heard of hamp. i would like to share a statement from march 2, subcommittee hearing in which kneel barkofsky, the special inspector general for the tarp fund exposed the most hazardous failings of the program. and he said that there have been countless published reports on hamp participants who wound up worse off having engaged in a false attempt. failed trial modifications leave buyers with more principal outstanding on their loan. mr. sessions: i yield the gentlelady an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional minute. mrs. biggert: they delite treasury for fill failure to

respond to control the program. out of control spending has left with us a $14.1 trillion debt that is danieling our recovery and job growth. they say reducing government spending will create a more favorable environment for private sector jobs and that's what americans need a job and paycheck not more failed, perpts in taxpayer funded housing. . i urge my colleagues to support this rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back of the the gentleman from texas. roists. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from colorado. i rise today really troubled because i am opposed to terminating the hamp program and

the neighborhood stabilization program, but i'm troubled because these programs have actually been very troubled. they are not perfect. they haven't helped every homeowner we want. but we shouldn't be in a position of just destroying the programs. the neighborhood stabilization program in particular was established to help communities acquire, rehabilitate, and resell abandoned and foreclosed properties as a result of the growing foreclosure crisis. there are so many economists across this country who tell us every single day until we get the housing market straight, we will not get this economy straight. and so i believe in theory in these programs, declining home values in my community have led to lower tax revenues for our local jurisdiction that is are already suffering from the impact of the economic downturn. in state -- the statewide foreclosure crisis has hit particularly hard in my district and the counties i represent in prince george's and montgomery county, maryland. they have the first and third highest foreclosure rates in our

state and account for 40% of the foreclosures statewide. through the neighborhood stabilization program, montgomery county received $2 million and prince george's county nearly $12 million. this has helped in communities. i would urge the majority to look at the benefit and let's try to fix the programs. at the beginning of this crisis, sure, there were bad loans, there were bad actors all over the place. but we also know that people have lost their jobs and that contributed to foreclosures and these families should not be punished because we can't seem to get it straight. neighborhood stabilization does stabilize communities. it doesn't do any good to have homes that are empty and in decline in neighborhoods that will never bring the market back. and so while i'm concerned about some of the programs and would like to work to try to fix these, it's not like for us to simply throw the mat and to minimize the impact of helping 521,000 families to stay in

their homes. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: at this time i'd like to yield few minutes to the gentleman from cherryville, north carolina, the author of one of the pieces of underlying legislation, h.r. 39, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for four minutes. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the bill that i am sponsoring is the hamp termination act and a bill that will protect at-risk homeowners across the country from a government program that has proven to be an abysmal failure. the home affordable modification program, or hamp, was originally supposed to help as many as three million or four million struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by modifying loans to a level that is affordable to borrowers now and sustainable over the long term. that was the intention. however, nearly 800,000 of the

1.4 million homeowners who enrolled, have consequently been -- subsequently been rejected or terminated. in his most recent testimony to congress, the special inspector general for tarp stated, quote, it's just not working. the home affordable modification program has to date been a failure. end quote. a failure in the words of the independent individual to oversee this program. a failure. now there's no doubt that people of good will created this program. no doubt about that. the intention was to help those that are facing foreclosure. that was the intention. unfortunately the decline -- design of this program has led to more people being harmed than actually helped. understand that. we have a government program

that harms more people than it was designed to help. because it strings them along with a modified, so-called verbally modified change to their payments, and so it drains their savings. and at the end of the day, the majority of people that enroll in this program are kicked out. and they are left not only with their savings depleted, which is bad enough that a government program strings people along for that, but it also ruins their credit rating because this government program only verbally modifies their loan terms. in the end, you have folks that have depleted their savings, ruined their credit, and lost their house. and this is a federal government program paid for by the american people's tax dollars. it is an abject failure and worse than that it's destroying people's lives. i would ask my colleagues to vote for this rule.

it allows for a number of amendments, some of which are wise, others i think are very flawed from my colleagues across the aisle. but this hamp program, we have to come to a consensus on it. this -- all the folks that oversee this, nonpartisan, bipartisan, have all looked at this and described it as a failure. so if we can't eliminate this government program, then i ask my colleagues, what government programs can we eliminate? vote for the rule. and please ask my colleagues to vote for the hamp termination act as well. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. clarke. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. clarke: you're right.

it's all about debt. debt. our homeowners, they are very concerned about debt. it may not be the federal debt that their grandchildren may have to pay decades from now, but it's definitely that mortgage payment that's due next month, that's the debt that our homeowners cannot afford to pay. so here's what i'm asking this congress to do. hold off on cutting back on these foreclosure initiatives before we directly help our homeowners. we can help them in a way that won't cost much more money. as a matter of fact, let's give homeowners something that they typically don't have when they are facing foreclosure, and that's time. time, time to find a home buyer to pay off their mortgage. time to get more income to pay off their bills. and most importantly, the time and the leverage to voluntarily

negotiate with a mortgage servicer that typically will keep losing their loan modification papers until the homeowner runs out of time. time. i'm asking this congress to first do this. freeze all foreclosures to those homeowners who deserve the help. and who can afford to stay in their homes and maintain their homes. that's the best way to stop our property values from dropping. from providing the revenue that our police officers and firefighters and emergency medical providers definitely need. and finally the best way to help -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clarke: by providing time to our homeowners. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: i would like to ask if i could the time remaining on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from colorado has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i'd like to notify my friend, the

gentleman from colorado, that i do have additional speakers, but we have an inequality in time that's remaining. i don't know if the gentleman would like to run down that time where we have an equal distribution. mr. polis: we do have several speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: it's my honor to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. hirono: i thank the gentleman from colorado for the time. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 861, the neighborhood stabilization program termination act, n.s.p. we keep hearing from the other side about wasteful government spending. nothing represents wasteful government spending more than the continuing billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money that we give to big oil, which is making record profits. this bill continues the republican assault on the middle class and working people. for the sake of our communities, we cannot afford to terminate

n.s.p. by redeveloping foreclosed and abandoned properties, this program is stablizing neighborhoods nationwide. it's not only increases property values but reduces the number of foreclosures. n.s.p. provides a lifeline to struggling families trying to secure affordable housing or simply staying in their homes. like the rest of the country hawaii has a foreclosure crisis. we rank 10th in the nation in the rate of foreclosures. the 19.6 million n.s.b. funding is helping our communities in the greatest need throughout my state. the city and county of honolulu will use these funds to redevelop i he have a can't properties and build two affordable rental housing projects. in hawaii county an affordable rental housing project will be built on vacant property. in the counties of maui and kauai, funds will be used to buy and rehabilitate abandoned other foreclosed homes.

they can see this is money that is not represented as wasteful. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas continues to reserve. mr. sessions: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you. it's my honor to dwreeled 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, as we began this week, there were 15 million unemployed americans looking for this congress to work together to try to get something done for entrepreneurs and small businesses to create jobs. what has the congress done? yesterday the majority managed only with the help of a few dozen democrats to keep the government running for the next three weeks but they couldn't agree among them selves as to what to do with the budget. today they are taking up this bill that rather than fixing a flawed program, they rip it up

from the roots and throw it out. tomorrow they are going to pull the plug on national public radio. now, i would suggest if you are like some of those 15 million americans who are spending the day at the public library in front of monster.com, or looking at the want ads in the newspaper, wearing out your shoe leather to figure out where your next job is going to come from, this has not been a great week. 11 weeks the majority's been in control, no jobs bill. no jobs plan. no jobs idea, not one word, not one bill, not one minute. the priorities of this majority are wrong. republicans and democrats should come together, work together to create an environment where small businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs for the american people. 11 weeks, no jobs, no sense of priorities, that's the record of this majority. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas.

mr. sessions: i was just reminded by the gentleman, mr. mica, the favorite son of florida, who is the chairman of our transportation infrastructure committee, that the gentleman, mr. andrews, had referred to, we have done nothing about jobs, but the gentleman, mr. mica, is chairman of the committee reminded me this house passed two weeks ago a transportation bill that had been lagging, waiting since 2009 that will add a substantial number of jobs. and that was a good jobs bill. so i wouldn't expect to get credit for anything necessarily on the floor, but at least we need to be honest about this. the republicans did pass a bill that was about adding jobs as opposed to this massive undertaking we are trying to save jobs that are at risk as a result of the outlandish spending and wasteful government spending here. mr. andrews: will the gentleman yield? mr. sessions: i've got a few minutes and i do appreciate the gentleman.

secondly, the gentleman said, why are republicans now trying to get rid of this? why did we do something to fix the program? i would remind the american people that this is a report that went to the secretary of the treasury over a year ago. and i would ask the question, why did the democrats, why did this administration continue a failed program? why did they continue it? that's because they were happy with it. . so they have a failure rate and thousands more harmed. that's why republicans support it. this is a great bill, we're going to ask every single person to vote for this opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i agree with my

friend from texas that investing in transportation creating jobs and i would ask the gentleman if he would support the build america bill that offsets the deficit by cutting job outsources and creates more construction jobs. would he agree to put that on the floor? mr. sessions: when it's on the floor, i'll consider it. mr. andrews: we'll give the gentleman a chance next week. mr. polis: i yield myself 30 seconds to respond. the one bill the gentleman from texas has pointed to as a jobs bill is one bill that contains many, many earmarks from previous sessions, also continues funning for the bridge to nowhere in alaska. if this is the best jobs bill the republicans can bring forward, the american people deserve better. i yield to the gentlelady from alabama, ms. wolf.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. sewell: the stabilization program has helped families and communities in alabama's seventh con fwregsal district greatly. the nation is recovering from one of the worst recessions in our lifetime. in my district, the problems began long before the rest of the cupry experienced. the foe closures devastated homeowners, they have a debilitating effect on the neighborhoods, leading to blight derek kay and reduced property values. the n.f.c. program provides states and hard-hit cities with program funding to help them recover from the effects of foreclosure, abandoned properties and declining property values. the city of birmingham, jefferson county in the state of alabama has received funding from this program. in my district, it's revitalized 250 -- 259 homes,

relocated 69 families and saved at least nine distressed neighborhoods. in speaking recently with the mayor of the city of birmingham, mayor bell, about the effectiveness of the program, he informed me the program has benefited greatly distressed neighborhoods in birmingham. i have also heard from families whose neighborhoods have been improved because of the funding. my colleagues across the aisle want to terminate n.s.p. but i respectfully disagree. there is still much work to be done for our families and communities. without a doubt, we must reduce our national budget and congress must work together to make the tough cuts. however, such cuts cannot be made on the backs of our communities, families and seniors. i respectfully ask to terminate -- i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. sessions: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado.

mr. polis: i'd like to yield the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, one and a half minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, and my friends on both sides of the aisle, we could very easily come up with money to save this program if we put a wind fall profits tax on the oil companies. i'm here today to point out the critical importance of the neighborhood stabilization program and urge my fellow members to vote against canceling it. over the past decade, the people of my state in ohio have weathered a storm of foe clore -- foreclosures. while some neighborhoods have been hollowed out by the effects of the storm, the neighborhood stabilization funds made communities safer. those communities face the constant risk of crime and vandals taking advantage of empty structuring and

neighborhood stabilization have been used to demolish abandoned homes to protect existing home values. but the neighborhood stabilization program does not just finance demolition. in one county alone it funded the creation of 237 units of affordable rental housing and neighborhood green space improvements. it's been used to leverage nonfederal fun to -- money to fund the land bank that buys abandoned land and puts the land back in the hands of the public to renew and revitalize community. anyone who has spent time in blighted communities knows they cry out for sloughs like the land bank. when the n.s.p. was first proposed i held hearings and i convinced them of the wisdom of the wisdom of using u.s. postal records on abandoned houses and

they developed a need-based formally. mr. sessions: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: it's my honor to yield one minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: we are facing a c.r. of $61 billion in cuts causing the loss of 800,000 jobs. what is more precious to america han the opportunity to own a home? the neighborhood stabilization program has gone into areas and recaptured neighborhoods, giving them a boost of energy that they needed. there is always the opportunity to for reform, mr. speaker. but i would simply raise the question, let's mend it, don't end it. let's not leave cities abandoned with broken down, shackled homes. that would in fact create more blight, more gang opportunities, more dangerous conditions and yes, hamp needs reform. but what does it mean to eliminate a program?

of course the hamp has a grandfather provision but all america wants is to get the programs to work. neighborhood stabilization works. hamp can work. now you're letting banks off the hook so that every day a homeowner calls and can hear the sound foreclosed. at least the intervention allowed those hardworking americans to keep their home and to provide for their family and keep jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: it's my honor to yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. cicilline: i rise in strong on opposition to end the neighborhood stabilization program. it's time to seriously question the republican leadership's dedication to job creation. after 11 weeks in congress, they offer nod jobs plan no jobs bill. what's worse, but their own

ex-pet witnesses' testimony, the n.s.p. supports 93,000 jobs nationally. in light of this estimate, i submit an amendment to the n.s.p. termination act that would require the congressional budget office to study and report to the congress the impact of this legislation on job creation or job loss. however, my friends on the other side of the aisle prevented consideration of my amendment on the floor of the house. last week, the republicans waged an attack on american home oners by voting to eliminate foreclosure mitigation programs that help under water homeowners refinance mortgages. as well as assist temporarily unemployed americans to remain current on their mortgage. all of this in the midst of one of the worst housing crises in the history of america. now the republicans are putting our most vulnerable communities at greater risk, terminating the neighborhood stabilization program will daniel our neighborhoods, devastate home values and will slow our economic recovery. now is the time to protect our

most vulnerable neighborhoods. families who are struggling and now is the time to invest in the future of our communities and help restore the american dream of homeowner -- home ownership and recognize that stabilization of the housing market is key to our economic recovery. i urge us to vote against this bill. i've seen the program work well and it's making a difference. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: my friends and colleagues are talking about no jobs bill, nothing about jobs, but at least there's a purist on the floor and that is, there was one democrat in the house voted against the republican jobs bill, transportation bill, mr. polis. i would think that he would have great standing on saying we've never had a bill that added jobs. but everybody else i'd have to question that because they voted for the bill because in fact it's a good jobs bill. i reserve think him. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. with regard to the jobs bill, i acknowledge that was the bill that my colleague from texas cited as the one jobs bill the republicans have brought before us and this was a bill that had dozens and dozens of earmarks which is why i'm standing with president obama opposing that bill, including an indefensible earmark which we proposed an amendment on the floor which was voted down to eliminate funding for what i thought there was broad consensus we should eliminate funding for a $300 million bridge in alaska, a $70 million bridge to an island with 50 people. this is an example of pork barrel politics at their worst. i'm beginning to think if the republicans do come up with a jobs bill, we immediate to ask them what price jobs? is it so filled with republican pork we have to either take it or leave it?

