tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN March 29, 2011 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
1:00 pm
coalition happen before. >> on the question of potential contributors, well, one of those who was at the meeting, was sweden, which i mentioned earlier, who had not contributed before but they announced today and sweden is not a nato country, they announced today their participation with eight fighter aircraft in the no-fly zone and other logistical support, there are other countries currently discussing with us making a contribution to the military operations, but i think they have to make their own announcement. it's not fair for me to make those announcements or anticipate those announcements. they'll make them in due course. . >> the answer is the same. >> you will keep calling on gaddafi to go but you have been bombing him for the past 10 days and no sign of budging. what is realistically your next
1:01 pm
move? >> we haven't been bombing him and i think it's important to recognize what we have achieved in that time, because had we not passed the u.n. resolution and then act on it so promptly a week last saturday, it seems likely that benghazi would have been stormed. i'm sure if it had not been for our intervention, misrata would have fallen with great loss of life and catastrophic consequences. we have been engaged in this now for 10 days, but i think in those 10 days, we have achieved a great deal and we have saved many lives. now, it does seem from all of today's activity in libya that despite a third proclamation of
1:02 pm
a cease fire that the gaddafi regime is embarked on prosecuting a war against the people of their own country and you can tell from the statements i made on behalf of the whole conference today that since the conditions of a cease fire and an end to violence are not fulfilled our operation to protect citizens in these locations in libya will continue. that unified commitment to them is very, very clear in our statement today. and so i think it is the gaddafi regime that has to wonder and worry where that leads the international community and which are robust, clear and united that we will continue on this course of action, which has already saved so many lives and looks like will be necessary to save even more. and that is worth while doing and it is the right thing to do
1:03 pm
and it has been strongly endorsed at this conference today. we're going to go now, because secretary clinton will be with you shortly, so we'll give you a short break before she arrives. thank you very much indeed. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> news conference coming from london live following the one-day conference, the meeting in london on libya. what we are going to do next is show you the conference from earlier today which featured david cameron on the screen and secretary of state hillary canton from earlier today from london. this is about 25 minutes.
1:04 pm
>> welcome to everyone and can i give you a warm welcome to london. we have foreign minimums sters here from more than 40 countries, from america to asia, from europe to africa, from the united nations to the unification. today should be about a new beginning for libya, a future in which the people of libya can determine their own destiny free from violence and free from oppression. but the reasons being here today are the people of libya cannot reach that future on their own. they require three things from us. first, we must reaffirm our
1:05 pm
commitment to the u.n. security council's ress resolution 1970 and 1973 and reaffirm the broad alliance that has been put in place to implement them. second, we must ensure the fast delivery of humanitarian aid where it is needed, including to the null liberated towns in libya and third, we must help the people plaven for their future after the conflict is over. these are the three goals of this conference and i would like to say a little about each in turn. first, u.n. security council resolution 1973. it was 12 days ago, following an appeal by the arab league, the united nations passed the historic resolution to protect the people of libya from the murderous brutality of colonel gaddafi. at the meeting, nicholas sarkozy hosted in paris, we made the right choice, that is to draw a
1:06 pm
line in the desert hand to halt gaddafi's forces and we should be in doubt that that action did save the city of benghazi and averted a massacre and has given freedom a chance in libya. but i think we should be in doubt about something else as well, and that is as we sit here today and as i speak, people in misrata continue to suffer murderous attacks from the regime. i have had reports this morning that the city is under attack from both land and from the sea. gaddafi is using snipers who shoot people down and let them bleed to death in the street. he has cut off food, water and electricity to stop people. and he is harassing humanitarian ships to get into the port. he continues to be in flagrant
1:07 pm
breach -- >> we are going to break away and show you these comments in a bit but wanted to take you back live to london and secretary of state clinton speaking to the press. >> we discussed the need for a political solution and transition in libya and i reiterated the support of the united states on behalf of president obama for the legitimate aspirations of the libyan people and our people to helping them achieve those aspirations. i also had the opportunity to meet with prime minister cameron and with foreign minister hague and expressed the gratitude that the united kingdom has shown in building an effective international response to the crisis in libya. we consulted on the way forward, the military, political and humanitarian dimensions and discussed events and broader
1:08 pm
trends across the middle east and north africa and our joint efforts in afghanistan and pakistan. i had the opportunity also to consult with a number of other counterparts about libya, because today's conference is taking place at a moment of transition, as nato takes over as leader of the coalition mission, a mission in which the united states will continue to play an active, supporting role. some of our coalition partners announced additional support and contributions today, which we welcomed. in addition to our joint military efforts, we discussed the need for progress in libya along the three nonmilitary tracks. first, delivering humanitarian assistance, second, pressuring and isolating the gaddafi regime through robust sanctions and other measures and third, supporting efforts by libyans to achieve the political changes that they are seeking. we also agreed on a structure
1:09 pm
for decision making going forward on both the military and political tracks. on the military side, we agreed that the north atlantic council with partners fully at the table will be the sole provider of executive direction for nato operations, similar to the approach for afghanistan. on the plig side, we agreed to establish a contact group to offer a systemic coordination members of the committeism and broad political guidance under resolutions 1970 and 1973 and as i'm sure you just heard from the prime minister of qatar, they have agreed to host the first meeting of the contact group along with the u.k. in a series of side meetings, i had the chance to discuss a number of issues including syria and expressed our strong condemnation of their brutal
1:10 pm
oppression of demonstration and violence and killing of civilians in the hands of security forces. i also discussed efforts that are undertaken by the organization of islamic conference, particularly our joint effort to pass a resolution at the human rights council that promotes tolerance and respect as well as free expression. and we greatly appreciate the o.i.c. hosting a meeting of the international contact group on afghanistan and pakistan in the future. i was able to consult on a number of regional matters including libya, with the foreign minister of turkey. it was a full day for all of us. we came to london to speak with one voice in support of a transition that leads to a brighter future for the libyan people. i'm very pleased with the progress that we have made both today and in the days preceding it and grateful for everyone who
1:11 pm
participated in the conference and in the broader effort in libya. i think we are making a lot of progress together and we could not do it unless we were representing the international community as we are. so with that, i would be happy to take your questions. >> our first question is from andy quinn of reuters. >> madam secretary, in your meeting today, were you able to make concrete offers of assistance to them either of turning over the $33 billion of libyan funds prosen in the united states or possible arms transfers and it was told to the senate today that intelligence shows flickers of al qaeda in the libyan opposition. how great a concern is that and is that part of the u.s. debate in part of the transfers to the transitional council? >> we haven't made a decision about arming the rebels or arms
