received by the date and time specified. members should draft their amendments to the text of the bills as ordered reported by the committee on financial services which are available on the rules committee website.

members should use the office of legislative council to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. members should also check with the office of parliamentarian, the committee on the budget and the congressional budget office to be certain that there are amendments comply -- to be certain their amendment complies with the rules of the house. if members have any question, please contact me or the rules committee staff. and i yield back the balance of my time. i hope you have a very nice weekend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's announcement will appear in the record. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for purposes of inqueering from the majority leader the schedule the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker and i yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. cantor. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning

hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. on tuesday and wednesday the house will neat at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. the house will consider at least two bills under suspension of the rules on monday which will be announced by the close of business today. on tuesday we expect to consider a short-term continuing resolution to fund the government for another three weeks. on wednesday the house will consider one or possibly two more bills from the financial services committee addressing mandatory spending. h.r. 839, the home affordable modification program termination act, and h.r. 861, the neighborhood stabilization program termination act -- mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will please be in order. the gentleman may continue. mr. cantor: finally, mr. speaker, on thursday the house will consider concurrent

resolution relating to the war powers resolution and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information and he mentioned the c.r., the continuing resolution, the continuing authorization to operate government which i understand will be for a three-week period. can the gentleman tell us what will be in that continuing resolution at this point in time? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: right. as the gentleman knows, our majority is committed to the process of providing a three-day notice for all members as well as their constituents to see what we'll be voting on. the appropriations committee is busy preparing the text of that and will be presented online this afternoon and the details will be in that online version

this afternoon. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. now, it's my understanding we are not scheduled, according to his announcement, to meet next friday, is that accurate? mr. cantor: yes, i would say to the gentleman that is correct. mr. hoyer: and i take it the gentleman is reasonably certain? obviously we don't know when what the other body will do, but in light of the fact that that c.r. will be offered next tuesday, the gentleman's pre summings is that in fact we will be out sometimes on thursday. mr. cantor: we certainly look forward to the senate acting expeditiously and acting quickly on the house's three-week extension, assuming that goes well, the gentleman is correct in assuming that we will not be in session next friday. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i thank -- the gentleman and i have had this discussion and i think we both agree that continuing to fund government on

either a two-week or a three-week cycle is not what we ought to be doing. furthermore, mr. speaker, the number of economists have indicated that if in fact we proceed to funding levels that reflect h.r. 1, which is my assumption of what will happen according to what the gentleman has told me, and i think said publicly, the funding levels that are included in h.r. 1 on a week to week basis, which leads me to believe that if we're having a three-week extension we'll be somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 billion in additional reductions. would that be accurate? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i agree that he and i have discussed, we intend for the three-week extension to maintain the current formula upon which we are operating today and that is a reduction of spending of $2 billion per week and i expect the appropriations committee again to introduce a

three-week short-term extension cutting $2 billion per week later this afternoon, consistent with the house position as spelled out in h.r. 1. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments and i would observe to him that with respect to h.r. 1 numerous economists have indicated, including mark zandi, who is of course one of the principal advisors to john mccain when he ran for president , chairman bernanke, chairman of the federal reserve, goldman sachs, moody's and others that the just rejected h.r. 1, if adopted, would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs . in one analysis' point of view, over 800,000 jobs. in fact, of course three republicans voted against h.r. 1 in the senate and one of those who voted for h.r. 1 in the

senate said this, mr. speaker, let me be clear that i strongly oppose some of the proposed cuts in the house-passed bill. that was h.r. 1. particularly the drastic cuts that would disproportionately affect low-income families and seniors. making such deep and immediate cuts to critical low-income heating assistance, weatherization and head start programs in the middle of the fiscal year would cause serious problems for those who rely on these programs. that was senator clins, a republican of maine -- collins, a republican of maine, when the bill was on the floor. let me ask the gentleman, do we have a plan to proceed so that we can, a, retreat from the uncertainty that we keep creating by these two weeks? i know he and i agree this is

not the way to proceed. but does the gentleman have a plan, a, to move forward so we can fund government through september 30, complete funding for this fiscal year and turn our attention and focus on what i know the gentleman knows the appropriation committee is now focusing on, the fiscal year 2012 appropriations, and spending plan? does the gentleman have in mind when we might get to a plan to fund the balance of government not on two or three-week cycles but between now and september 30 and i yield to my friend? mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. first of all, i want to speak to the first part of the gentleman's discussion regarding mr. zandi and other individuals he spoke to regarding the predictions of doom because of our position on h.r. 1. and i would say to the gentleman, as he knows, there are as many economists, certainly several hundred, who signed the letter indicating

that the cuts were not something that would produce the results that mr. zandi and others have predicted. and in fact it's mr. zandi's math that was applicable to the stimulus bill that i think most americans do know now failed in the promises made that we would see unemployment not rise above 8%. and again the gentleman and i have had a discussion before that if the answer was just spend more government, intoxicate pair dollars to create jobs, why don't we go spend it all and everybody will be employed again? we know that's not true and that doesn't work. and so we also know that chairman bernanke did not agree with the predictions of the kind of cuts that mr. zandi and others have predicted according to his testimony and certainly we believe very strongly that if