i'll be the first to amendment we can improve hamp and the neighborhood stabilization program. i would say we should be doing exactly -- exactly that my colleague from michigan, mr. clark, had excellent ideas of improving it. i'm a co-sponsor of a bill to provide for capital gains tax exemption for banks to shore up their balance sheets why not look at allowing investment properties with the same deductibilities as primary residences. i'm sure members on both sides of the aisle could discuss and agree on these ideas. but the answer isn't to repeal one of the only tool we was and to replace it with silence. it's my honor to yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. ryan: i thank the gentleman. i want to use an example here from a district in northeast ohio, old industrial district, we've had chronic foreclosures for 30 years. the census just came out, the

city of youngstown went from 180,000 people down to about 65,000 people. the tax base has been eroded. and in the last few years, youngstown has been cited as one of the top 10 best cities to start a business by entrepreneur -- by "entrepreneur" magazine, "site selection" magazine said it's one of the top 10 cities to start or grow a business. in part the renaissance of youngstown is because of federal investments like this that help us downsize and shrink our community. i find it ironic that our friends trying to redice golvet spending, we're trying to get rid of dilapidated housing where it increases crime, prostitution, drug use. this all puts more pressure on the safety services within the town like youngstown. so this bill to repeal this

money is actually going to cost cities and rural areas more money because you're not allowing us to reinvest into these places, downsize them, shrink them, make them more manageable and over time reduce the tax burden on the local taxpayer. these are critical investments that are needed in the united states of america, this billion-dollar -- this billion dollars of should have been $5 billion, not just $1 billion. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, if it worked that way, we'd be for it. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: it's my honor to yield -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. ryan: i invite the gentleman from youngstown, ohio, and he can see it himself. mr. polis: i yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman

from colorado, mr. perlmutter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. perlmutter: i thank my friend from colorado. i'd invite my friend from texas to come to aurora, colorado, where we've, with the neighborhood stabilization program, had tremendous successes. this country was on its back financially two years ago. two and a half years ago. we're just now getting back on our feet. my friends from the republican side of the aisle want to pull the rug out from under us. you've got to get strong before you do away with programs. let's talk about aurora, colorado. got $4.7 million to buy homes that were vacant because of foreclosures which were causing blight and lots of property devaluation. went in, fixed the homes, sold them to good families. the neighborhood starts growing again. aurora has taken that $4.7 million and turned it into $7.8 million by the sales of these

properties. so the neighborhoods get strengthened, families are helped, we stop this cycle of foreclosure and tough neighborhoods. my friends on the republican side of the aisle are blaming all sorts of things for the debt that have nothing to do with it and they're taking away things that are really helping middle america. i urge mem to -- them to rethink this bill and i ask my friend from colorado, i know he's seen these same things, the benefits of these programs. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: i assure the gentleman aisle be in aurora, colorado, i'll be pleased to be there this year and probably next year also. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. . mr. polis: i'm the last speaker for my side, i would like to inquire if any additional speakers have shown up for your side. mr. sessions: i appreciate asking. i am through with all my remarks.

i would encourage the gentleman to close. i appreciate the collegiality of the gentleman. mr. polis:00 i -- mr. polis: i yield myself the remader of the time. i want to share a few stories from constituents in my district that the hamp program has helped. i'm not alone in doing that. last year i had a local artist who ran her own small business, contact my office asking for help with her mortgage. her income has declined significantly and unexpectedly due to the tough economy. she tried to find a second job. it wasn't enough. with the help of the hamp loan modification she's still in her home. we also helped the truck driver who had become ill and needed dialysis. although he still receives social security, he couldn't afford his mortgage payments without his old salary. he had nowhere else to turn, with a hamp modification he was able to lower his interest rates by 2% and convert his loan from adjustable rate to 30-year fixed. mr. speaker, the stories don't end there. hamp has proven that it can save families on the brink of

foreclosure and keep them there for the long haul. it's not the ideal program. it hasn't reached the three million families. you ask any of those 500,000 families that hamp has helped keep in their home and they will agree this program works for them. mr. speaker, we should be would he fuss kg on -- focusing on jobs. last year i'm glad to say our economy added over 150,000 private sector jobs. we have been passing legislation that threatens to reverse the progress that has been made by creating additional uncertainty within the real estate sector an leaving more families at risk of losing their homes. republicans promised to promote job creation and economic growth with their new majority instead of delivering on this promise, they have already used their majority to raise taxes on middle class americans, to attack the middle class, and promote their own social agenda. this is not the change that the american people asked for. it is time to get our fiscal house in order. i'd like to make it clear this is not the way to solve our budget problems. repealing a program that helps

keep middle class families in their home. mr. speaker, the best way to get our deficit under control is through creating jobs. not through cutting the safety net of hardworking mernts and preventing our cities and counties from revitalizing their blighted neighborhoods. most distressing, however, is that through these bills the promise of job creation is broken yet again. i ask my colleagues to join me and vote no on this rule and the underlying legislation. so we can keep our promise to help all of our communities rebuild and succeed and work in a bipartisan fashion to get the very best ideas on the table. about what our proper public policy response should be with regard to the housing crisis and the jobs crisis that this nation faces. i ask for a no vote on the rule and underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: i want to thank the gentleman from colorado for not only engaging in a spirited debate here on the floor, but also for his collegiality in that endeavor.

mr. speaker, this nation is being overrun by two -- still by two high taxation, borrow, and spending. just last month we hit a record deficit $223 billion in one month. that is simply unacceptable. with the debt looming at over $14 trillion and unemployment hovering still around 9%, americans want solutions not handouts. and that is why we are here on the floor today to protect the taxpayer and the integrity, i think, of the government rather than creating more problems, at least trying to alleviate some of those and give the taxpayer back some money. the american people asked congress to rein in spending and for efficiency and that's what republicans are here to do today. we did this in open process where every member of this body had a chance through regular order to prepare themself and to come to the floor today. since republicans have gained the majority in january, we have cut $1.2 trillion worth of

spending. first of all by repealing obamacare, secondly cutting $61 billion in h.r. 1, $8 billion last week in additional unnecessary government housing programs. another $30 billion with this rule today. we are getting our job done. by getting control of government spending, eliminating wasteful government handouts, the private sector can again gain confidence in our economy and the direction of the future of this country to begin investing in jobs and our economic future. after all, we finally decided last year that what we would do is extend tax cuts which will help save jobs and grow our economy. i applaud my colleagues for introducing the bills we are discussing here today. in just a few minutes you'll see the chairman of the financial services committee or his designee lead that discussion through lots of amendments, lots of ideas by members. i want to thank the young chairman of the rules committee,

the gentleman from california, david dreier, for providing us such a great open and transparent process. i encourage a yes vote on the rule and perhaps more importantly on the resolution. we yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back and moves the previous question. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the

for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2

of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 16, 2011, at 11:08 a.m., that the senate agreed to, senate joint resolution 7, senate joint resolution 8, senate joint resolution 9. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker. house of representatives, sir. this is to notify you normally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the district court of maryland for baltimore county to appear as a witness in the criminal trial of a third party who contacted congressman john p. sarbanes' office. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedents and

privileges of the house. signed, sincerely, margaret stephenson, former constituent services representative, office of representative john p. sarbanes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? miss biggerert: mr. speaker, i -- mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 861 and to insert extraneous material thereon. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 170 and rule 18, the chair declares the house now in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 861. the chair appoints the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. bass, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 861, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to rescind a third-round ever funding for the neighborhood stabilization program and to terminate the program. the chair: pursuant to the rule,

the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 861, the neighborhood stabilization program termination act. and i commend my colleague, mr. miller, for introducing this bill that would end n.s.p. as i mentioned during debate on the rule for this bill, congress has appropriated $7 billion for n.s.p. this bill would save taxpayers up to $1 billion. instead of stabilizing neighborhoods, n.s.p. allowed lenders and servicers to off load their investments to taxpayers. some critics point to the hazard of n.s.b. which may speed up foreclosures for families. if the lenders and servicers

know that they can quickly sell a property to a nonprofit or local government with n.s.p. funds, why wouldn't they do this? why wouldn't they simply evict the homeowner instead of doing a proprietary private sector funded modification of the mortgage that would allow the homeowner to keep his home? this program does not help homeowners before disclosure. the bottom line is it's the lenders and services due to foreclosure not the taxpayers, with you these same lenders and servicers are responsible for the upkeep, security, and eventual sale of that home. why should the taxpayer pay for that responsibility which rightly belongs to the lender or servicer? they shouldn't. the g.a.o., hud inspector general, and other auditers, noted the program is plagued with problems including lax reporting retirements and poor accountability. there is no evidence to suggest that funds spent through n.s.p. have produced cost-effective

results. finally, upon the sale of a property, n.s.p. does not require the groups to return the profit to the taxpayer. the money is treated like a slush fund. this money is never returned to the taxpayer or stay with the local governments and nonprofit entities. of course any group would support keeping the prospects of homes sold instead of returning it to the taxpayer. who wouldn't? we need to break down barriers that have delayed recovery in the housing market expensive government programs like n.s.p. we need to stop funding programs that don't work with noney we don't have. n.s.p. doesn't save neighborhoods, it allows a few homes scattered here and there to be purchased, rehabilitated, and resold. upon the sale the money is never returned to the taxpayer. we are facing a $14.1 trillion national debt instead of damaging our economic recovery and stifling job growth. we have been warned economists say if we don't address our debt

within a couple years we could end up bankrupt. like greece. economists also agree we must reduce our out-of-control government spending to create a more favorite environment for private sector job growth. unemployed americans and homeowners need a job and a paycheck. not a handout or another failed taxperde program. with that ieser the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield three minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes -- the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. lynch: thank you. i do want to point out the neighborhood stabilization program that we are talking about here today isn't just dealing with foreclosures. as we all know in this country, there have been pockets where the foreclosure phenomenon and the wave of foreclosures and

property abandonment has been concentrated. i have an area like that in my district in the area of brockton, massachusetts. but i can point to other areas across this country, what the neighborhood stabilization program allows is for cooperation between communities, banks, lenders, homeowners, and servicers to either preserve homeownership or in areas across this country such as in illinois and nevada, california, florida where thousands of -- and thousands of units have been abandoned in one concentrated area, it allows us to address those abandoned properties where the lender has taken a walk, the homeowner has taken a walk, the servicer has taken a walk, and the surrounding community of homeowners who are trying to stay in their homes are having first of all their property

values lowered because of the density of abandoned properties in their neighborhood, this neighborhood stabilization program provides the only opportunity for us to address that crisis. we are trying to put a floor under the housing market in this country. some of us are. and this is one program that allows us to do that. so i rise in opposition to this bill. i ask that we rethink this idea about eliminating the full voluntary programs that we've got to support housing and to support families that are in a tough spot right now. and i just urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill and to try to preserve the neighborhood stabilization program. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the

gentleman from new york, a member of the financial services committee. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, chairman. i rise today to supportsn' do w it's supposed to do. this is exactly why i came to congress. this bill hurts struggling homeowners. it doesn't help them because it gives some type of perverse incentive for the banks to foreclose. because that's what this progra mr. grim: it's reckless, it's dollars. it really ends up being nothing more than another bailout. that's the last thing that we need is another bailout. need is another bailout. and it's a double hit to the taxpayer. why? very simple. because when the city or municipality purchases this home

, that means there's no taxes paid. and the argument is there's no taxes being paid now because it's abandoned. that's not true. because there's something called a tax lean and the private sector at some point will buy that tax lien and that municipality will get its incentive. for many, many reasons this bill is failing. it does not follow through on the intent. and we must stop the out-of-control reckless spending, and this is exactly where we need to start. this type of program. $1 billion of hardworking taxpayer dollars. let's end the bailouts. let's stop and remember that the answer to everything is not the government. often it's the government that's the problem. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: mr. chairman, i yield myself 40 secondstod for the ci every organization representing cities and counties and local governments and development agencies disagree was him. they have written to us and asked us to support this program

because he is simply wrong about the tax implications. under general leave i will submit it for the record. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. baca. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. baca: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding. today we are here again not to discuss any piece of legislation that will create jobs, but to eliminate a program that helps communities across the country. i state, communities that help across the country. the neighborhood stabilizing program allows local government to purchase, rehab, and sell foreclosure properties. without these programs, houses would stay empty, and i say would stay mft empty so we would have to -- stay empty so we would have to look to other neighborhoods. neighborhoods would be forced to use their own funds for legal fees. any empty properties also force communities to adjust and deal with the missing tax revenue.