1:12 pm
transfers, so there has not been any need to discuss that at this point. we did discuss nonlethal assistance and discussed ways of trying to enable the transition national council to meet a lot of their financial needs and how we could do that through the international community, given the challenges that sanctions pose, but recognizing they obviously are going to need funds to keep themselves going. we discussed a broad range of matters and certainly their presentation, which some of you may have seen earlier today as to what kind of civil society and political structure they are trying to build until libya, are exactly in line with what they have consistently said were
1:13 pm
their goals, their commitment to democracy and to a very robust engagement with people from across the spectrum of libyans is, i think, appropriate. we do not have any specific information about specific individuals from any organization who are part of this, but, of course, we are getting to know those who are leading the transitional national council and that will be a process that continues. >> our next question from "times london." >> two things, first of all, is it your understanding that the u.n. resolution 1973 makes it illegal to supply arms to the libyan rebels or do you think there could be room for maneuver
1:14 pm
should it get to that? and secondly, when the rebels were talking earlier today, none of them were named, and they clearly have access, power and access of funds through oil money. do you think they should be transparent, declaring who theyr what groupings they come from and how they use the money? >> the first question, it is our interpretation that 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. as i said, we have not made that decision at this time. secondly, i do think the greater transparency will, of course, be
1:15 pm
expected and will be delivered, but i think you have to put this into context. i mean, this is a very fast evolving, but by no means settled structure that they are trying to build. they also claim to have a number of people who are willing to work with them from central and western libya who, for security reasons, cannot yet be named. so i do think this is a work in progress and just as with respect to andy's question, we don't know as much as we would like to know and as much we expect we will know. we are picking up information. a lot of contact is going on, not only by our government, but many governments who are part of the coalition. so we are building an understanding. but at this time, obviously, it is as i say, a work in progress.
1:16 pm
>> "wall street journal". gentleman. >> i have a question regarding syria. over the weekend you gave an interview where you said how many members of congress view president assad as a reformer. is that your position because it has been well documented cases of syrian support for terrorist groups, allegations to pursue atomic weapons and some in congress say syria poses a greater threat than libya does. is it the obama's administration's position that it can work with president assad to initiate some of the reforms that people are calling for? >> jay, i referenced opinions of others and was not speaking for myself or the administration. we deplore the crackdown that is occurring in syria and we call on syria, as we have throughout
1:17 pm
the last month to respect the rights of its citizens, to allow people to protest peacefully, to work toward political and economic reform that would be to the benefit of the syrian people. so there is no difference in how we view this and how we have viewed the other incredible sequence of actions that we have seen in north africa and in the middle east. and we hope there is an opportunity for reform. we hope there is an opportunity for reform in all of these countries. we want to see peaceful transitions and democracies that represent the well of the people. we are like the syrian people, waiting and watching to see what comes from the syrian government. they dismissed the cabinet today, which resigned enmasse
1:18 pm
and we support the timely implementation of reform that the syrians are presenting to their government, which is eliminating syria's state of emergency laws which have been in effect for a long time. it is up to the syrian government and up to the leadership, starting with president assad, to prove that it can be responsive to the needs of its own people. so we're troubled by what we hear but we are going to continue to urge that the promise of reform which has been made over and over again which you reported on just a few moments ago, i'm a reformer and going to reform and talked to members of congress about that that we hear from the highest levels of leadership in syria will be turned into reality. that's what we are waiting and
1:19 pm
watching for. >> final question from "the "daily telegraph"." >> i wondered how you viewed the situation in libya at the moment. there is ping pong going on and the rebels are withdrawing from some areas today. how do you situation evolving in libya and how long do you see it lasting and what are gaddafi's options? he can try and stay or face the council or could he travel to another country? >> what we are seeing in libya is a strengthening of the opposition, a consistent and very persistent effort by the opposition to try to hold ground which they have had and to
1:20 pm
regain ground which they have lost. unfortunately, we are also seeing with gaddafi a continuing pressure on the rebels, on his people, a rillingness to use force. we had reports today -- willingness to use force. we had reports today of his forces in misrata and elsewhere. this is a volatile, dynamic situation that is unfolding. we accomplished a lot in a very short period of time. we clearly believe that president obama said last night that we prevented a massacre in benghazi and able to stop the military advance that was moving rapidly from west to east and that we send a clear message through the international community's willingness to enforce a no-fly zone and
1:21 pm
protect civilians, that that kind of ruthless behavior by a leader towards his own people would not be tolerated. this has happened so quickly that we're now facing questions like the ones you ask, but i'm not sure we know exactly when we will get to any change in attitude by gaddafi and those around him. as you know, there's a lot of reaching out that is occurring, a lot of conversations that are going and as the arab league has said, it's also obvious to everyone that gaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead. we believe he must go. we are working with the international community to try to achieve that outcome. he will have to make a decision and that decision so far as we're aware has not yet been made. you probably know that the secretary general envoy will be
1:22 pm
going to tripoli and benghazi once again to urge gaddafi to implement a real ceasefire that is not going to be immediately breached by his own forces, to withdraw from those areas that he has taken by force and to look for a political resolution, which could include his leaving the country. so all of this is in play and many of the nations that were here in london today are working together to try to gather information to share the impression each has with the conversations that are coming from tripoli and from those close to gaddafi about what is and what isn't being considered. so i expect to see things continue to move in a positive direction, but i can't by any means give you any sort of time line.
1:23 pm
that is not sensible at this point. we don't have enough information to do that. >> thank you all very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> secretary of state clinton live in london. she will later today return to the united states. she is set to give a classified briefing to members of congress tomorrow in the house chamber along with defense secretary gates and director of national intelligence and again, this is following up to the one-day conference on libya. you have heard from the secretary of state.
1:24 pm
1:25 pm
general. we'll get that for you on the c-span networks. we heard from william hague who said they did not discuss disarming gaddafi. there is david cameron, he participated as did the secretary of state and u.n. secretary general. this is about 25 minutes. >> we have foreign ministers here from 40 countries. and we're all here united in one purpose and that is to help the libyan people in their hour of need.