you cut government spending we create environment for private sector jobs. to the gentleman's direct question about when we can proceed a longer term solution we don't have to continue operating in stop-gap ways, i would say to the gentleman, as he knows, it's not just the house, it's trying to work with the senate as well as the white house. the senate did act this week and we now know that the senate rejects our $60 billion -- approximately $60 billion cut off of 2010 levels and it also rejected the proposed $10 billion worth of cuts by leader reid. in fact, there were more votes in favor of the $60 billion h.r. 1 level than there were off the $10 billion level off of current spending. the problem is the white house is not -- has not indicated where it wants to go and as we both have discussed before, as i have told the gentleman, i just

don't see where the leadership is on the part of the white house. it is obviously up to the white house to come to the table as well as the president's got to sign the bill. we agree it is much better for us to be operating with some certainty and not have to be operating off a stop-gap measures every several weeks but we don't want to shut the government down. we want to cut spending and if this is how we're able to do it we're going to deliver on that promise to cut spending but i do share with the gentleman the frustration that we don't see any type of coalescence around a notion that we should have some type of longer term agreement on this fiscal year and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his response, mr. speaker. again, i understand the gentleman's issue with respect to the president. both the gentleman and i understand and agree that the

constitution in article 1 gives to the house of representatives and the united states senate the responsibility to raise and spend moneys. so this is the primary responsibility of the legislative part of the government which he and i have the privilege of serving in. so while i understand the gentleman's accurate, both alternatives were defeated in the united states senate. the president put an offer on the table in his 2011 budget. we then in december froze spending at 2010 levels which was $41 billion less than the president's offer which he put on the table. we have now had a -- two additional offers put on the table. the next offer was, of course, included in h.r. 1. that passed this house but did not pass the senate. the senate, however, did put an offer on the table, as the gentleman pointed out, cutting

an additional $10 billion above the $41 billion or $6 billion above the $4 billion, which was included in the short-term c.r. which expires. does the gentleman now propose and will the gentleman and his side of the aisle be proposing a counteroffer, as i said last week, or is the gentleman's position, as i seem to hear you say, at the $100 billion figure that was included in h.r. 1 which implies that unless there is an agreement to your figure that we will have to shut down government or agree to your figure? i want to make sure that i understand your thoughts on that, and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman, again, it's the house that's taken position that we want to see cuts $60 billion off current 2010

levels. the senate said it wanted to cut $10 billion off of 2010 levels. there's a $50 billion difference here. what we believe is we need to do everything we can to figure out how to do with less in washington. the american people sent us to washington to spend the money the way they would. certainly our conference believes, you cut government strength, you make private sector jobs. we are waiting to see what position the white house will take so that we can move forward and begin the job that we're supposed to be about right now which is the next fiscal year. as the gentleman knows, we are here because unfortunately last congress did not pass a budget, did not pass appropriations bills. we're trying to clean up that mess, so we're waiting to see what the white house's position is so we can begin to see how

we can maximize deficiencies in federal government so we can see more private sector jobs. i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his answer. i don't think i received an answer in terms of whether or not the gentleman is saying it's either $100 billion or nothing and there will be no counteroffer to the offer that's on the table either from the president or more accurately at this point in time in terms of the timing from the senate which got us to $51 billion in cuts which although the gentleman would like to say it's between $0 and $60 billion. the gentleman said in his pledge to america it would be $100 billion. he counted the $41 billion from the president's initial offer of 2011 spending. what has happened since the gentleman and his party made

that offer, mr. speaker, is in fact $41 billion of that $100 billion was accepted in the c.r. that was passed which expired two weeks ago. since that time we put from the senate's perspective an additional $10 billion on the table to get us to $51 billion. the way i calculated, that is more than halfway to $100 billion. he got the $41 billion we already cut in the original c.r. the additional $51 billion. we have come more than halfway, a little more than halfway. we are now asking the gentleman, is he going to have a counteroffer for us that we can consider from our offer of $51 billion which we believe is more than halfway? i will tell you further, mr. leader, that it is my staff's

belief -- and i could be corrected on this -- that the offer that's on the table represents the single largest cut from one year to the next since i have been in the congress to the united states which is largely under republican presidents. so i would ask my friend, we obviously are prepared to agree and have agreed on very substantial restraints in spending, cutting spending, trying to get a handle on this deficit. as you know, i'm concerned about the fact that in the rule we adopted on the first day of the session that you provided for $4.7 trillion in additional tax expenditures, if you will, tax cuts, cutting of revenue that is projected currently by c.b.o. which will lead to $4.7 trillion of additional strength