i say missing tax revenue at a time we need the additional revenue within our communities. a lot has been made about my colleagues on the other side about one particular group that receives n.s.p. funds. chicano por la casa. what if it was another name. it doesn't matter. because it has the name the stereotypes are there. it's about programs doing good not because of the name. chi canos por la casa has unmatched records for providing affordable housing, stabilizing neighborhoods, and serving the needs of low-income communities. they offer a broad range of programs and services and serve over 1,000 clients each year, many who live below the federal poverty, which a family of four is only 22,000. in 2009, the chi canos led the application for a group of 13 members of the national association of latino communities asset builders.

together this group received over 1830 million in n.s.p. funds and put this money to use in projects like california where we have a high deficit. arizona and 16 other states. instead of looking out for wall street, instead of looking out for wall street and protecting the banks that caused the crisis, and i say that caused the crisis, n.s.p. awards its funding to invest in mainstream. this award represents one of the largest single federal investments ever made that target latinos and low-income communities. the same communities that have seen a higher rate of foreclosure and unemployment than the national average. i would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go to the communities with chicanos, hispanic, or latinos and parents spend their money. instead of using this tunnel vision, i say this tunnel vision, solely looking at the

numbers, i would ask my friends to look at the actual work that is done in the communities and how those communities have improved and have gotten better. it's time to stop letting partisan talking points set the agenda for our government. it's time we start focusing on programs, i say it's time we start focusing on programs like n.s.p. and the chicanos por la casa get back on their feet. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, the sponsor of this bill, and the chairman of the subcommittee, financial services, on international monetary policy and trade, mr. miller. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i enjoyed the comments of my good friend, mr. baca, i have some correspondentence that might interest him. according to the county offices, there is no one that would support current n.s.p. programs,

period. the letters of support did not come from from the county, one of the hardest hit, it might have supported the current n.s.p., but this is before they fell victim to complete lack of direction from h.u.d., mixed messages from h.u.d., and growth misallocation of awards that were released. . it says, quote, we believe it is a means for congress to get its financial house in order just like the challenges we are facing at the local level. mr. baca made a very nice written speech but his own county that he represents does not support the program. the problem we have in -- i was disappointed that a group called chicanos por la casa was mentioned. let me mention the numbers. this n.s.p. was supposed to be a one-time program. now, the allocations apply. the problems i had when you look at a county the size of los angeles, county, they have

$23.6 million. sbernsbern -- san bernardino's county, mr. baca's county, got millions of dollars. san diego got $5.1 million. now, all of these counties had to apply davis-bacon rules and wage standards to rehab these houses which meant it cost 25% more to do it than what the private sector could have done on a competitive bidding nature. now, my good friend, mr. baca, mentioned one group as if i had something against chicanos. the problem i have is that nongovernment agencies such as neighborhood lending partners got $50 million. $50 million. the community builders inc. got $78.6 million. los angeles neighborhood housing services, inc., got $60 million. neighborhood lending partners of west florida, incorporated, got $50 million. chicanos por la casa got $137

million. understand l.a. county got $26.3 million. san bernardino county got $33.2 million. orange county got $4.3 million. san diego county got $4.5 million. the largest population base in california got less money than chicanos por la casa. does that make anybody in america happy? mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. miller: yes. mr. frank: does the gentleman not mention that chicanos por la casa -- mr. miller: had it been for italians for housing i would oppose it. had it for others i would oppose it. understand that these are taxpayer dollars from people who lost their houses, people who are behind in their payments, people who are facing foreclosure and none of this money does one thing to happen you. it was not an equitable

allocation based on who got money and how they got it. in fact, a lot of these private groups right -- write off 17% off the top for overhead and other costs. 17%. now, we talked about banks. when we lent banks the money in tarp 1 we paid interest. fannie and freddie, we're charging them 10% interest and they have to pay us back and the american people are angry because of that. we gave away $51 million, $60 million to another. and as my friend, joe baca, said chicanos por la casa got $100 million. we are not charging you interest. we gave you money. now, are we helping housing in this country? housing sales fell for the lowest levels since 1959. 11.8% fall in single family.

47% in multifamily tell me one thing this has done that has not kept one person in their house. now, let's assume this is supposed to be helping poor people buy houses. you just lost your house. in hawaii a person making $73,825 can buy a house through these organizations. a person in california making over $48,000 can buy a house. a group in virginia, $74,000. new jersey, $78,000. massachusetts, $72,000. alaska, $76,000. colorado, $73,000. new hampshire, $79,000. so a group, an entity, a county, a city can buy a house. they have to sell it for less than they have in it and they can sell it for less than the person buying the house. how does that help poor people? it does nothing for poor people. now, let's talk about jobs. if we invested $1 billion in

the construction industry to buy houses you would have gotten $2.8 -- mrs. biggert: i yield the gentleman another two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: if you invested $1 billion you would have generated $2.8 billion in equities. $5 million in wages. $166 million in corporate profit. $1.9 billion for goods and services. it's huge. if we are talking about jobs, let's create jobs. now, they say we have had no alternative to what they did. in 2008 i endorsed a bill and introduced it called the public-private partnership community stabilization act. it took government dollars and invested in the private groups to do the same thing, to buy houses that were foreclosed upon and rehand in the communities. and when the house -- rehand in the communities. and when -- rehabbed in the communities. and when the houses were sold,

we wouldn't have made a dime doing it the same way. now, the other side talks about abandoned houses. this can't be used for eminent domain. so either the houses can't be limited to eminent domain. so to say they can't rehab it themselves is ludicrous because the house has to be for sale. now, this group can go on and buy the house, demolish it and end up with a vacant lot. they can go out, rehab it, sell it for $1, $10, any amount they want to sell it to anybody they want to sell it to as long as they have it for less than they have in it. i have a bill that mr. frank co-sponsored. he thought it was good for them to take foreclosed properties and lease it for five years. allow banks to take the properties, rehab it, put it on the marketplace, lease it out for five years. would have done the same things. and perhaps banks would not have driven the marketplace

down on resales because they would have gut it had for foreclosures. we could have leased them. in five years when the market turned around they could have sold them. they could have a lease option to stay in the house for five years and buy it back at the end of five years. it would have at least helped foreclosed projects. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself 30 second. the gentleman wouldn't allow me to mention, chicanos por la casa, which he keeps invoking, and it's an inflammatory way. yes, it has $107 million in eight states. comparing it to one county is quite misleading. it is $137 million to an organization that has eight states in which it works and which has produced affordable housing units. and as to his agent that it's not for the poor people, almost all of the groups in this country that advocate for housing for low-income groups

have sent us a letter urging that this go forward, habitat for humanity and others. i take them more credible than my friend. i yield 60 seconds now to the gentleman from indiana. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. carson: we must not forget about our neighborhoods and continue to help those areas that are still struggling to come back. that is why i am appalled at the efforts to terminate the neighborhood stabilization program. in my own district of indianapolis, the neighborhood of mapleton fall creek has been revitalized with n.s.p. funds. what was once eye soar -- sores are now magnet for crime. these improvements have encouraged low and middle-income residents to sell. new businesses have opened.

this has all been possible because of n.s.p. funding. we must continue this program for the neighborhoods in indianapolis and across this great nation. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: i seem to have hit a nerve to my good friends on the other side. chicanos por la casa. it's not who it went to. if it was germans for affordable housing. it's $137 million that i object to going to a group that is nongovernment entity, that has the money that we will not get back. and we keep talking about letters of support. now, if you are a city, a county or you're one of these nonprofit groups that receive the money, you would have been an absolute hypocrite to take the money and not send the letter saying thank you to the money. the money is well spent because you gave me the money to spend it. nobody wouldn't take money they wouldn't want to take. mrs. biggert: i yield --

the chair: the gentlelady -- mrs. biggert: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new mexico. the chair: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for three minutes. mr. pearce: the program has been ill-fated from the start. it has been plagued with problems. we've been given almost $7 billion into a program into a program that hasn't worked. h.u.d. was slow in getting the money out the door. poor reporting has harpered our ability to even measure what's been happening on the program. further, the n.s.p. simply acts as a taxpayer bailout for risky lenders, servicers and real estate speculators who bet on the housing market and now they can't sell their properties. it's become an even bigger example of those people who believe that the government is the solution to the problems. government is not the solution to the problem. government is the problem.

we are spending $3.5 trillion in our annual government spending, and we're bringing in $2.2 trillion. next year we're going to have a deficit of $1.6 trillion, and it is composed of programs exactly like this, programs that do no good, that don't really cause the market to cure itself, and instead taxpayers pay the bill for those that have been speculating and those who just want out. i had a person in my office who talked about his situation in his house in tucson. he got in higher than it should have been. he was willing to sell for a lesser amount. because the bank could go to the government and make up the difference, they did not have to negotiate with this individual homeowner. instead, this program causes

lenders to say the taxpayer will make us whole and we are not going to take our losses. the market will cure the problems that we face if we allow the market to work. but this government program does not allow the government to work. this nation is dying for jobs and it is government spending, government regulation and government taxation that are causing the jobs to be killed and to be sent out of this country. if we will get our foe us correct on lowering tax -- focus correct on lowering we would begin to create jobs for the first time in a long time. with 9% unemployment, it is time for us to cure the problems of the economy, to quit spending on wasteful programs and give this economy a leg up on prosperity. that is the thing we're missing right now, the hope for prosperity for the middle class is gone and if is because of

programs like this soaking the taxpayer and giving money to people who probably could do something different. it is not fixing up any neighborhood. i don't see the reports in any magazine or newspaper telling us the flock of people moving to these rehabilitated neighborhoods. in fact, mr. chairman, i rise to express support for h.r. 861 and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself 15 seconds. the gentleman says he's not singling out chicanos por la casa. there are other private organizations. he accident mention them. he says it's not a government entity. that's right. we think places like habitat for humanity and others have a role to play. i yield three minutes to the former mayor of sumpterville, massachusetts, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. capuano. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

mr. capuano: i hear we have a deficit and we have to deal with it. that is a fair and reasonable point to make. however, it is not a fair and reasonable approach towards the problem to begin the programs like this. we can't talk about what's spending in the iraq war. we can't talk about money that's spent in the defense department. let me be clear about what this program is. i'm a former mayor. and a strong mayor, former governor. we get a fair amount of state and federal money. we use our own money on occasion to buy and rehabilitate properties. sometimes it meant knocking it down. sometimes it meant making a recreational area. sometimes it meant building a school. whatever it might be to improve a neighborhood. and to say this money is not improving neighborhoods is to be blind. there are stories all over the country of where improvements are being made. i'm not going to argue that every single penny of this program or any other program has been perfectly well spent.

that would be crazy. i have no problem at all looking at this program or any other program to come up with things we don't like, to change the rules as to who might be eligible tomorrow and on and on. i am not going to defend one group or any formula. those are legitimate things to argue about. but to say that the program doesn't work, and this is where we should start addressing our deficit thing, i think is to be shortsighted. it also says to me, if you don't like the program, then, that's fine. then i strongly suggest that anyone that doesn't like the program, pick up the phone to their mayor, to their county administer, to their governor -- administrator, to their governor and say, send the money back. every state in this country has money. california has gotten over $886 million. now, that's not -- if you don't want it, send it back. massachusetts only got $106 million. . if you don't want it, send it

back. nevada, a smaller state than massachusetts, gets almost as much money because they get harder than we did in this economy. to argue that a few problems you have -- i'm not even going to suggest i agree or don't agree, points are well made. if you don't want any entity to get $137 million, fine. let's talk about it. let's say they don't do it. that's not a problem. if you want to say we have to change about how this money is being used, fine. let's limit it. no problem. but to pretend that a neighborhood, any neighborhood, is well served by ignoring boarded up properties, saying walk away from your home and business, and the neighborhood will be tougher without you, is shortsighted and wrong. and to pretebbed that somehow because we are giving this money away that is an inherent evil in and of itself, ignores all the grants that this government gives away. that other governments give

away. not just in housing but in research in any number of fields. and again if you want to cut out all grants, fine. that is a reasonable and consistent argument. but you are also going to have to cut out tax credits because we g.e.f. out billions of dollars -- because we give out billions of dollars in federal tax credit dollars that do the same thing in housing. fix the problem, fix it. if you want to turn your back on neighborhoods, go ahead and do that, but not with my help. the chair: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i appreciate my good friend admitting we are giving the money away, because we are. i struck a nerve for some reason everybody keeps brings bringing up chicano por la casa. we gave $1.3 billion away for government entities, and this one entity got 10% of all the nongovernment funding that went out. nobody's mentioned i mentioned

other groups that got 50 million, 60 each. i mentioned those. what did h.u.d. say about the money? when i quizzed h.u.d., the quote was, the money is going to homeowners and american citizens, end quote. the problem i have with this, how do you feel about the people who lost the home? you got a family, they put money into the home. the last couple years have been tough. they couldn't repair the plumbing, replace the appliances, broken window, couldn't paint the house bass their house was in foreclosure. they lost that house. now, we are spending $7 billion and we have not helped one person in this country remain a homeowner. if your house is going into foreclosure, you are going to lose it. and these dollars are going to be spent to rehab your house and sell it to somebody else. wake up, america. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california.