1:26 pm
today, i believe should be about a new beginning for libya, a future in which the people of libya can determine their own destiny free from violence and free from oppression. but the reasons being here today is that the libyan people cannot reach that future on their own. they require, i believe, three things from us, first, we must reaffirm our commitment to the u.n. security council's resolutions 1970 and 1973 and we should reaffirm the broad alliance that has been put in place to implement them. second, we must ensure that fast delivery of humanitarian aid where it is needed, including to the newly liberated towns in libya. and third, we must help the libyan people plan for their future after the conflict is over. these are the three goals, i believe, of this conference, and i would like to say a little bit
1:27 pm
about each in turn. first, u.n. security council resolution 1973. it was just 12 days ago, following an appeal by the arab league that the united nations passed the historic resolution to protect the people of libya from the murderous brutality of colonel gaddafi. at the meeting nicholas sarkozy hosted in paris, we made the right choice, which was to draw a line in the desert sand to halt gaddafi's forces and we should be in no doubt that that action did save the city of benghazi. it averted a massacre and it has at least given freedom a chance in libya. but i think we should be in no doubt about something else as well. and that is as we sit here today and as i speak, people in misrata continue to suffer murderous attacks from the regime. i have had reports this morning that the city is under attack
1:28 pm
from both land and from the sea. gaddafi is using snipers to shoot people down and let them bleed to death in the street. he has cut off food, water and electricity to stop people. and harassing humanitarian ships that are trying to get into the port to do what they can. he continues to be in flagrant breach of the u.n. security council resolution. that is why there has been widespread support among the libyan people and wider arab world for the action we're taking. it has saved lives and is saving lives. as one misrata resident put it, these strikes give us hope. we must be clear, we will not take that hope away. we will continue to implement the u.n. resolution for as long as is necessary to protect the libyan people from danger. second, humanitarian aid, just as it is essential that the international community works
1:29 pm
together to stop the slaughter, it is vital we get aid in to save lives and this has to happen now. even in misrata, humanitarian agencies have managed to get supplies in. in benghazi, the islamic relief and international medical corps are back in and working hard. in another city, the hospital is reported to be functioning and needs more nurses and supplies. supplies are getting in, but we need to redouble our efforts. the whole international community needs to work together and the u.n. has an absolutely critical role in ensuring that aid gets through especially in the null liberated towns. when the fighting is over, we will need to put right the damage that gaddafi has inflicted, repairing the hospitals, rebuilding the homes demolished by his tanks and restoring the mosques that have been smashed by him. it is never to too early to
1:30 pm
start planning coordinated action to support peace in libya over the longer term and it is the u.n. working with regional organizations and the rest of the international community that should lead this work. repairing physical infrastructure, ensuring basic services and restoring functional governments at every level. we must help plan now for the libyan people. our military action can protect people from attacks and yes our humanitarian action can help people recover, but neither are sufficient to provide a greater part to freedom. the solution must be a political one and must be for the libyan people themselves to determine their destiny. that means reinforcing the u.n. saverageses to exert the greatest possible pressure on gaddafi and his regime and requires bringing together the widest possible coalition of political leaders including civil society, local leaders and
1:31 pm
the interim transitional national council so the libyan people can speak with one voice. i propose that today's conference should agree to set up a contact group which will put political effort on a sustained basis into supporting the libyan people. we should be clear about the scale of the challenge. it will mean looking afresh at our whole engagement from our development programs to our cultural exchanges to our trade arrangements, all of these things must be redoubled and support the building blocks of a democratic society. freedom of expression, the right to free and fair elections, the right to peaceful protests, respect for human rights and rule of law, these are values that belong to any one nation, but universal and embedded in a vision of democratic libya set out by the interim transitional national council today and we should warmly welcome this commitment. as this broad range of countries
1:32 pm
gather here today there are people suffering under gaddafi's rule. our message is this, there are better days ahead for libya. just as we continue to protect the libyan people from the brutality of this regime, we will support and stand by them as they seek to take control of their destiny. the courage should be rewarded. a new beginning for libya is within their grasp and we must help them to seize it. thank you. i would like to ask secretary . >> thank you, mr. prime minister and i thank the government of united kingdom of organizing this important meeting and i commend and appreciate your leadership. security council resolution 1970
1:33 pm
and 1973 is our statement to force the government of libya to stop his campaign of violence against his own citizens. the fact that the international community acted decisively to save thousands of lives and i'm very much encouraged that only after 10 days of the meeting in paris, we are gathering in a much broader meeting and i'm moved by this decisive international community. when the air strikes began government forces were poised to enter benghazi. i have called repeatedly, but for now we have prevented the humanitarian catastrophe. we also know air operations are trying to resolve the crisis and
1:34 pm
bringing the political solution. i therefore welcome the consultations with international partners that recently took place under the leadership of african union. for our part, the united nations from the beginning has undertaken strong diplomatic efforts to end the crisis in libya. i and my special envoy who is here with us have remained in close contact with all parties, including the libyan authorities. i have called repeatedly for an immediate ceasefire and unrestricted humanitarian access to all areas of the country. my special envoy will return to libya shortly again to meet with the leaders of the government. he will also engage closely with international stake holders,
1:35 pm
including the league of arab states and african union and o.i.c. and european union. his him is to keep the channels of communication with all sides on the conflict to help resolve the conflict and bring about the settlement with the will of the libyan people. in tandem with the special envoy's activities, our humanitarian coordinator carriers out the mission in tripoli. they have put our envoy and precipitations are under way for a humanitarian assess meant in the east of libya. 1973 demands that the libyan authorities comprise fully with
1:36 pm
their obligation on the international, humanitarian and human rights law. as you well know, we continue to receive deeply disturbing reports about civilians including abuses of human rights by the parties to the country. in view of the current military operations, humanitarian aid should be developed in order to ensure that aid delivery is carried out according to humanitarian principles. 380,000 people have left libya since the start of the unrest and some 13,000 people remain stranded at the borders with egypt and tunisia and mobilizing
1:37 pm
all possible efforts using these international organizations and i also talked to them last week. $160 million for the libyan crisis is 67% funded. i hope that the countries participating in this meeting will generously contribute to this appeal. assessment by eastern libya report, torn out country will increase and those needing assistance. our priority remains what it has been since military operations began, to save civilian lives and end the hostilities.