while you have proposed -- spending while you have proposed $3.7 trillion increased deficit that is in fact planned for under your rule. all i'm asking for now is, do you have and will you have a counteroffer to our $51 billion offer so that we can then try to move on and reach compromise? if it is simply no, we want $100 billion or nothing, then we have to make a decision, as i told the gentleman, on our side of the aisle what do we do at that point in time? we obviously have the majority in the senate. the president of the united states. the american people have elected and as newt gingrich, your former speaker, our former speaker said in 1998, you know, we have to reach agreement. the way you reach agreement is to get offers back and forth, and we think we have an offer on the table and we'd like to

hear your counteroffer. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: further, i tell the gentleman, first of all, the problem is that the $10 billion proposal off of current spending that that is the largest cut that has ever been proposed since the gentleman has been in congress. that's the problem. that's the problem. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: no. mr. hoyer: i want to clarify. reclaiming my time now. i did not say it's the largest cut ever proposed in congress. i said it's the largest cut from one year to the other, from previous year's spending, and it is $13.6 billion, i believe. $17 billion. my staffer, who's brilliant, much more brilliant than i am, reminds me -- mr. cantor: i am told the gentleman has a lot of those. mr. hoyer: both of us do. mr. cantor: yeah. mr. hoyer: i want to clarify so the public understands as well

when they hear us is that what we are talking about cutting from is 14% of the budget. the discretionary, nondefense, not security part of the budget. so let me focus on that. and when i speak of the cut and you say it's $17.-- $17 billion in nonsecurity. from year to year since i have been here in 1981 is the largest single cut in nondefense, nonsecurity discretionary spending from one year to the other. yes it is, and that is in a very small 14% slice of the budget. frankly, the discussions we've had to date ignore the other 81%, 82%, 83% of the budget. obviously interest rates are not subject to being reduced. we need to pay our debt. so i want to clarify, a, that we're speaking to the

discretionary part of the budget, nondefense, nondiscretionary, and yes it is in fact what's sitting on the table the largest cut we've had in nondefense, nonsecurity spending we've had in years. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i say that's exactly the problem still. as the gentleman alludes, we have over $1.5 trillion deficit alone. i understand the gentleman's point there being a smaller piece of the budget from which these cuts are being taken. but the bottom line is that's the problem. we've got to work harder to cut more so the private sector jobs can be created. now, i'd say to the gentleman two things. one, i look forward to his support, then, of the budget that we bring forward because we remember, as the gentleman knows, going to be dealing with how to reform the entitlement programs which are the significant driver of deficits

into the future as he knows. so i do look forward to that. we will be dealing with that within a month's time. i look forward to that debate. but i'd lastly say, mr. speaker, does the gentleman know what kind of cuts the senate can support at the 60-vote level? because i don't. i don't see a counteroffer there. don't see the position where the senate or your side of the aisle -- or the gentleman's side of the aisle has taken. i don't see the president having come down at a level that is acceptable at all because he hasn't come down to a level. so this is the problem, mr. speaker. we have made our position known. the house wants to cut $60-some off 2010 levels or the 2011 levels. we don't want the status quo. we want to continue to cut spending. we can't come to any agreement when the other side doesn't

come forward with any offer, and that's why we've been forced into this situation where we are once again proposing a stopgap measure so we can see the government operate so it doesn't shut down in the name of trying to do more with less. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for yielding. let me make a point here, mr. speaker. as i understand it, the gentleman continues to take the position until we get to $100 billion there is no credible counteroffer. $2 billion a week. let me say that the gentleman serves with a very con-- served with a very conservative member, also a great member of this congress, joe scarborough. let me give a quote from joe scarborough. there are elements of the g.o.p. spending plan that causes me great concern. the belief of some on the right that america can balance the budget by cutting education, infrastructure, the corporation for public broadcasting and home heating assistance to the poor is tanned mount to budgetary witchcraft.

that's not a republican -- i mean, that's not a democrat. that's joe scarborough, conservative member from northern florida with whom i serve. now most people see him on "morning joe" every day. the fact is that's what he said. now, we're looking for a counteroffer because we don't agree with some of h.r. 1 as you well know. as a matter of fact, every conservative democrat, every liberal democrat and everybody in between voted no on h.r. 1, as did three of your republicans over there and susan collins, who voted for it, said she didn't like the elements in it. so what i am saying to my friend very sincerely is he can preach all he wants is we need to cut spending. we agree with that. and the issue is where do you cut it from, what impact does it have, does it sustain the economy or does it deflate the economy? does it create jobs or does it lose jobs? does it help people who need help or does it abandon people who need help? that's the issue, and what i'm saying to my friend with all

due respect is we have made an offer. the gentleman wants to talk about the president. article 1 of the constitution says we need to do this. this is our responsibility. the people elected us to do it, and the people elected us to reach agreement. and how do you reach agreement? this is what i want. this is what you want. but if what you said we have come up, we have moved pretty substantially. we think it was appropriate to move. now we are asking you, are you prepared to move from the position you have taken consistently at your figure which a lot of your folks thinks has problem in some parts. i am asking and you are apparently not going to make a counteroffer as to, we took $100 billion. couldn't pass it. couldn't pass the senate. what i mean by you, the senate didn't pass it. the gentleman is absolutely correct. correct. but we democrats have made the