ms. waters: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, it's amazing to me we are here at this time when we have seen four million foreclosures across america, perhaps seven million. we have seen neighborhoods devastated. and instead of the majority caucus offering solutions to this foreclosure crisis, instead of them coming forth and saying, you know what, here's what we think we need to do for the american people to stay in their homes, all they want to do is destroy what democrats have done. it's amazing. it's really something that i hope the american people pay very close attention to. the gentleman on the other end says that, look, somebody's going to buy the house that you lost in foreclosure. if we can be successful with programs like the neighborhood stabilization program, we will

create an environment where people will not lose their homes because the value of their homes will not plummet, they will not end up under water, and people will have somewhere they can live and neighborhood they can be proud of. but because the republican caucus is making itself abundantly clear, i think it needs to be clear to the american people whose side we are on. democrats are on the side of the american people to stay in their homes, the republican caucus is on the side of throwing people out and foreclosing on americans. it's a sad, sad day in our congress. we are in the middle of an enormous debate on the proper role of government. we believe the proper role of government is to have fair rules. to have real enforcement of our financial regulations. to have real consumer protection, and to interconvenient when people's neighborhoods are being destroyed by foreclosure. and the republicans say you are on your own. the market has all the answers. the market answers every question. well, it doesn't answer every

question, especially when the market doesn't have many cops on the beat and when you let the people engage in all sorts of in fairous practices that cause the economic conditions we are in today. the republican caucus was in power when the regulation that led to this destrucks were in place and they did nothing. when the democrats got in charge, we solved it and now they are trying to disassemble it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: at this time i would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from alabama, the chairman of the financial services committee, mr. bachus. for four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for four minutes. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. chair. i would like to address two of the things that the minority has raised. one is they have talked about fairness. and i will tell you that there's nothing 235eur-r fair about this program. -- nothing fair about this

program. it's an unfarr program. it's unfair for -- unfair program. it's unfair for most americans. the second thing is foreclosures. this program causes foreclosures. this program encourages foreclosures. this program promotes foreclosures. let's talk about the foreclosures first and then we'll talk about fair. what does this program do? does it prevent foreclosures? no. it encourages foreclosures. it allows nonprofits, community organizations, and cities and counties to buy foreclosed properties. in other words, to create a market for foreclow closed -- for foreclosed properties. the minority supplied us with two pictures of two of these properties. this is the one in baltimore, maryland. this was one of two. i think the other one was in los angeles as i recall. this is the property. now, just like all these

properties, it's not owned by a homeowner. there's no homeowner there. it's owned by a bank. or real estate speculator. it might have been somebody that put someone in this house with what we call an exploding loan. put someone in that house that couldn't afford it. so what do we do? we construct a program that says to this bank that owns this property, is tage taxes to the government on this -- paying taxes to the government on this property, we don't say tear this down. or we don't say we are going to condemn it and convert it. and we are going to get it with no charge. no, we buy it. now, is that right? you said the banks caused this, the lenders. we ought to do what -- we ought to penalize those at fault. well, how does penalizing a

lender who made a loan on this property, how is writing them a check, how is that fair? no, it's not. this is a bailout for lenders and speculators. now, is it fair? is it fair to our grandchildren and children? $4 billion every day that goes out of our treasury. more than we bring in. $4 billion a day. in fact, the deficit for february was 230-something billion dollars. now, every day, talk about fairness, and i've quoted this with every one of these failed programs, i quoted the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff which says our debt is the biggest threat to our national security, existence of our country. well, let's just talk about one

thing we do every day. we owe china 9.5% of our debt, every day we write a check to china because we won't face up to this exploding spending for $120 million a day. now, they buy -- they could buy a joint strike force fighter every day and still put $20 million in their pocket. every day. they could build an air force bigger than our air force in five years on money they earned from us and that our taxpayers pay because we won't confront programs like this. because fair to us is saying yes to everyone except the taxpayers. and, oh, there are four million foreclosures in this country this year. that's a terrible figure.

but i tell you, this program will do nothing but increase that number. and to think that it's fair to our children and grandchildren to devise a program but not have the money to pay it and stick it on our children and grandchildren. it ought to infuriate any of us who are grandparents. it does me and it's time now to end this foolishness which threatens the very existence of our country. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself two minutes to say i am struck by the incongrewity of -- incongruity of members who voted for the war in iraq, a trillion dollar huge mistake, ongoing, who vote to continue what seems to me a futile effort now in afghanistan. the gentleman from alabama, we have talked about this before, he said that because the obama administration told him he had to, he voted to send $150

million a year last year, next year, to the cotton farmers of brazil. the gentleman opposed a $250,000 limit on subsidies to any individual farmer. in the budget the gentleman voted as did most on his side to send $1.2 billion to beef up iraqi security forces. what about american security forces? what about giving some money to the cities so when they have to deal with abandoned property they don't have to take that out of the hides of the police departments and fire departments? yes, we should reduce the deficit. but to be for the enormous waste -- by the way members cite mike mullen, i wish in addition to citing the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, they make a simple commitment not to vote for the pentagon money he doesn't want because members on that side cite his warning about the defense budget -- about the deficit and then force money on him that he thinks is useless. so let's talk about the dis--

disparate between people who vote enormous amounts of money, $400 million goes to afghan infrastructure, we are told. well, let's have it be done efficiently. i cannot think that any program in america we are going to be spending the money less efficiently than the $400 million my friends over there have voted to send to afghanistan. so let's look at this in a reasonable way. we also believe that this billion dollars in fact helps our city. there's one fundamental error, the assumption is for every piece of property -- it's not simply foreclosed property, it is abandoned property. for every piece of property that's out there, there is a responsible financial institution who you can assume will get the money from. that isn't true. i give myself 30 more seconds of the for many of these pieces of property, the cities are left with no recourse. there is no one to do it. one of the members the other day said in committee they can send out their bulldozer. yeah, they can pull a

firefighter off and hire a bulldoze operator. the fact is it's not simply for foreclosed property. it's foreclosed and abandon property and the notion there are no buildings out there in the cities where there is no financial entity is nonsense. so what we are telling the cities, it's tough. you have had these foreclosure problems, abandonment problem, you can sell it to the private sector and the private sector will buy some but not all. i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. speaker and members, i think that my colleague from minnesota said it all. whose side are you on? are you on the side of the american taxpayers who trusted us to regulate this industry that had responsibility for these mortgages? or are you on the side of taxpayers who simply wanted to

live the american dream? who simply wanted to get into a mortgage so that they could own a home and do what it is the american dream says we can do and we can accomplish? . they trusted us to make sure that our regulators did their job. we all let them down. we allowed these mortgage firms, these loan initiators, these big banks to create these exotic products, products we have never heard of before. nobody questioned what was a no doc loan. nobody asked us what is this teaser loan. nobody talked about what happened when these loans reset. and the american taxpayer was confronted with a mortgage with 30, 40 pieces of paper and they signed on the dotted line because they wanted to live the american dream.

little did they know that they would not be able to meet the reset amount six months, one year, two years from now. and so they got caught up in the scheme. it was a huge fraudulent scheme perpetrated on the american people by major financial institutions. and so americans didn't decide all of a sudden that they didn't want to pay their bills, that they didn't want to pay their mortgage. something big happened, and what big happened was this big fraud that was perpetrated on the american people came to reality and the devil came due and now is the time to pay and we couldn't afford it. added to that, the recession that was caused by the subprime meltdown caused people to be in situations where they lost their jobs or they were now jobs that paid less than the jobs that they had when the economy was good. and so now we have people who have lost all these homes.

they're foreclosed on. they're boarded up. they're abandoned. and guess what, they're bringing down the neighborhoods. those people that stay in the neighborhoods and keep up their homes, they're losing value because of these boarded up properties and because of these abandoned properties. so the government said and i said and barney frank said, those who created this program said we have a responsibility to help the american people because through no fault of their own now their homes are underwater. the homes have lost value. and so we have the neighborhood stabilization program. the neighborhood stabilization program does give money to counties and cities and nonprofits and all to go in and rehab these properties, put them back on the market, upgrade the neighborhood, reduce the cost to fire and police and all of those city agencies that now got to look after these boarded up properties, where the animals are coming in and weeds are growing up and they say, my

god, please help me. and that's what the neighborhood stabilization program is all about. and it creates jobs. it creates jobs because now we have got the contractors, the subcontractors, the painters, the realtors all involved in helping to rehab this neighborhood, helping to stabilize these communities, creating jobs, assisting the american taxpayers who got into these situations through no fault of their own. whose side are you on? are you on the side of those who rip off our taxpayers or are you on the side of the taxpayers who sent you here to look after them and to be responsible? i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: may i inquire how much time remains on each side? the chair: the gentlelady from illinois has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts has 11 1/4 remaining. mrs. biggert: all right.

at this time i yield two minutes to the chairman of the financial services committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bachus: thank you. well, there you go again. instead of talking about this program, you want to talk about the brazil cotton deal or you want to talk about afghanistan. and i'll talk about those, but before i do, i have a question for you, for my colleagues on the democratic side. you talk about investing in this property. i want you to get a good look at this. are you willing to put your money up to buy that? mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. bachus: no. mr. frank: i don't think any private entity would. can i answer the question? the gentleman -- that's why we want to give money to the cities so they can tear it down because otherwise they'll be stuck with it. i don't think any private investor would put money in there. there's no other way to deal with it. the way to deal with it is to give them the money to tear it

down. mr. bachus: let's tear it down, i agree with you, and let's make the person who owns it tear it down who happens to be -- this idea that this person can't be found, that this person -- i would ask for order. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the chair will remind everyone -- mr. bachus: we can't find this person. the chair: the chair will remind those here that it's appropriate to address one's comments to the chair. mr. bachus: and i would say to the chair -- and i appreciate that -- that if any of my colleagues want to buy this property, think it's a good investment, they can hire painters and realtors and pull all these people to work. but the taxpayers, they have trouble paying their own mortgage. mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. bachus: they have trouble financing their own children's education. and whose side are we on? listen, this program has been

fitted less than 2,000 pieces of property. we have 12 million american families who are underwater on their mortgage, and do you think it's even fair to pay off, as y'all proposed, a half a million of those mortgages? how about the other 21 out of 22? you know, you can't pay off all 12 million. you'll break the country. so you say, well, we are going to best we can. we are going to pick winners and losers. let me tell you something. the taxpayers that are paying their mortgages or own their own mortgages or didn't get into this problem, don't you get the message from november? they don't want to pay for someone else's obligation. can i yield -- can i have one minute? the chair: does the gentlelady from illinois yield the gentleman an additional minute? mrs. biggert: i yield an additional minute.

mr. bachus: thank you. now, let's talk about this brazilian cotton. if i'd say to the chair, if i were the ranking member, i'd talk about anything but this -- but buying this property and fixing it up. i'd do anything to avoid that conversation. i'd avoid anything to talk about that we're paying the banks with taxpayers' money. you mentioned wrazill and you said it was a -- brazil and you said it was a stupid deal. ron kirk, who you said took a flip wilson to do this. it was ron kirk, ambassador, who took the deal. who hired him? president obama. so you ought to take it up with the democratic administration who saddled us with this $150 million obligation. i'd like to introduce that agreement signed by the obama administration into the record. and i'll close with afghanistan. i have a son who's in the u.s.

marines. he was in there for 10 years. he's out now. but let me tell you something. i'll spend money to build up an afghan force so we can bring our young men and women home. mr. frank: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: the gentleman talks about why don't you talk about this program? but he talks about hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit and this is a billion-dollar program. he doesn't follow his own rules. he talks about hundreds of millions of dollars in a billion-dollar program. i say, yes, we have a huge deficit. secondly, i am puzzled that my republican friends who generally tell us that the president is not very good at his job hide behind him when it's politically convenient. this was an obama deal. the president was wrong. if i think the president has made a foolish agenda, i am

going to vote against it, not to send the money to brazil. it wasn't the president who told you to vote not to limit the subsidies -- the $250,000 per person. as for bringing people home from afghanistan, we will have a chance tomorrow to bring people home from afghanistan. i will vote for that. sending $500 million for corrupt infrastructure expenditures isn't bringing anybody home. let's bring them home. the gentleman will have a chance to do that tomorrow. and then the thing about, do you want to invest? no. he just ignores the facts. this isn't just about foreclosed property. it's about abandoned property. he says, do i want to invest? i will now yield to the gentleman. does he know who owns that, could he give me the address? while the gentleman says -- of course, you can find out who owns it. it's not hard. we believe that there are properties where you can't find the owner. now, the gentleman got the picture. he must know about the property.

i'll yield to my friend from balm. would you give us the address and the -- obama. would you give us the address and name i yield to my friend from alabama. would you give us the address? mr. bachus: well, now -- mr. frank: now, the gentleman said it's possible to find the address of the owner. i ask him to live up to what he says. can you tell us where the owner is? he has a picture of the property. he says, no, you don't have to spend money -- mr. bachus: will the gentleman yield so i can answer the question? mr. frank: can he tell us, who is the responsible owner, and i yield. mr. bachus: it's the person you wrote the check to. you can't -- you have to buy it and you wrote the check out to -- mr. frank: no, the gentleman is wrong. the gentleman is wrong. i take back my time. mr. bachus: wrote a check to somebody. mr. frank: he's blatantly wrong. you do not -- it is not simply purchasing property. this gives the city money, and

maybe that's why they are so wrong in this. they don't understand the program. it includes giving the city money to go in and -- i yield myself another minute because these people take a lot of work to get them to explain it. the fact is that it isn't simply to buy it from a responsible owner. it includes money as we have tried to explain to them to demolish property. in fact, in the cities of detroit and cleveland, they asked us -- the gentleman from los angeles amended it. you can use city money to demolish property when there is no owner. so, no, you don't write a check to someone who has abandoned the property. i yield to the gentleman. mr. bachus: well, let me ask you this. the i.g. said they couldn't trace some of this money, and i think we all figured that out. if we don't know who we're paying because -- mr. frank: i'll take back my time. i'll take back my time to point out to the gentleman -- to point out the evasion.