1:38 pm
any ceasefire will coordinate monitoring. international aid and critical that the international community remain united. fast-moving developments on the ground requires to look ahead. soon libya's people will have to be engaged with each other. our long-term interests is to help them do so focusing on the establishments of transitional arrangements. the dramatic changes under way in libya and north africa require a coordinated effective response from the international community. and i would like to support what
1:39 pm
prime minister has suggested to establish a contact group and i would like to see that the very close coordination among you -- united nations, league of and and states, and others should have close coordination. any fragmented approach -- i know everybody is anxious and passionate to help the libyan people in this crisis, but we need to have very close coordination and lead this coordination if you agree. we know that any stable democracy must be grounded in economic, social and political environment and this requires strategy base odd an integrated framework and firm commitments
1:40 pm
from us all. job creation and human rights capacity and institution building, political dial owing, assistance and reforms, these are the issues, the people in the region desperately need. i'm sure the libyan people will need much, much more. the government, the region, they have not encouraged the civil society. just one man rule and therefore we need to be very much i think strategic in helping them to have a very smooth transition towards the rule of law and full democracy. civil society, organizations and media also pose substantial challenges.
1:41 pm
foreign ministers and heads of international transitions, the transition will take time and the support of us. the united nations is ready and willing to assist the people of libya in this transition and we are eager to help and work very closely with you. thank you very much, mr. prime minister. >> i would like to ask the prime minister of qatar to address us. >> you can use the head phones because i would like to speak in arabic if you don't mind. >> mr. prime minister, ladies and gentlemen, i just would like to thank you -- thank the government of the u.k. for arranging for that meeting in order to discuss the new issues which happened after the paris meeting and after the meeting
1:42 pm
which took place at the united nationses on resolution 1973. the arab league has requested to enforce a no-fly zone to protect civilians and african union has also asked to stop the violence and the security council took control of that after the first resolution 1970 and then 1973 which permitted the arab logan members to take all actions required to protect civilians. and the resolution has also asked for a ceasefire and stop all assaults on civilians and allow humanitarian aid to reach needy people. that delegation from the united nations is a commitment for all member countries and that delegation was very important to stop the massacre for civilians.
1:43 pm
gaddafi was going to commit atrocities against civilians. and we take the legal route according to the united nations charter and security council to have that delegation. that is a legitimate action to stop killing its people. there is no doubt that the actions and military actions that are being taken according to that delegation has stopped a great extent the power of gaddafi and protected the civilians from the violence which gaddafi regime was about to commit. that was actually important to make the people feel they are about to get rid of that murderous regime and achieve a better future and they will have freedom with the help of the
1:44 pm
international community. the aim is very important and it's part of the power delegated by the international community. we as a country, we are providing humanitarian aid to the libyan people and took part in enforcing the no-fly zone and at the same time, we moved many people who were not able to go back to their country because of the violence and lately, we have acknowledged the council as the only representative of libya because we are convinced that the only representative of the libyan people, legitimate representative and the people inside that council from different libyan areas in the region, we would hope gaddafi gives up power to stop the killing and murder of people. we would like gaddafi to listen
1:45 pm
to the international community and we hope our cooperation will succeed. >> thank you very much for those words. and i would like to ask secretary of state clinton to speak to us. >> thank you very much. thanks to you and your government for the critical leadership effort you have demonstrated in our common effort. thanks to france, which has been the forefront of this mission by hosting us last week in paris and thanks to everyone around this table. we have prevented a potential massacre, established a no-flie zone stopped an advancing army, added more partners to this coalition and transferred command of the military effort to nato. that's not bad for a week of work at a time of great intense international concern. united states has been proud to stand with our nato, arab and european partners. we have been responding to the appeal to the libyan people and
1:46 pm
to the arab league's call for urgent action and joined with countries from around the world including all three countries representing africa on the united nations security council to pass two strong resolutions. this has been an international effort and reflection of our concern for the safety of civilians and our support for the legitimate aspirations of the libyan people. we meet in london at a turning point. nato has taken command enforcing the the no-fly zone and protecting civilians. last night, president obama expressed his full confidence that this coalition will keep the pressure on gaddafi's remaining forces. i second that confidence. this coalition, military action will continue until gaddafi fully complies with the terms of 1973. ceases his attacks on civilians,
1:47 pm
pulls his troops back from places they have forcibly entered and allows key services and humanitarian assistance to reach all libyans. all of us are called to continue to work together along three tracks. first, delivering desperately needed humanitarian assistance. second, pressuring and isolating the regime through robust sanctions and other measures, third, supporting efforts by libyans to achieve their aspirations through political change. on the humanitarian front under the leadership of the united nations, we will work with nato, e.u. and other international organizations and regional partners to deliver assistance. the coalition military campaign has made it possible for more help to get through. for example, a convoy organized by the world food program was able to reach benghazi this weekend with 18 tons of supplies including food and blankets, but a great deal more aid is needed
1:48 pm
and we have to work quickly and cooperatively to assess and respond. beyond the humanitarian crisis, we know long-term progress in libya will not be accomplished through military means. all of us have to continue the pressure on and deepen isolation of the gaddafi regime. this includes a unified front of political and diplomatic pressure that makes clear to gaddafi he must go. sends a strong message of accountability and sharpens the choice for those around him. it also includes financial pressure to the vigorous enforcement of sanctions authorized under security council resolutions 1970 and 1973. as president obama said last night while our military mission is focused on saving lives, we must continue to pursue the broader goal of a libya that belongs not not to a libyan dictator but to the libyan
1:49 pm
people. we must not attempt to impose our will on the people of libya but can and must stand with them as they determine their own destiny and we have to speak with one voice in support of a transition that leads to that time. we agree with the arab league that gaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead. we agree with the african union on the need for a democratic transition process. and we support u.n. special envoy's plan to travel to libya following this conference to assess conditions and report to the international community. we believe that libya's transition should come through a broadly inclusive process that reflects the will and protects the rights of the libyan people sm the transitional national council and broad cross section of libya's civil society and other stake holders have critical contributions to make. earlier today, i had the opportunity to meet with senior representatives of the council and to talk about the path forward. the u.n., african union, arab league, o.i.c. and e.u. all have
1:50 pm
important roles to play. and through this, the united states will join the international community in our commitment to the sovreignty, territorial integrity and national unity of libya. this is a time of debate change, for libya, for its neighbors across the region and around the world, under different governments and under circumstances, people are expressing the same basic aspirations, a voice in their government, end to corruption, freedom from violence and fear, chance to live in dignity and make the most of their god-given tall especially. these goals aren't easily achieved but they are without question worth working for together and i'm very proud this coalition has come to this place at this time to try to pursue those goals. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> secretary of state clinton earlier today. she is expected to be part of a
1:51 pm
classified briefing for congress tomorrow along with defense secretary gates. here in a few minutes, we'll take you live to the house floor. today they will be dealing with a bill ending a federal home mortgage assistance program. live house coverage to for you at 2:00 eastern. we will show you a news briefing that happened earlier today and you can see all of today's events online at our web site on c-span dorg -- c-span.org and show you as much as we can until the house comes in at 2:00. >> leaders from 40 countries and organizations, including arab league, european union and nato met here at the london conference on libya.
1:52 pm
i will list our keep conclusions in a moment but we have widened and deepend the coalition with a pledge of support from sweden, growing number of countries committed to implementing the u.n. resolutions on libya and agreement to a new contact group, international contact group on libya. and second, libya's international council has launched again their vision for a future libya that is free, democratic and unified. and we have said throughout we want the libyan people to be in the lead of determining their future and today was a significant milestone in that process. it comes at a time when the forces of the gaddafi regime continue to shell libyan civilians in misrata and other areas in a brutal manner. i have here a copy of a letter we received today from a member
1:53 pm
of the local council in misrata, thanking britain and our allies to relieve the people through targeted strikes and enforcement of the no-fly zone and coming to the aid of the libyan people as he puts it in their most needy of hours. he says in his own words that the local council can testify for the effectiveness and accuracy of those strikes and confirm there has not been a single case of civilian injury let alone death in and around misrata as a result of coalition activity. he salutes the men and women in uniform who have put their lives on the line, saying we are forever grateful. my colleague, prime minister of qatar is one of our key allies in the implementing 1973. they have shown commitment in
1:54 pm
the skies over libya and we welcome the fact that qatar has agreed to host the first meeting on the new contact group on libya which we goode to form today. before we turn it over to him, i want to draw your attention to some of the key conclusions of today's meetings that are set out in documents that will be supplied for you. participants today have reafffirmed the importance of full and swift implementation of the u.n. security council resolutions and strong commitment to the sovreignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of libya. we will pursue additional sanctions on individuals and entities associated with the regime. and participants here today are implementing these measures to gaddafi that he cannot attack civilians with impunity. we have a broad-based mandates.
1:55 pm
so far the action we have taken is protecting countless civilians from gaddafi and effectively wiping out his air capability. participants paid tribute to the bravery and professionalism of military personnel from all contributors in the coalition. the current contributors to military operations had a separate meeting as part of the conference. we med to underline our commitment to military action to implement the provisions of the resolutions. we reafffirmed our unified support for this course of action and welcomed nato contribution in agreeing to take command and control over military operations to enforce the arms embargo, the no-fly zone and other actions needed to protect civilians. participants here today have reafffirmed that clear conditions must be met under the security council resolution
1:56 pm
including ceasefire, halt of attacks on civilians and access to those in need. we agreed to continue our efforts until those conditions are fulfilled. and the libyan regime will be judged by actions and not by its words. we agree it's not for any of the participants here today to choose the government of libya but only the libyan people can do that butries regime has lost legitimacy and will be held accountable for their actions and recognize the need for all libyans including the transitional national council, tribal leaders and others to begin an enclues i have political process and we call on the international community to support that process working closely with the special representative. participants today expressed our concern for the well-being of up to 80,000 internally displaced people. we agreed priorities for a
1:57 pm
humanitarian response. we noted the country of qatar to facilitate the sale of oil and the provisions of the security council resolutions and other relevant resolutions and support the people of libya in using the proceeds to help meet their needs. to take this work forward, participants of the conference agreed to establish a contact group. this group will meet to provide leadership and overall political direction to the international efforts in close coordination with the u.n., african union, arab league, and the european union to support libya to provide a forum for coordinating the international response on libya and provide a focal point in the international community for contact with the libyan parties. qatar has goode to convene the first meeting of the group. thereafter, the chair manship will rotate between the countries of the region and beyond it. the north atlantic council
1:58 pm
meeting along side its coolings partners who provide the direction to nato operations. the participants welcomed the u.n. secretary germ's offer to lead humanitarian assistance and provide for longer term stablization support. turkey and others and international agencies offered to support this work and take it forward with the contact group. this conference has shown that we are united in our aim, united in seeking a libya that does not pose a threat to its own citizens or to the region or more widely and in working with the people of libya as they choose their own way forward to a peaceful and stable future. thank you very much. i now invite the prime minister and foreign minister of qatar to speak. >> first of all, i would like to say that we thank britain for this conference which has become
1:59 pm
a very important conference after the first conference in paris, because that shows the sold art of the allies and more countries joining this coalition. it's a sad moment, but we hope in the future, sad moment of what we are seeing in libya, sad moment that we see that we need to try to intervene in a country that belongs to the arabs, but we as arabs and the arab league are participating to try to not let the libyan people by their own facing cadaff cry and his group -- gaddafi and his group -- >> part of the news conference following the libyan conference today in london. you can see all of that online on our web site c-spanvideo.org.
2:00 pm
we are leaving this now and taking you to the u.s. house as they gavel to start the day with a couple of bills, including one ending federal home mortgage assistance program and members are expected to finish work on that bill this afternoon as well as one extending certain federal yation -- federal aviation programs. and now live coverage of the house here on c-span. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned
2:01 pm
coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: cherry blossoms draw thousands of visitors to the capital city, lord. their silent beauty causes busy residents to stop, frenzied motion and simply gaze for a moment. reflected in pools or clustered together on lawns, wrinkled with age, their new life displays a unified motion of gentle friendship.