the gentleman -- i give myself another 30 seconds. the gentleman made a big point, buy the property from this person. he doesn't know who owns the property. no one who owns the property because no one owns the property. they walked away from it. and what we're saying is part of this is not to pay off a bank. and i would just say -- last point. in the bill that passed the conference committee which authorized this $1 billion, we said that the money should come not from the taxpayers but from large financial institutions that have more than $50 billion in assets and hedge funds of more than $10 billion. republican opposition killed it. i am going to refile that bill today. so i invite my republican colleagues to sponsor this bill and it's in the committee that the gentleman chairs. let's pass a bill that says the money that will go to cities to knock down properties where they can't find the owner will get it from the large banks and from the large hedge funds. if the gentleman will agree with that then this whole argument about the deficit will

disappear. i will predict, mr. chairman, they will find that that's not so persuasive and they can put up with the deficit when it means saving money for the large banks. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: may i inquire of the chair how much time is remaining on both sides? the chair: the gentlelady from illinois has 6 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from massachusetts has 6 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i yield to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: you can go to any land title company and they'll tell you who owns the property. either the person who lost it or the bank owns it. if the property's been abandoned, under rules of public safety, the city can go in and demolish the property for public safety measures. i'm glad that mr. frank says he disagrees with the obama administration because i think they're wrong too. in this case i think you're wrong.

this proposal does not make any sense. we believe -- we're on the side of the people who are paying taxes in this country. many are going through foreclosures. many are out of work. we've taken your tax dollars and we've decided to give it to somebody else to buy property from the very banks that they take and say is so awful. now, there's been a lot of predatory loans made in this country. lenders should not have made loans that took advantage of people. no doubt. then they foreclosed on those very people and we give private groups and entities the ability to buy property from those banks, take and refurbish it and sell it to people. now, i will state again, in california you can earn over $68,000 and buy one of these homes. you can earn between $73,000 and $80,000 and live in hawaii, virginia, new jersey, massachusetts, utah, alaska, colorado, new hampshire and

qualify to pick up a very good deal. now, sometimes it might be based on who you know to -- who has the house currently. are you affiliated with somebody at the county? you say, hey, my cousin would like to buy one of these houses and, by the way, he'd like a good deal. there's nothing in the bill that precludes that. the bill says clearly that you have to sell it for less than you paid and reinvested in it. it does not say how much less you have to sell it for or how much you sell it for. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. frank: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds first of all to say this program has been going on for sometime. if there were any of the horror stories to match those hypotheticals we would have heard from them. the gentleman from california admits under public safety the city may tear it down for no

recompese. i invite my republican colleagues to come back with us and this bill that says it will be repaid by not by the taxpayers but financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets and hedge funds with more than $10 billion in assets. i will reintroduce this bill tomorrow that can give us a hearing on it, mark it up and won't cost the taxpayers a cent and will save the city's money. i now cities money. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from new york. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for three minutes. ms. velazquez: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. ms. velazquez: and i thank the ranking member for yielding. as the ranking member stated before, this is not only about foreclosed properties, this is about abandoned properties. the program will help rehab over 600 properties in new york city alone. but this is not just an issue for new york.

this is a national problem. it was created by a decade of overheated mortgage lending and excess on wall street. it makes sense that our cities should have a national response. but contrary to common sense, the bill we consider today will abandon our cities and towns and force them to deal with this issue on their own. the foreclosure crisis has a ripple effect on our whole economy. foreclosed and abandoned homes consume limited resources. at the same time, these homes lower property values for everyone in the neighborhood. assistance from n.s.p. cannot only rehab homes but help raise property values. this bill eliminates the only houseing program trying to stem this effect.

foreclosures are costly to everyone. without this program, main street will bear the costs of a problem created on wall street. nationwide, we have nearly 100,000 programs will be overtaken with nsp funds and working families will once again have access to affordable housing. yes, if this legislation is enacted, 200 projects in new york city will go unfinished. withdrawing support at this stage will slow the recovery in our housing sector, not just for new york city but for cities and towns across america. mr. chairman, i urge a no vote on this ill conceived and i would say mean-spirited legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: at this time, mr.

chairman, i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, the majority leader, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank the gentlelady. mr. chairman from day one, the majority of this congress promised the american people that we would focus like a laze own producing results. other the past few months, we have already begun to deliver that promise by upending the culture of spending that prevailed in washington and replace it with a culture of savings. the most important thing government can do right now is to create an environment that fosters opportunity for people. but if you talk to small businesses and entrepreneurs who create johns, they'll tell you that the explosion of government debt is threatening their ability to innovate and compete. unless we move swiftly to change course, our economy will be consumed by fears of future tax increases an higher

borrowing costs. that's why our majority is dedicated to our cut and grow agenda cutting spending and job-destroying regulations and growing private sector jobs in the economy. yesterday, we took another significant step toward reurn -- toward returning spending to 2008 levels. today we are -- we offer members a chance through the youcut program to cut an additional $1 billion in waste. this legislation, endorsed by million of -- millions of voters in the youcut program, would terminate the neighborhood stabilization program a pot of money as the other side will tell you that enables state and local governments to buy and rehabilitate foreclosed homes. instead of benefiting at-risk homeowners facing foreclosure, however this program may instead create perverse incentives for banks and other lenders to foreclose on

troubled borrowers. the people's house is drawing a firm line in the stand against wasteful spending and inefficient government programs and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: how much time remains on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has four minutes remaping. the gentlelady from illinois has -- the gentlelady from illinois has three and a half minutes remaining. mrs. biggert: there's just two speakers on this side. mr. frank: i'll reserve then, i'm the last speaker. mrs. biggert: i yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from california. the speaker: the gentleman is recognized. my good friend mr. frank said, show me where these things have occurred. i can't show you any because there's no requirements.

mr. miller: you could take one of these nonprofit, nongovernment entities out here who bought a house, they have $180,000 in the house. one of the board members' cousins could buy the house for $100,000 and it does not violate the requirements within the bill. because it says you have to sell the house for less than the acquisition and rehabilitation prices. it does not say how much less, it says you must not exceed the amount. my good friend is correct, i cannot show you there's no -- the egregious act because there's no egregious act defined in the legislation. i believe we're trying to say that the republicans are on the side of taxpayers an we believe we need to do everything we can to create jobs. if we leave $7 billion in the economy based on the basic money multiply over 10%, it creates $70 billion worth of

economy and generation. we believe in that. we do believe in fair rules. and we believe that if a perp has to watch their home go into foreclosure, and they live in california, and they watch a county, a city or a nonprofit group buy that home, that they can sell that home to somebody for $68,000 and all that person can do that lost their home is wipe the tears away. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself my remaining time. i appreciate the gentleman's acknowledgment. with all their efforts, they're out finding pictures of abandoned houses they couldn't find one example where the abuse took place. there are a set of restrictions that h.u.d. has that i submit under general leave but let's review some of their error thesms fundamental error is the argument that this is a program which buys money from banks that have foreclosed and own the property.

in fact, it is foreclosed and abandoned pot. there are also entities that foreclose that weren't banks that are nonexistent anymore. yes, it does not deal with all the properties. where there is a responsible bank that you can go after, the cities go after them. but the suggestion that in detroit in cleveland in boston in chicago and in our rural areas, there are no abandoned properties that lack someone you can sue, is unreality. this is a triumph of ideological reflects -- reflex over empirical observation. what this says to cities is, where you cannot find a responsible owner to go after and the property is festering, if it's too far gone, you can tear it down. if it's not too far gone, you can take it and resell it for an affordable unit. it's got to be a limited income situation.

now, so that disputes the whole notion that there's always somebody else you can get. but i still believe it's true that we shopt let this come from the taxpayer. i want to reiterate and i'll make this offer, in the conference committee on financial reform, when this bill was passed, that's true also, by the way of the emergency homeowners' relief, we said let's not have it come from the taxpayer, let's have it come from financial institutions with $50 billion or more in assets except for hedge funds worth $10 billion or more in assets. if that had passed, it would have cost the taxpayers, the general revenue, nothing. it would not have added to the deficit. to the extent some financial constitutions were benefiting, they would haved had to contribute. it would have had the larger financial institutions help the smaller institutions. the republicans killed that before but i believe in

repentance, mr. chairman. i believe in second chances for miscree apts. i'm going to give my -- miscreants. i'm going to give my republican colleagues a sec chance. here are the choices. you can tell detroit and cleveland and other cities, you tear down that property where there's nobody else to go to and you pay for it an lay off cops and teachers and firefighters. or you leave the property up there to fester, or you do it our way. you join in assessing the large financial institutions, and i don't mean to demonize city corp., bank of america, goldman sachs, these are decent people, trying to make a profit, i don't always agree with them. why don't we let them pay the $1 billion so if there's a yen union concern about the deficit, i'm skeptical when people want to send the money to afghanistan and iraq and

brazilian cotton farmers -- that's right, obama made them do that. whenever they have a tough decision, obama did it. why can't they solve the problems with fannie and freddie? obama won't tell them how. let's go back to the gentleman from alabama he feel found a building so decrepit he had a picture and he said to us, you can go to the owner of that building and get the money. well, he can find a building to take a picture but couldn't find the own . i asked him, tell me who the owner is and let's go after him. he doesn't know who the owner is. in some cases nobody knows who the owner is. maybe it was foreclosed on by an entity that no longer exists. make the large financial institutions pay for this and save the cities money they don't have. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentlelady from illinois.

mrs. biggert: i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: the gentleman might be interested to know there was a hope 6 bill, an amendment to h.l. 3524 -- h.r. 3524, made by representative sessions. it sought to maintain h.u.d.'s authority to issue demolition only grants. that failed by a vote of 186-221. voting no on that was the gentleman, mr. frank, ms. waters, mr. ellison -- i can't yield now. i don't have much time. you know, i've been listening to all of this and i think that everybody knows we all want to get the housing market back on track. we all want to be able to help those that are in trouble. but many of the colleagues on my other side said if you end these programs there will be nothing. that's not true. of the $4.1 million mortgage

modifications completed, $-- of the 4.1 million mortgage modifications completed, 3.5 million were done without a dime for the taxpayers. there's a market out there. there's also the home affordable refinance program, harp, for homeowners and don't forget the heart is his fund, president obama acknowledged and $300 million were committed for home opers for a voluntary f.h.a. program. millions have been appropriated for foreclosure counseling and there are countless local, state and private sector initial ties. let us not forget this is being taken care of and rather than having a program that really doesn't affect those that have been foreclosed on, it really is a program for counties, nonprofits, for states, and it

can incentive frts banks and others to foreclose, worsening and prolonging the housing crisis. let's get back to what this bill really does. it doesn't help taxpayers. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as a bill urn the five-minute rule. no amendment to the committee amendment is in order except those printed in bart b of house report 111--- 112-28 46789 amendment number 9 and amendment number 10 may be offered only en bloc, may be offered only by the member specified in the report, the time shall be equally divided and controlled by the po component and an opponent and shall not be subject to

amendment or a demand for division of the question. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: i have a preferential motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the meags. the clerk: the gentleman from minnesota moves that the committee do now rise with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes in support of his mogs. mr. ellison: i rise and make the motion today because i'm opposed to the underlying bill, the n.s.p. termination act. mr. chairman, in the course of this debate on the termination of foreclosure mitigation programs including this bill, we've been enmeshed in a huge debate around what the proper role of government is. the republican caucus clearly thinks government has no role, that citizens are on their own and that no matter how much deaf take a particular phenomenon, like the foreclosure crisis has caused, that citizens just have no help in the government.

the government can't be there for them. and on the other hand, the democratic caucus, we believe that in the proper circumstances the government has an important role and does need to be there for the american people and where we see property values dropping, whole neighborhoods destroyed, that we should do something about it. this motion to strike the enacting clause, according to rule 18 clause 9, quote, if carried in the house shall constitute a rejection of the bill, unquote. and mr. chair, i do urge that we reject this bill. this bill is an affront and insult at a time when americans have seen over four million foreclosures across this nation. devastating whole communities, devastating communities and wiping out city and hew niss pal budgets so that cities, when they have abandoned properties on their neighborhoods, are left with tearing them down and demolishing them on the nickel of the taxpayers of that city

when this is a community-wide body. there is no money in the cities to do the demolition. what will happen is that an old, burned out hawk will sit there and sit there and people will see their home values plummet. what we see is people leaving dogs there. perhaps the house will be an attractive nuisance. neighbors will fall deeper and deeper into despair. i grew up in the city of detroit. i'm honored to represent the fifth district of minnesota. i grew up in detroit. i saw the foreclosures of that city ripped that town apart. and the good people of that city had to sit by and watch folks burn houses. they would put them on fire and years later no money to demolish them. it just helped folks say that, you know what, i am going to leave the city because i can't

-- i can't stand to live there with that big hawk next to my home. this is not the proper role of government. this is what this is all about. mr. chairman, i have heard our friends on the republican caucus talk about jobs, yet, they haven't introduced one single jobs bill and we have been here for 11 weeks. they talk about the deficit and go on and on ad nauseam about putting debt on our children and grandchildren. and yet when they had the chance to raise revenue so we could in fact pay the bills of this country they were absolutely and adamantly opposed to it. but now when we see americans have their neighborhoods slipping into oblivion, slip into a situation where people can't live in the neighborhood and people can't sell their homes so they're just suffering, the republican caulks said there's nothing -- caucus said there's nothing we can do really. they don't demonstrate the

commitment to jobs ordeal with the deficit. at least not -- or deal with the deficit. it sets americans adrift. i offer this amendment. this is not a broken that should be eliminated. it's a vitally important program for local and state governments that needs all the resources they could get to address neighborhoods overrun by foreclosures. according to h.u.d., the neighborhood stabilization program has supported over 100,000 jobs nationwide. they would be eliminated if we passed this bill. that's right. republicans are again cutting another 100,000 jobs for working americans. so, mr. chair, what does the neighborhood stabilization program do? it helps local and state governments renovate abandoned and foreclosed properties. it helps local government it's revitalize communities. it gives communities the ability to get back on their feet as quickly as possible.