2:02 pm
today in our prayer, lord, we offer voice to their song spring and praise you and bless you for this momentary revelation of your unique mystery and the blessing upon this nation. lord, this powerful gift of the japanese people invites us to pray for our friends in their hour of need and suffering. spring's fragile beauty will not be manipulated or contained for very long, yet and through its passing glimpse of glory, the truth of your promise is revealed. so we learn the importance of your timing and the art of subtle cohesion to natural forces. lord, grant us patience that you will have your way with us now
2:03 pm
and always, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess. mr. burgess: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, all americans have provided sympathy for the people of japan due to the massive earthquake and tsunami. but i was grateful to learn last
2:04 pm
week at the rotary club that the rotary foundation is taking direct action. special assistant bill walker of the second district office is a dedicated rotarian. the rotary japan and disaster fund has been established for donations online worldwide. the international president of missouri is promoting the people assistance in the best tradition with his creed, building communities, bridging continents. japan is a leading rotary nation and it is fitting the incoming r.i. president nominee to continue the relief assistance of the club of japan. as a rotarian, i appreciate the role worldwide with hundreds of new clubs in formerly communist countries who are making a difference with service above self. as with polio plus, rotarians can achieve humanitarian
2:05 pm
assistance which creates worldwide records for effectiveness. in conclusion, god bless our troops, we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house a 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 17, 2011, at 6:52 p.m. that the senate agreed to house concurrent resolution 30. with best wishes i am, signed, sincerely, robert f. breed, deputy clerk. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to clause 5-a-4-a of rule 10 of the rules of the
2:06 pm
us -- house of representatives, i designate the following members to be available to serve on investigative subcommittees of the committee on ethics during the 112th congress. zoe lofgren of california, ben chandler of kentucky. j.p. sarbanes of maryland. perry a. suewell of alabama. paul tonko of new york. ben ray lujan of new mexico. david n. cicilline of rhode island. william railroad keating of massachusetts. adam b. schiff of. california. will he vet e. clarke of new york, best regards, nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. yarmuth: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. yarmuth: in louisville we have a lot to be proud of, the derby, muhammad, and now the ncaa division 2 champion champion knights. led by the coach, the knights
2:07 pm
finished the regular season with 24 wins, their second consecutive conference title, and stormed through the ncaa tournament to bring home the university's first national championship. they corraled mustangs and tamed mutual fund ricks and last saturday, -- and tamed mavericks , and last saturday, they sent the sea siders packing. the knights are true student athletes who overcame injuries and adversity bound together by trust. trust in their abilities and in each other. let's not forget the trust and support of the fans who traveled by the busload nearly 900 miles to cheer on their knights. mr. speaker, i ask you join me today in congratulating coach davenport, the team, and entire bellarmine community on its 2011 ncaa championship. this was a victory that made history. on behalf of everyone in louisville, we are proud to call the knights our hometown heroes and national champions. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
2:08 pm
gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. burgess: ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: i thank the speaker for the recognition. mr. speaker, last night the president took to the airwaves and talked to the nation about the international efforts that america's leading in libya. this comes almost two weeks after the president gave his approval for the united states to be involved in the action in libya. the president discussed the united states interest in the conflict, the limited involvement, the limited involvement of the united states military, and the role of other countries. what the president failed to deliver was a clear articulation on what is america's role in this conflict. putting our men and women in harm's way while not knowing the specifics of how and why is not just unacceptable it is dangerous. mr. president, you need to be more forthcoming. the american people need more information. the american people certainly deserve answers. the explnation last night was
2:09 pm
disappointing and we find ourselves even more from us straighted as specific information was not provided. what is the exit strategy? what is the end game? what are our goals? how are we going to ensure the next government of libya is not even more hostile than the current regime? the president does need to follow through with these actions. we need to have the resolve to see this through. the president waited too long to address the nation. certainly the congress needed to be involved and certainly the american people needed to be involved. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which a vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule
2:10 pm
20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 today. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1079. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1079, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and airway trust fund to amend title 49 united states code to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. capuano, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the
2:11 pm
gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on bill 1079. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. petri: i ask unanimous consent to include in the congressional record the exchange of letters between the committee on ways and means and the committee on transportation and infrastructure concerning h.r. 1079. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to the principal author of the bill and the chairman of the transportation committee, our colleague from the state of florida, john mica. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mica: thank you so much, mr. speaker. my colleagues. this is an extension of the what would be known as the aviation bill. i come before the house asking for one extension under the leadership of the new majority
2:12 pm
in congress. also come to the floor after -- let me explain the history of how we got here today with 17 extensions. in 2001 i had the honor and privilege of being named the chair of the aviation subcommittee not knowing what future would hold, of course all of our lives changed on september 11, 2001, and mine did, too. in 2003 we passed a four-year authorization, the federal government must provide authorization and set the policy for operation of our nation's aviation system. and for the f.a.a. which is the primary and lead agency. the bill that we passed in 2003
2:13 pm
sets forth the policy, the funding, all the projects and everything eligible for federal participation authorizes all the programs. we did that again in 2003. we did a four-year bill. 2007 the bill that i helped author that we brought before the congress, again after the fateful days of 2001 and the tragedy. again the difficulty the aviation industry saw from someone to three -- to 2003, but that bill that expired in 2007, the four-year bill, was extended some 17 times. that's shameful and irresponsible that we find ourselves in a situation where
2:14 pm
we haven't passed policy. why is this important? most of the emphasis should be in this congress on getting people back to work. if we have people working, most of our problems are solved. the state also have revenue. the federal government would have revenue. but it's absolutely amazing when you have the aviation industry that accounts for 9.2% of our gross domestic product and activity in the united states. 9.2% that the federal government does not have in place, that congress did not have in place a long-term policy and blueprint which is set forth in that authorization legislation. so 17 times we have come to the floor and there have been these short-term extensions of the bill that we passed originally in 2003 that expired in 2004.
2:15 pm
that's the situation we find ourselves in. now, several weeks ago we did pass in the transportation and infrastructure committee a long-term four-year bill, the senate has acted, the other body, and they passed a bill. if it was just our committee, we probably could have had the bill up a little bit quicker, but we do rely on several other committees to add input into this process. we have the science, space, and technology committee who just before we left last week completed their portion of the bill. . we have the ways and means committee that has part of the ways and means responsibility in the legislation for the extension and they finished their work. we do need a little bit more time to come to conference, and i pledge an open conference.
2:16 pm
in the past legislation has been decided but hind closed doors. i hope -- behind closed doors. i hope this to be an open process. this extension will run us through may 31, i believe, of this year, the end of may. and it is my hope that the first bill that we can get done will be done with this one extension for, again, authorizing all of our aviation programs for the nation. so that's the situation we find ourselves in. we need to pass this legislation because the current 17th extension expires at the end of this week, and we must have this in place to make certain that we can even function in any manner even though we don't have all the details of new legislation in place which i pledge to do in the next 60 days.
2:17 pm
so with that explanation i'd like to yield back and thank the chairman of the aviation subcommittee, the gentleman and our leader on aviation issues, to mr. petri. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. capuano: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 1079, the airport and airway extension act of 2011. as you heard this is the 18th short-term extension of the aviation programs with an enactment of the long tirm f.a.a. re-authorization in sight, as my colleague said. i hope this will be the last short-term extension. i know if we need one we will have one. without enactment of this bill, the expenditures authorities would lapse on march 31. this clean and straightforward extension will keep the aviation running through may
2:18 pm
31. it will congress to work on the long-term re-authorization. while i support this short-term extension bill i have serious concerns about the long-term f.a.a. re-authorization bill that i expect the house may take up this week. the fiscal year 2010, the f.a.a.'s major programs were funded at approximately $16 billion. h.r. 658, the f.a.a. re-authorization reform act of 2008 is a four-year re-authorization that would reduce the f.a.a.'s annual funding to approximately 2008 appropriation levels. $14.9 billion. for the remainder of 2011 and then each year through fiscal year 2014. h.r. 658 would effectively cut roughly $1 billion annually and almost $4 billion total below current funding levels from the f.a.a. budget over the next four years. these proposed cuts will have dire consequences on our nation's infrastructure, jobs
2:19 pm
and the economy. mr. speaker, in february the house aviation subcommittee held a hearing for industry stakeholders to testify about f.a.a. re-authorization. in response to a question that i posed, witnesses representing the aerospace industry, general aviation manufacturers, general aviation pilots, airports, air traffic controllers and f.a.a. managers all testified that congress could not cut $1 billion annually from the f.a.a.'s budget without harming safety sensitive programs or hampering the industry. at the same hearing, ms. marian blakely, the f.a.a. administrator under president george w. bush, stated that -- and this is a quote -- the prospect is really devastating to jobs and to our future. every $1 billion of federal investment in infrastructure creates or sustains approximately 35,000 jobs. yet h.r. 658 would cut the airport improvement grants for runway construction and safety
2:20 pm
enhancements by almost $2 billion. cuts to airport improvement grants would cost the nation 70,000 jobs. so let's be clear about one thing. the f.a.a. re-authorization bill that we will consider later this week will not create jobs. it will destroy them. although much work is ahead of us, i'm optimistic that congress will enact a long-term bill and we will not be considering a 19th short-term extension this summer. for the present, however, this particular extension, this bill before us today i support and i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. petri: yes. i would just like to observe to my colleague we will have plenty of opportunity to defend and debate the overall re-authorization later this week. the re-authorization bill is proudly supported by the industry affected.
2:21 pm
we may differ on some portions of it with you one of the major teachers of the re-authorization is to put in place strengthened framework and benchmarks for next jen and as that new -- >>gen and everyone that we had testified before our committee said it would marketedly increase the safety of the aviation industry and reduce fuel use by 25% helping the environment and our import situation as well. in any event i would like to mention that the current re-authorization extension, the short-term extension before us, has bipartisan support. i would urge my colleagues in both parties to support it, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. capuano: we have no other speakers, and i yield back the balance of my time.
2:22 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. petri: i have no further requests and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: both sides yield back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1079. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
2:23 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? 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. 839 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 in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 839. the chair appoints the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, to preside over the committee of the whole.
2:24 pm
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 839 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 15, h.r. 839, a bill to amend the emergency economic stabilization act of 2008 to terminate the authority of the secretary of the treasury to provide new assistance under the home affordable modification program, while preserving assistance to homeowners who were already extended an offer to participate in the program, either on a trial or permanent basis. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered 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
2:25 pm
gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 839, the hamp termination act and commend my colleague from north carolina, mr. mchenry, for introducing this bill. h.r. 839, the hamp termination act, would put an end to the poster child for failed federal foreclosure programs. announced by the administration in february, 2009, and launched in march, 2009, the program has languished for two years, hurt hundreds of thousands of homeowners and must come to an end. according to the congressional budget office, this bill would save $1.4 billion over 10 years. to date, the hamp program has already consumed $840 million of the more than $30 billion of tarp funds that were set aside for the program. for this extraordinary investment, the administration
2:26 pm
predicted that three million to four million homeowners would receive help. sadly, the program has been a failure. in fact, hamp has hurt more homeowners than it has helped. the program has completed about 540 mortgage modifications, another 740,000 unlucky homeowners had the rug pulled out from under them, their modifications were canceled. even the government accountability office, g.a.o., commented that borrowers had their trial modifications canceled than had received permanent modifications. earlier this month, on march 2, the financial subcommittee received testimony from the special inspector general for the troubled assets relief program, significant tarp -- sigtarp barofsky, he noted
2:27 pm
that, quote, there have been countless published reports on hamp participants who end up worse off for having engaged in a footal attempt to obtain the sustainable relief that the program promised. failed trial modifications leave borrowers with more principal outstanding on their loans, less home equity, depleted savings and worse credit source, unquote. he continued by saying that, quote, worst of all, even in circumstances where they never missed a payment they may face back payments, penalties and even late fees that suddenly became -- become due on their modified mortgages and that they are unable to pay. thus resulting in the very loss of their homes, said hamp was meant to prevent, end quote. mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, many of our own constituents, like homeowners around the country, were lured into hamp with the promise of relief. in the end, these misled
2:28 pm
homeowners ended up with no permanent modification, tens of thousands of dollars deeper into debt. one of my constituents reported that after many, many months under a trial modification he was rejected from the program and immediately handed a bill for $42,000 in back payments, penalties and late fees. how is that an effective foreclosure protection? hamp has been played by -- plagued by problems from the start and is beyond mere reform. many oversight bodies, including the g.a.o., have cited time and time again that treasury has failed to respond to recommendations to increased transparency, accountability and consistency of the program. last year, the congressional oversight panel, or c.o.p., that the pressbacks are unlikely to improve substantially in the future. c.o.p. also stated that billions of taxpayer dollars
2:29 pm
will have been spent to delay rather than prevent foreclosures. it is clear that the administration has hold no intention on fixing the numerous problems in its flagship program, a fact that has not gone unnoticed by the public. americans for tax reform submitted testimony for our march 2 hearing saying that hamp has been the u.s. treasury and department of housing and urban development for combating foreclosure and programs and has been a costly failure. headlines around the country agree, a recent "washington times" article said that obama helping hard -- obama's hand -- obama's helping hand hoodwinks homeowners. mortgage assistance can be worse than nothing.