in my district the city of minneapolis has put n.s.p. funding to good use. the director of house and property development for the city of minneapolis and he states, quote, the neighborhood stabilization program has enabled the city of maps to stabilize the -- minneapolis to stabilize those foreclosures. with the additional funding sought, 56 more properties could be rehabilitated bringing even more homeowners back into neighborhoods, unquote. i believe the n.s.p. program is a good investment, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman from minnesota. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: i ask for a recorded vote and pending that i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the chair: the chair will count

for a quorum. does the gentleman from minnesota withdraw his point of order? mr. ellison: yes. the chair: the chair will count for a recorded vote. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. 34.

for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 111-offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. -- 112-34 offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to the resolution, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the gentleman may proceed. mr. ellison: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: the deficit is rising because the republicans are giving big breaks to special interests. instead of working middle class families in their homes, the republicans' plan is to -- the american people sent us here to protect the american dream. not to perpetuate a wall street nightmare. democrats are standing with the

american people to create good-paying american jobs and to keep them in their homes. democrats are working to ensure that every american who wants a good job can find one and that middle-class americans can afford to buy a home and live the american dream. the legislation on the floor today proposes cutting funding for neighborhood stabilization program. republicans want to foreclosure on the middle class, and my amendment forces members to look at how this legislation will impact their state. so far for each member, if you read my amendment, you'll see how much funding may be cut from your state. my feeling is that before republicans vote to cut funding for a successful housing program and foreclosure mitigation program they should know how much funding is at risk for their state and what the people back home are going to think about their vote. this legislation to cut housing

funding makes it clear that the majority is not focused on creating jobs. the neighborhood stabilization program helps local communities repair abandoned and foreclosed properties. it takes workers to demolish an abandoned building. overall, the neighborhood stabilization program has created about 93,000 jobs. this legislation to cut n.s.p. funding is just another bill offered up by the majority that will cut jobs. the unemployment rate is currently 8.9%. this rate is far too high. it is wasting human capital. people's skills and talents are sitting on the sidelines instead of being put to good use. unemployed americans are already back to work and we must use every tool at our disposal to create new jobs. instead of creating jobs, the republican majority is

launching an attack on american workers and foreclosuring on the american dream. the republican plan to cut funding and cut jobs won't help our economy. it's going to do the opposite. it's going to hold back our economic recovery. the continuing resolution passed last month by the majority would cut $60 billion from programs and agencies. economist mark zandi estimates that this will cut 700,000 jobs. we can't accept another high level of unemployment in this country. our republican colleagues are pushing a reckless and irresponsible plan that will have giveaways to corporate special interests at the expense of the middle class. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to vote against the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: yes. i raise to claim time in opposition.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i am not opposed to this amendment. this amendment only deals with stage three of a project that should only be one phase. now, i wish they would have talked about phase two because i wished you would study where the money went on phase two because in phase two alone we give away $1.3 billion to nongovernment entities, incorporated businesses that are nonprofit. but you have to say we did not stop a foreclosure. we just gave away in s.p. 2 $1.3 billion. of that neighborhood lending partners received $15 million. they do not have to pay it back. now, they could take that $15 million. i'm sure they're a very reputable company. they could sell those houses for anything as long as it's below the price they have

invested. los angeles neighborhood housing services, inc., $60 million. neighborhood lending partners of south florida, $30 million. i wish we would have taken the time to review to say how was the money spent. but h.u.d. did some work for us. let's see what h.u.d. did. h.u.d. edited the state of kansas neighborhood stabilization program in s.p. 1 and said that the state obligated more than $12 million of the s.p. 1 funds. h.u.d. of sacramento did not administer the n.s.p. funds in accordance. it allowed ineligible properties to be rehabilitated, did not adequately monitor projects. permitted the developer to make unnecessary upgrades, and overly inflated construction budgets. did not ensure that it met the reporting requirements and lacked management controls.

i wish we would have audited this one in this amendment too. they audited the city of denver, colorado. the city and property obligated more than $1.5 million of its n.s.p. funds by recording its funds as obligated. h.u.d. and o.i.g. reviewed the city of chattanooga, tennessee. it was sometimes inconsistent with identifying obligations and was not always accurate on reporting to h.u.d. on louisville, kentucky, again, very similar to the previous. augusta, georgia, did not have internal control to perform continuous and routine obligations of the process to make sure that the process was as intended. they reviewed clark county, nevada and said they need to revise its written procedures in developer agreements to make sure that properties to be sold to eligible homebuyers would be sold at a price permitted.

meaning they were selling it for too much money. so although i do support the amendment at hand i wish it would have reviewed phase one and two. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: how much time remains on this side? the chair: both sides have two minutes remaining. mr. ellison: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: two particular points, mr. chair. one is that first of all, there's never been a program for any state, federal or local program that did not need review and i can tell you that in the city of minneapolis and in many other places this program has been high quality and has been well, well run. now, the question is interesting because if the gentleman wanted to talk about inefficiencies in a program we could talk about fixing those programs. we're not talking about fixing the n.s.p. program. we are talking about eliminating it and so i think if this was a sincerely made point then we'd be talking

about how we can improve the program. we should mend it, not end it. secondly, this amendment that i'm offering tries to inform members as to the losses that their communities will endure by cutting the program. this program elimination will be felt across america in local communities where foreclosures are happening and in those particular communities members should know what's going to happen. that expenditures for demolishing and rehabilitating abandoned homes are not going to be there anymore. i think it's important that members should know. i think it's important that the people who live in the members' communities should know. and so i ask that the amendment be adopted. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: i disagree, it's not time to amend and pretend. the time to end. the problem with this program is i highlighted you a few violations but it's really hard

to violate the program requirements because there are so few requirements. it says we're going to give you money. you can buy property, you can demolish houses, you can buy property, you can rehabilitate those properties. you have vast guidelines on how you rehabilitate them. in fact, an organization is not even required to have competitive bids. i can say i need some framing done. i can lend a sole source contract. more than one person applied. the person i asked to apply. and i can pay them the moneys i deem appropriate. it says you have to sell the house for less than you have in it. it doesn't say you should attempt to try to sell it at fair market value, although i've given you a list of how much you can make. which is quite a bit of money. and buy those houses. it does not restrict it to who you sell it too. it does not restrict the affiliation on who is buying them. in fact, it's almost impossible

to have a conflict of interest because there's no conflict designed in the bill. we can say let's amend and pretend but let's just end. i yield back. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from california. the amendment is not agreed to. a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 112-34. for what purpose does the

gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. hurt: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 112-34, offered by mr. hurt of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 170, the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. hurt: i want to thank my colleagues and chairman miller and chairman bachus for their help on this issue. this -- at a time when our nation faces over $14 trillion in debt, $1.6 trillion in deficit spending, we are borrowing other 40 cents on every dollar we spend, we cannot continue to have taxpayers foot the bill for

programs that harm our economic recovery. that's why i'm offering an amendment that would direct all unobligated funds to be returned to the treasury to reduce the deficit of the federal government once the program is terminated. the people of virginia's fifth district call for serious and bold change last november. by working to reduce the sind and -- size and scope of the federal government an rein in out of control spending, we are listening to the people to change the culture in our nation's capital so we can grow the economy for all virginians and all americans. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker: the gentleman reserves his time. who seeks time in opposition? the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: mr. chairman, i don't think there's anybody exactly in opposition to the amendment. because it doesn't do anything. but there is some opposition to the rhetoric, so i claim time

knopp sigs to the gentleman's speech. in the first place, there is a consistent misunderstanding on the republican side manifested by their talking about this as a program that deals with foreclosed properties. that, of course, allows them conveniently to pretend that for every piece of property a city is stuck with, there's an entity that stood behind it that foreclosed and could be sued. but that's not true. this is not only about foreclosed property. it is about foreclosed and abandoned property. property that has been abandoned. and it's been abandoned by the owner, who's walked -- who's walked away, it's been abandoned by financial institutions that went under. there is demonstrably of property in the city that cannot be traced.

the gentleman held up a picture of a piece of property and said, who wants to buy it. we said, tell us who owns it. he said you can always find out who owns it. it's not just about foreclosed property. somebody has to demolish property where there is no owner. somebody as thoos demolish property where there's no responsible party standing behind it. i just left the chamber to meet with three firefighters from the city of fall river in my district. they were appalled at the notion that they would be left in the city to deal with abandoned property which is a set of fire traps and not have any help. so for that reason, i believe that we ought to be clear that this is not about only foreclosed property. some property, by the way, has been foreclosed upon by entities that are bankrupt, by entities that have no funds. the other point i would make is

this i do agree with my colleagues that we should do something about the deficit. i wish that they listened to that when we subsidized agriculture or when we sent money to afghanistan and iraq for their social purposes. but i have an alternative. i'll repeat again, they'll ignore it all day, i know. in the bill that originally authorized this billion dollars, we required that it be funded not by the general revenues, but by a special assessment on banks that have $50 billion or more in assets, financial institutions that have $50 billion or more in assets and hedge funds of $10 billion. let's be clear, mr. chairman. members on the other side know this bill is unlikely to become law. indeed some have said they understand the money will be spent before the bill can move. the billion dollars will almost certainly be spent. my colleagues have a choice. they can allow it to be spent by the taxpayers or they can

reconsider their opposition to our proposal last summer and assess this on the large financial institutions and hedge funds. by the way, some of it, it is true, was caused by banks and some of it will go to banks. but here's the answer. instead of claiming -- complaining that some of this will go to banks, join us and have it all come from banks and from henl funds. but please, mr. chairman, let's not perpetuate the myth that for every piece of property with which our poor cities and rural areas are burdened, there is somebody they can go and sue and get it down. the gentleman from california himself said, get the bulldozer and tear it down. those cost mup. the people driving the bulldozers cost money. we believe that the approach should be to take money from the large financial institutions and from the hedge funds and take the billion dollars from them and provide it to municipalities and groups like habitat for humanity and

others who will use it either to tear down the property, in some cases, or we re-habilitate the property and make it affordable housing. that, mr. chairman, is the choice between us. and again i want to stress this notion that it is only foreclosed property is a misstatement with a purpose. because it means that you ignore the fact that much of the property existing in the cities is abandoned and will only be dealt with by the city spending its own money or by our preferred mode, having the large financial stewings and hedge funds join us. so i hope at some point today one member of the majority will tell us whether or not they agree, mr. chairman, that if this program survives, we should get it not from the taxpayer and not from the property taxpayers of our cities or rural areas, but from the large financial institutions. so that's what i hope will

happen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. hurt: i wish to yield the plans of my time to the gentleman from california, mr. ill miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: i support the gentleman's amendment. this is doing the right thing. it's saying we're going to take $1 billion back of your money, the taxpayers and pay off the deficit we created for you. it's about time we start paying down the debt. we cannot continue to spend dollars we don't have. 40% of every dollar we spend today is financed. through the treasury. because we don't have the money. we're spending deficit dollars and it has to stop. i want to return to the argument of my good friend, i respect my good friend and he knows that. somebody owned a home sometime, someplace, somewhere. now the individual who owned it, because it didn't just -- wasn't created by a miracle, somebody built the house, somebody sold it to somebody, the individual might have gotten a loan on it from the bank. if the individual defaulted on

the loan, the bank may have taken the house back. but the federal government and local agencies look at tacks, income taxes, city, county, property taxes. somebody, some institution, is listed on the property tax bill. now, at some point in time, they're going to continue to notice the owner, whoever it might be, if it's an heir, you'll get the notice. at some piece of time -- some point in time that piece of property is going up for sale for property taxes. now, if no -- mr. frank: what if it's abandoned and it's of not much value and has to be torn down? mr. miller: if it's a public safety issue, the local government has the right to demolish he building. the local government if they so

choose, if nobody wants to pay $1 for that property, can buy it on a tax basis for $1. once the government entity tpwhice property, it's taken off the tax roles. some of my colleagues talked about police and fire and the benefit to them, the worst thing to do is eliminate funding thru taxation for police and fire. mr. frank: would the gentleman yield? mr. miller: i will. mr. frank: we have been told and said they can't find the owner. mr. miller: if you go to any title company, they will list the owner. regardless of who it is, at some point in time, it goes to a tax sale. at that point in time, the local government or an investor can buy it. at a much reduced price. and if it's abandoned and demolished and not worth anything, the tax bill will be

very low. so somebody can pick up a very good deal on a piece of property by waiting for a tax sale. if they choose not to and they want to go out and just buy it as a city or county, they can do that and get a very good deal on it. to assume that because nobody can find an owner out there, somebody is listed and the government has a right to foreclose based on tax liens. i yield back the balance of my time and ask for an aye vote on the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. all those in fare signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman from minnesota seeking a unanimous consent request? for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. frank: mr. chairman, i was told i have a unanimous consent request that i didn't know i had. so i now -- the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman kindly state his unanimous consent request. mr. frank: i will as soon as i read what they handed me. i ask unanimous consent that the voice vote by which amendment number one was defeated be vacated to the end that the -- i read that wrong. i ask unanimous consent that the voice vote by which amendment number one was defeated be vacated so the chair may put the question de

novo. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the unanimous consent request? if not, there the earl yore voice vote is vacated. the question is on the amendment number one offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number three. printed in part b of house report 112-34. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-34, offered by 34r ellison of minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. ellison: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, the middle class is shrinking and deficits are

rising. because the majority is giving preference to those who wrecked our economy. the republican plan is to foreclose on the american middle class. the amendment here in front of you describes findings which talk about the positive benefits of the neighborhood stabilization program. this program is a good program and no matter what may happen here today, the record should reflect the benefits of this program. this program was good and the amendment offers language which sets forth findings. and the findings state the positive impacts of the neighborhood stabilization program, including assisting local governments, supporting jobs, and impacting approximately 100,000 properties. the highlights of this amendment are reflected -- about the neighborhood stabilization program talk about the positive benefits to the community that the

neighborhood stabilization program benefited local governments. and the fact is, mr. chairman, local governments really did benefit from this program and the record should be reflected in the bill and the bill should report language that talks about those benefits. i'd like to just say this as well, mr. chairman. the fact is that it is true that once an abandoned property is sitting there on the tax roles after a certain amount of time, somebody may at some point buy it, as the gentleman on the other side said. but what happens in the meantime? in the meantime, the grass grows, dead cats and dogs get left there, in the meantime, the windows are broken, in the meantime, people's property values plummet, in the meantime, we have an attractive nuisance, young people may be pulled in there and taken advantage of. horrible stories have been reported.

sometime in the future maybe somebody will buy this run down, aban donned, stripped out property with no copper left in it, with neighbors who have just been decimated in the property of their ohm, -- home the value of their home, but that would be a far cry from what we could do. and if we're going to terminate this program, which has helped so many local governments, we should at least put language and findings in the record which reflect the positive aspects of this program, including the 93,000 jobs we're getting rid of and the 100,000 properties we've already helped an the more we could help. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california, is he opposed to the amendment. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield myself as much time as i might consume. mr. miller: if you want to talk about attractive nuances, let's talk about next april when people have to pay their taxes. you're going to find out that government has become an

incredible attractive nuisance to most people. we talk about middle classes shrinking, yeah, we're taxing them to death. and we're not only taxing them to death, we're spending money on programs like this that's not an investment, it's just a give away of tax dollars. now we say we can't find data to support that we bought 100,000 properties but let's say we bought 100,000 properties, somebody has with the money, with the $1 billion, we've given them. that's about 20,000 homes per state. now you break that down to high impact counties, compared to the millions of homes out there that are in foreclosure, these 100,000 homes have already been abandoned or foreclosed, i will say abandoned because my other side of the aisle wants to talk about abandoned homes. but they are homes that somebody does not live in anymore. and the people who lost them, yes, they lost them. and how many jobs were created? nobody can definitively give me

a number because nobody knows for sure how much money was spent on jobs. now we can say we spent $6 billion but understand clearly, we bought properties with the bulk of that money. now, how much money did we spend after the local groups, the nonprofits took 17% off the top for overheads and expenses, how much did we spend for jobs? now, if we had taken that $6 billion going on $7 billion and invested it in residential construction, just $1 billion, as i said in residential construction, creates 5.-- $5.5 million in wages. it creates $1.98 billion in spending on goods and services as a result of the new earnings and profits that were created through that. now, those goods and services, those companies employ workers. the wages are paid to workers. so you can definitively come up with a number based on a $1

billion investment that we would generate in the economy. now we spent $6 billion and if we were able to create what $1 billion would have created in private residential construction, we're probably lucky. but the problem with that is investing in residential construction is different than giving $6 billion away of the taxpayers' money. now, the people listening to this debate understand, when you right wright your check to the federal government next month, we just gave away $6 billion and we're going to give away another $1 billion. now, that infuriates me, i would assume it infuriates you. you tell me middle class american america, what this does to help you. i told you the amounts earlier of hoch you can earn to buy a house or how little you might have to pay for the house depending on whoever bought the house, what they want to charge and who they want to sell it to. so the basis argued here and the

amendment does nothing. i oppose it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: may i inquire to the remaining time? the chair: the gentleman from minnesota has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, let me only add this, that this language, which should be put in the bill and this amendment calls for, sets forth in the record the positive impacts of the neighborhood stabilization program which should be memorialized in the bill, things like job creation, saving neighborhoods, saving local governments, exorbitant costs. the republican caucus has not created a singlele job and now they're even eliminating jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i -- the facts speak for themselves. when you can say $1. billion was given away to nongovernmental agencies and i've listed the groups and i told you how many

millions of your dollars were given to these groups, that they get to keep. they're not coming back to us right now. these people are going to keep these moneys and there's a wide array of things they can use them for. this was a bad investment, in fact it was not investment, it was a bad giveaway. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. ellison: demand a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 112-34. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. sanchez: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 112-34 offered by ms.

loretta sanchez of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 170, the gentlewoman from california will control five minutes and a member opposed will control five minutes. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment. my amendment would state simply that the congress acknowledges that we could have helped to rebuild neighborhoods wherefore closures are common through the neighborhood stabilization program. or as we know it, n.s.p. you see, my republican colleagues are offering today a bill that would terminate n.s.p. this program i believe has been particularly successful in helping to rebuild neighborhoods in my district and throughout orange county, california. the city of anaheim which i represent acquired and rehabilitated 17 single family homes and sold them to low to moderate income families. it also acquired and rehabilitated a four-unit

multifamily complex for lease to persons with development disabilities. this project was crucial because it is very difficult to find properties for people who have development disabilities. in anaheim one in 303 homes is in foreclosure. not only does this have any emotional impact, as you can imagine, when you use your home, it's instability, including your kids, parents are worried and children can see that. it also has economic impacts on our neighborhoods. with the help of this program, the city of anaheim improved neighborhoods and provided the families with homes. and i know that my colleague on the republican side also represents anaheim and if he would have spoken to some of the staff from anaheim, he would have realized that they really believe that this program was important to keep blight from happening in neighborhoods and to attempt to keep the prices of

the homes level for those families that were struggling to make their payments and to stay in their homes and to keep up their neighborhood. the city of garden grove where one in 348 homes is in foreclosure also acquired and rehabilitated property. they acquire and retabletated five homes and sold them to first time homebuyers. of course the city of santa ana, where one in 252 homes is in foreclosure. they acquired and rehabilitated 13 single family homes, 27 condos and they sold them to first time homebuyers. they acquired and renovated a 13-unit multifamily complex and have leased them now to low income families. and they had five family -- assisted five familieses with down payment assistance and they're in the process of acquiring 16 single family homes that will be sold to first time homebuyers. i know my colleague on the other side mentioned that some of this money went to nongovernmental

agencies, to nongovernmental, so private companies. but i would like him to really take a look at the fact that cities really stepped up to work very hard to keep families in their homes, to keep neighborhoods afloat as we work through this very difficult time of the financial meltdown and the housing crisis. in orange county the neighborhood housing services with the assistance of what we call n.s.p. round one moneys acquired and retabletated a total of 1 is single family homes and condos and with round two mondays, they acquire and retabletate -- rehabilitated 17 single family homes and condos and sold them to first time homebuyers. this program has helped to rebuild our neighborhoods, to stabilize our neighborhoods and has given families the opportunity to become homeowners.

so it is my hope that my colleagues on the other side reconsider eliminating what i believe has been a successful program in orange county, california. one that has benefited not just those who got to buy their first home but those neighborhoods and those cities that so desperately needed to keep up the neighborhood and get people in their homes. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. -- the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. who rises in opposition to the amendment? does the gentleman from california rise in opposition to the amendment? mr. miller: yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: look, my good friend, she mentioned the neighborhood housing services of orange county. they got $7.5 million for 17 houses. orange county, overall the whole county got $4.3 million. for the whole county. $4.3 million.

and you have to say is that a good investment? we have spent $6 billion on this program. and we're saying, let's not spend the last billion and this congress could have rebuilt u.s. neighborhoods, there's only $1 billion left. i don't see that u.s. neighborhoods have been rebuilt for $6 billion. i see $6 billion that has been given away of taxpayers' moneys and orange county itself, which considers is a huge area irrespective of the few examples that were given by my good friend, only got $4.3 million. that's not equitable. san berdy know county, one of the hardest hit counties in this country, hardest hit, got a mere $33.2 million. one of the hardest hit. that's a county. that had to go to all these cities that did not receive any distribution in n.s.p. 1 or

n.s.p. 2. nothing. and they're having to take in orange county, take that and distribute it to all these cities that did not receive a dime. that's not fair. and to say that we spent $6 billion in all the counties and cities haven't been rehabilitated, it's obvious and to say we're going to spend one more billion dollars and that's going to solve the problem, no it's not. it's just going to take and put us another $1 billion in debt that our children or grandchildren are going to have to pay for and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. chairman. i would remind the gentleman from california that some cities it's true did not receive moneys and did not go through the process of buying up homes, etc., and trying to get neighborhoods back. one of the reasons they did not is it's really competitive situation. you have to want to do it and some stets simply did not have the need or did not want to do it. i mean, it would be -- i would

assume that in some places, in orange county you could probably do as the gentleman said and that is to sell at a fire sale some of those homes on newport beach or other places but with respect to orange county where you really have households that are working families, this program was very, very important and the city stepped up, the cities of anaheim, the cities of garden grove, the cities of santa ana stepped up to do the right thing, to work through and to ensure that their neighborhoods again were stabilized and to get new people into those homes. again, i do believe that it worked for those cities and i would encourage a yes vote on this amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield myself the balance of the time. the problem i have with the program i just mentioned san bernardino county, according to the county there's no one at the county level that would support

the current n.s.p. program and they state very specifically the county might have supported the concept of n.s.p. but this is before they fell victim to a complete lack of direction from h.u.d., mixed messages from h.u.d. and gross misallocations of the awards that were released and the county in support of my bill said, we believe it is a means for congress to get its financial house in order just like the challenges we are facing at the local government level. and not only government facing challenges, the american people are facing challenges. they're working hard, they're trying to support their families, they're trying to make their house payments, nothing in this last billion dollars will stop one foreclosure from occurring and i yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman. >> thank you to the good gentleman from california, mr. chairman. look, i've been a member now of this body for 75 some days. and i'm starting to learn much of what we do seems to be more based in theater than reality.

if this -- if i read this amendment correctly what we're trying to do here is add language that basically says, well, we could repair neighborhoods with the last billion dollars, of course it didn't happen with the previous money, but think about it, if we take a step back, what's the money being used ultimately for? it's been used to bail out lenders and in many ways this is another backdoor bailout to the very folks that my constituents are furious with and handling -- handing them more government dollars in the name that, well, we passed -- this time we passed the cache to those lenders but this time we did it through local governments. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back any time. the chair: the time of the gentleman from california has expired. the question son the amendment offered by the gentlelady from kale. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in part b of house report 112-34. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition. ms. richrdardson: i have an amendment at the -- ms. richardson: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk -- the chair: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: amendment number five offered by ms. richardson of california. the chair: the yealt from california, ms. richardson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. richardson: the act we are talking about is a vehicle to discuss -- to discuss a program cha is urgently needed and why it's still needed today. the richardson amendment is simple. it's straightforward and it's

necessary. it takes the politics out of it. it says the amendment talks about that the programs should be -- program should be terminated based upon whether it's needed or not, not based upon using funny numbers. let's talk about this particular bill. i'm suggesting with the richardson amendment that we would consider two things. one, that it would be based upon a termination of five year that was national date of enactment. number two, that the date would be triggered when the national average of under water mortgages would be at a point that it's 10% or less or in the highest state that happens to have high mortgages that it would be at least 15% and if it didn't meet that test then it would be terminated. now the most current data available in the third quarter of 2010 reported by core logic a leading provider of mortgage information, indicates that of the nation's 47.8 million residential mortgages, approximately 10.8 million,

22.5%, are under water. in nevada, the percentage is 67%. in arizona, it's 48.6%. in florida, it's 45.5%. and in mr. miller miller and i, our great state, california, it's 31.6%. i ask unanimous consent to include in the record a chart indicating the under water mortgage percentages for each state in the nation. the chair: the gentlewoman's statement is covered under general leave. ms. richardson: the housing crisis is far from over and anyone who thinks we've stabilized the neighborhoods in this country is not living in the real world, certainly not with americans who hi in my district. now is not time to terminate n.s.p. it should be phased out gradually after it serves the purpose it was intended to to. i offer the richardson amendment because the grant prossvide critical assistance to state and local governments and nonprofit developers that collaborate.

how do they collaborate rate? to demolish or rehabilitate blighted properties to establish down payment programs for low to middle income home buyers and it helps with at least 25% of the funds to be appropriated to house individuals and families whose incomes do not exceed 50% of the area's median income. when i look at this, it's also important n.s.p. funds is helping to rehabilitate areas in hard-hit communities. 9,700 plighted properties have been demolished or cleared. h.u.d. estimates that n.s.p. will support 93,000 jobs nationwide. when we look at the groups supporting these programs, it's not about who is on this side of the aisle or who is on the other one, it's the national association of counties, the national league of city the u.s. conference of mayors. that's what the housing officials in my district are talking about.

having a way to be able to solve the problem. i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. does the gentleman from california rise in opposition to the amendment? >> i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i yield myself such time as i may consume. how many more billions of dollars needs to be given away? we spent $6 billion. i guess we could spend more if somebody wanted to. when we talk about phasing out a program, it speaks to the argument that we need to spend more money on a program, continue a program. i think we've already spent too much money. ms. richardson: will the gentleman yield. mr. miller: i'd be happy to. mr. richardson: my amendment is not how long we should wait, it's whether it's needed or not. mr. miller: i reclaim my time. on this issue, how long we wait

is predicated on how much we're going to spend. and my colleagues on this side of the aisle believe the american people, the taxpayers, have given too much of their money away and they're saying we want it stopped and we want you to be responsible for this money. if this were our dollars an we're getting in her purse and my wallet and handing money out, that's a prerogative we have. that's not what we have. we put our hands in your wallet, your purse and give away your money. i ask for a no vote and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california. the gentlewoman has one and a half minutes remaining. ms. richardson: ma cam chairwoman, in regards to the comments recently stated, for the largest city in our state of california, the mayor states that the program has helped cities across the country to

address and mitigate the terrible effects of what this crisis has done. in closing, what i would also say is that my amendment is really building upon what i hope both sides of the aisle would consider and that is this program should be based upon if there's a need, then it should -- it should assist. if there is no longer a need, i would support phasing it out. what i would also say is that the key point to keep in mind is when we're looking at this program, this program, people need -- it's for the counties and cities to determine to be able to help improve their programs. that's the way the program is intended. if there's unintended consequences or things that can be done to support the program, i would work with my colleague on the other side of the aisle to fix those changes. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?

mr. miller: i meant to reserve my time. ms. richardson: since the gentleman was nice to me, i don't object. mr. miller: i yield to the gentleman. >> i like amendments that are trying to do something tech nickal but where i'm finding a problem in the flow of logic is think about this. we have a neighborhood stabilization program, down to its last $1 billion, we've already spent $6 billion an the concept in the amendment is saying that, well, it's going to keep acquiring one, two, three, or four-unit properties and will keep acquiring them until a certain percentage of mortgages, only this percentage is under water. mr. is why kert: is that -- tissue mr. schweikert: am i

going in the right direction? ms. richardson: yes. mr. schweikert: buying a property, sometimes fixing up boarded up windows and then turns it around and putting it back on the market. if one of our problems out there is we have a glut of properties on the market, and that's one of the things holding down values, and i'm going to continue to support a program that's going to drop another $1 billion buying properties and putting them back on the market, we have a circular logic here where i can't imagine the mechanics within this, weal -- well-meaning as they may be, actually have any basis in economics, particularly real estate economics. i yield back what time i have remaining. i reserve what time i have. mr. miller: reclaiming my time. the other point i make is significant and needs to be

dealt with, the $6 billion that's already been given away, that money continues to recycle with those groups. it should. the cities, the county the nonprofits. when they buy a house, refurbish it ansel it, the money comes back, at whatever level they can take the minnesota and buy another piece of property. nothing in my bill does anything with the $6 billion that's out there. it just says we're not going to give you another $1 billion. we're going to try to give that back to the taxpayers. if we could get the $6 billion back, i think we'll be trying to attack that, but that will not occur and cannot occur. the money has been given away, they'll continue to recycle it, hopefully somebody will benefit, but it's $6 billion given away my colleague is correct in his statements. but the $1 billion we have not given away, we say it's time to stop giving away taxpayers' money. ms. richardson: may the -- will the gentleman yields?

the chair: the gentlelady may request unanimous consent to reclaim the 30 seconds she has remaining. ms. richardson: i ask unanimous consent to reclaim my 30 seconds. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. richardson: what my amendment is talking about is the ability for state an local governments to revitalize and rehab neighborhoods so the property values go up and we can improve the economy. it's not giving away money it's helping to revite liz and stim hate lathe the economy. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. all time for debate is complete. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 112-34.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. waters: i have an amendment to h.r. 861 at the desk. number 10. the chair: the clerk will dedsig nate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part b of house report 112-34 offered by ms. waters of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 170, the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: my amendment would simply require the secretary of the department of housing and urban development to send a notice to all the n.s.p. grantees that would have received funding urn the third round of n.s.p. that the program has been terminated. further, the notice would include the name and contact information for the member of congress representing that

grantee's district along with a notice saying that the grantee can contact that member directly for assistance in mitigating foreclosed properties. as you know, we passed such an amendment off the floor when we took up the f.h.a. bill that would have basically allowed the constituents, the homeowners to refinance their program so we have one such amendment with the elimination of that program. the c.b.o. has stored -- scored this amendment at zero cost. since the passage of the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act of 2010 which provided the funds subject to this repeal my office has receive maryland call from potential grantees about the status of the program and what funding they could expect. the act would rescind those

funds nearly eight months after passage of dodd-frank. i think a simple letter from h.u.d. sent to states, counties and cities about this change is in ordered. moreover, a note to these states, counties and cities saying that their member of congress is available to assist them can help the grantees find altern tiff solutions. i have discovered there are any number of member whors starting to do this kind of thing. they're getting calls from their constituents asking them to help them with loan modifications and they're able to not get involved with the particular problem but to help guide them and send them to the proper servicer where they should be going to get that loan modification and this is similar to that. simply, our office has been able to say, yes, the program is no longer in existence but this is what you can do if there's an alternative. i would prefer not to rehash the back and forth we saw in

the financial services committee about the termination of this program. members on my side of the aisle showed pictures, talked ability the problems caused by abandoned properties and even showcased letters from their districts talking about the good work n.s.p. was doing, but the debate did not sway my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. instead, i think it's best to focus on -- focus on my amendment. i believe this is a common sense provision that can be accepted by both sides of the aisle regardless of whether they agree with the underlying bill. frantees should be made aware of the fund regular sigs and members of congress should stand ready to help communities mitigate the efforts -- the effects, rather of blighted properties, i would ask my colleagues' support and i will retain the balance of my time. the chair: the yom resmbs the balance of her time. does -- the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. does the gentleman from california claim time in

opposition? mr. miller: i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: this does nothing to help at risk borrowers. it would apply only to community groups, leaders and speculators currently participating in the program. it is not a serious attempt to address the underlying problem homeowners are facing today. if we're going to have a notification requirement it makes more sense to have the recipient of these funds to date notify taxpayers how much and if what way they have spent taxpayer dollars and what return taxpayers can expect from their investment. unfortunately the answer's none. many have questioned h.u.d.'s ability to properly monitor the use of such extraordinary amounts of money being spent at the state level and in various ways. the inspector general from h.u.d. has already identified multiple misuses of n.s.p. money. the g.a.o. has requested information system in place at h.u.d. and requested its ability to track n.s.p. funds. i wish the amendment had said, please continue using the $6

billion in an appropriate way and in some way do everything you can to create jobs for the american workers with the $6 billion we've given you. it does not say that, i cannot support the amendment the way it's drafted and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: thank you very much, madam chair. i've heard so many convoluted arguments today from the opposite side of the aisle about this legislation. my colleague from california and my friend, someone that i highly respect, knows that he does not have to wish what an amendment would say. if he's interested in an amendment he can offer it. my colleague from california did not offer the amendment that he's just alluded to. he did not suggest when we were in committee that somehow he would like to have an alternative. i find it rather curious that he would come to the floor and start wishing about what my amendment would say. secondly, i want to straighten out something.

my colleague from california keeps talking about this bill does not stop any foreclosures. the n.s.p. legislation was not intended to stop foreclosures. it was intended to do exactly what the name implies and that is stabilize communities. by taking these boarded up and abandoned properties, rehabbing them or tearing them down so that they discontinue the devaluing of the property of those homeowners who are trying to keep their properties up and stay in the community. if he in fact was concerned about helping homeowners he would have supported the f.h.a. rebuy program. that program he voted against. f.h.a. rebuy program was a program basically for middle class people who paid their bills on time but who simply knew that their homes were under water -- underwater. they were not worth what they thought they should be worth when they got into the mortgage and they wanted to refinance them.

he voted against that. so i'm not so sure when he talked about this n.s.p. program not helping anybody stay in their homes whether or not he really, really wants to try and help people stay in their homes when he's voting against something like the f.h.a.. as for jobs, this bill creates jobs and i think my colleague knows that. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: well, i did not -- i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i did not introduce an amendment because i introduced the bill. i think that bill speaks for itself. but i'm glad that my good friend admitted that this was not meant to mitigate the foreclosure process. for people. i'm glad you admitted that because that's not what your amendment says. such entities should contact such members of congress directly for assistance in mitigating foreclosured -- foreclosed properties. i'd be happy to yield a minute to mr. sleegrt.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> this is one of those few moments i get to stand behind the microphone and say, having met the good work from -- woman from california, she's been very jent toll me as a freshman so far. one of my great concerns here is very simple. mr. schweikert: there are $6 billion out there and i won't call it a slush fund, back in my days as a treasurer we would refer to it as a revolving fund. there's $6 billion out there already that goes out and it's if the property is sold comes back and i believe that operates for fifpke years from the enactment of the bill. well a letter like that this that goes out and says, the last billion isn't going to be there for you, but please keep using the $6 billion you already have to go do more good works in the neighborhood. it's my great fear is something like this doesn't really accomplish much good. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from

california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield back the balance of my time. as much as i respect my good friend and she knows we've worked together on a lot of issues and i don't believe anything between us has ever been personal in all the years weave known each other and nothing in this debate was personal. we both are well intended, we both really want to help the american people and i say that from the heart and you know. that i know your efforts are for the right purposes but good people can disagree in a good way. and on this amendment i have to respectfully disagree and i would ask for a no vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes -- the noes have it. ms. waters: i would ask an -- i would request an aye vote. i'm sorry, i request a vote on this. the chair: does the gentlewoman request a recorded vote? ms. waters: recorded vote, yes.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. waters: i have another amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part b of house report 112-34 offered by ms. waters of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 170, the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: thank you, madam chair. i yield to myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: madam chair, my amendment would direct the secretary of h.u.d. to conduct a study to determine the president number of foreclosed and abandoned property that won't be purchased or rehabilitated in each member of congress as a result of the rescission and termination of funding under this act.

the secretary will then report these findings to congress. c.b.o. has scored this amendment as zero cost. now, personally i do not believe that the neighborhood stabilization program should be terminated because n.s.p. creates jobs. so far about 72,000 housing units are projected to be impacted by round one of n.s.p. h.u.d. probablies that an additional 24,000 housing units are projected to be impacted by n.s.p. 2. each of these projects require the work of contractors such as roofers and painters and landscapers and pavers and through the program other real estate professionals like realtors and title insurance agents have also received employment and contracting opportunities. this n.s.p. program really does create jobs. and this is a program that creates jobs by doing important work in the community. contrary to what some say, the

problem of homes abandoned is common and it's difficult for municipalities to mitigate their affects. as g.a.o. has noted in a report from november, 2010, services sometimes charge off properties or fail to formally foreclose on borrowers because the cost of maintaining the property exceeds the cost of just writing the property off. these chargeoffs typically occur after the foreclosure proceedings were initiated. however, borrowers aren't aware that the services are stopping short of taking their title. because borrowers think that their servicer has finalized the foreclosure process, they may move away and become unreachable by the municipal agency now dealing with the upkeek of the -- upkeep of the property. additionally it may become low jiss particularly difficult or cost prohibitive to track down

thousands of borrowers now responsible for property maintenance, taxes and code violations because of services' failure to formally foreclose. additionally, n.s.p. provides an alternative to speculative investors, protesting foreclosed properties. unlike homeowners and municipalities, some speculative investors often purchase properties for cash and in bulk, sometimes sight unseen. bind them up before others have a chance to bid. some of these investors may not resell properties to owner occupants but let them sit on the market without any improvements while the investor waits for housing prices to rebound. alternativetively --tively, anecdotal evidence suggests that investor owners sometimes rent properties out to tenants with little or no rehabilitation or maintenance of the property. we had a hearing in minneapolis in january, 2010, at that

hearing, state senator higgins said, homes have been snapped up by investors, some are clueless about how to rehabilitate a building and get good tenants. others think that the laws really aren't meant for them. they buy a house for pennies, paint the walls, scrubt kitchen appliances and rent it out. they forget the small details like the condemn nation order and the requirements for lifting the condemnnation and getting a new certificate of occupancy and the need for a rental license. that is no not to say that all private investment is bad but we must recognize that the work n.s.p. is doing is a critical counterweight to some of these bad practices. for all of these reasons i will defend the work that n.s.p. is doing across the country, however we hear now no more -- we are here now because we need to talk about this amendment and what it would do once this

program is terminated. my n.s.p. study amendment would provide critical information to members of congress. if neb members knew the number of abandoned and foreclosed properties in their district a that will not be mitigated because of this rescission -- this rescission of funds, they will be better prepared to have grantees access responsibility, private market sources of funds that can help community revitalization. i would ask my colleagues' support and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman wishes to yield back. does the gentlewoman wish to yield back? her time has expired. ms. waters: excuse me -- the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. -- the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. my friend has said that we need to determine the aapproximate number of foreclosured and

abandoned properties that will be terminated because of n.s.p. that's impossible. we have no idea how many times the money will be recycled because the $6 billion that's out there could be recycled over and over and over. we don't know. we don't know if it's going to be given away to somebody who bought the house, how much how much is going to be taken back on the sale, that's an unknown quantitydy but my good friend did say that 72,000 units were impacted by n.s.p. 1. so america for $6 billion you impacted 72,000 units. how do you feel about that? i'm not sure what we did to impact them but we impacted them. we spent a lot of your money impacting them. now, at the same time we're asking h.u.d. to do a study. that's like the fox guarding the hen house. i'm really sorry. because when i asked mercedes marquez of h.u.d. at our committee hearing to discuss where the money went, she finally said, quote, the money's going to homeowners and to american citizens. and they strongly support the program and they strongly

encourage the president to veto this bill should it get to him. so, let's just have the very organization do a study on a program that they said they support and love and if we're successful at getting the bill passed we'll encourage the administration to veto it. that's the biggest conflict of interest i've ever had presented to me to vote on. but it's an easy conflict of interest that i say is a conflict of interest. i strongly encourage my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time on this amendment has expired. the question is on the amendment the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from