2:30 pm
we must help programs that have hurt so many homeowners. unfortunately, programs like hamp were set up in haste and have done little to restore stability in the market. we need to stop funding programs that don't work with money that we don't have. out-of-control federal spending is hurting our economic recovery. our nation faces a $14.2 trillion national debt and economists agree that reducing government spending will create more favorable environment for private sector job growth. that's exactly what unemployed americans and homeowners need, a job and a paycheck, not a handout or other failed government program. i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, is recognized. mr. frank: i yield three minutes to a member of the committee, mr. capuano. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.
2:31 pm
mr. capuano: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, this is a program that i'm the first to admit has not lived up to what our hopes were. this program we hoped to help several million people. thus far we only helped about 550,000 people. i fully admit that this program, like all the other foreclosure programs, could use a healthy dose of reconsideration and improvement. i'm happy to work with that. but to simply repeal all of these programs is to walk away from individual homeowners, walk away from neighborhoods. in this particular case, last week before the break, we walked away from neighborhoods. we walked away from cities and counties all across the country. in this case we are walking away from homeowners. in this particular bill, as i said, this program short of what we had hoped, it still helped 550,000 home owntories keep their homes. 550,000 with approximately another 150,000 on trial as we speak.
2:32 pm
550,000 homes just as a point of information is more owner occupied homes than exist in at least 17 different states. wyoming, alaska, utah, nevada, new mexico, nebraska, and on all individually have fewer homes in the entire state than this program has helped. yet we are going to walk away. every single state in this nation has homeowners who have been helped. in illinois, 29,000 homes have been saved. in north carolina, 10,000 homes. in my own state, 12,000 homes. and counting. again, i'm not going to defend the specifics of every single aspect of this program that's been put together. and i am happy to work with anyone to make it better to help more people to keep their homes, keep their families together.
2:33 pm
but to simply walk away without offering an alternative means, we don't care. this congress doesn't care if you lose your home. period. well, i understand that's what some people want to say, they are entitled to do that. they are duly elected, have the power and authority to do that, but i just can't imagine they could look at the individual constituents in their district and say to their face we don't care. and if you feel that strongly about it, then you should not just repeal the program prospectively, you should repeal it retroactively. and tell the 550,000 people whose homes have been saved, we didn't mean it. it was a mistake. we didn't support it then. and as far as we are concerned, you can leave your home tomorrow. i understand that that makes me a bleeding heart liberal
2:34 pm
according to some people, so be it. call me any name you want. but if you have the courage and audacity to look at your own constituents and tell them to get it, you don't care, i would encourage you to do so. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentlelady from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, the sponsor of this bill, for five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mchenry: i thank the chairman. i thank you for yielding the time. the hamp termination act, which is the legislation before us today, ends what i believe to be a failure. of a government program. not just a failure to help those three to four million homeowners that the treasury originally set out to assist and they have
2:35 pm
fallen well short of that, just over 500,000 modifications have taken place in the two years it's been in existence. not only has it been a failure in terms of the metrics they set up to achieve the goal, it's been a failure for the very people who enter into the program and yet are pushed out. now, understand this government program, i want my colleagues to understand what this program does, the hamp program, the home affordable mortgage program, brings folks in. who are having trouble making their mortgage payments. they bring folks in and they will give them a verbal modification for their mortgage. and what has happened, this is what my constituents tell me, this is what the hard facts and data indicate as well, is that a majority of those folks that
2:36 pm
enter into this program are actively harmed by this federal program. actively harmed. they are left 250er8ly -- materially worse off. let me quote from the i specter general for tarp, mr. neal ba roff i ask, -- neal baroff i ask , people who apply for modifications sometimes end up unnecessarily depleting their dwindling savings an ultimately futile effort to obtain the sustainable relief promised by the program guidelines. others who have somehow found as to continue to make their mortgage payments have been drawn into failed trial modifications that have left more -- have left them with more principal outstanding their loans, less home equity, or position further under water, and worse, credit scores. perhaps worst of all, even
2:37 pm
circumstances where they never miss a payment, they may face back payments, penalties, and even late fees that suddenly become due on their modified mortgages that they are unable to pay, thus resulting in the further loss -- the very loss of their home that hamp is meant to prevent. treasury's claim that every single person who participates in hamp gets, quote, a significant benefit, end quote, is either hopelessly out of touch or a cynical attempt to define failure as success. those are the words of the special inspector general designated to oversee this program and to give us and report to congress and the public on the success or failures of federal programs. and ways to fix them. now, sadly in the two years of this program and over a year and a half of criticism of this
2:38 pm
program, the treasury has refused to fix it. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not offered legislation to fix it when they were in the majority. so we are left with what is required today. is to root out this federal program. that spends our taxpayer dollars, yet hurts more people than it helps. one of my constituents from hickory said, we have been in the hamp since february of 2010 and still have no answer. we are being charged late fees, and we are -- we were reported to the credit bureau. we have been in -- under water since april and on trial payments for six months which was only supposed to evenly be three months. we have not yet received an answer. this is a federal program. if the private sector were doing this, there would be lawsuits. if the private sector were doing
2:39 pm
that, my friends on the other side of congress in particular would be filing legislation to make sure they were unable to do that. instead my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this administration, are defending a failed program. and they refuse to reform it. they refuse to improve it. they refuse to do anything to it except defend it. and i believe indeed as a special inspector general said, it may be a cynical attempt to define failure as success. so i ask my colleagues to vote for this legislation and remove this costly ineffective and painful government program. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i yield three minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from new york, miss mccarthy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mrs. mccarthy: i thank the ranking member, barney frank,
2:40 pm
for yielding me the time. let me say something first, in the beginning of this program we didn't have any service. that means there were no people out there to help those who were trying to apply. but we have seen encouraging signs in the economy, but we are still long on a path of economic recovery. many of my constituents are still facing hardship, including trying to keep their homes. while the housing crisis hit, the private sector responded by turning their backs on those that needed the help. as a result, congress stepped in and created housing programs to hold the industry accountable and to help these families through the worst housing crisis we have seen in generations. thanks to the democratic controlled congress, we are seeing more and more services adopting their own programs. largely based on the eligibility criteria within the programs such as hamp. but my colleagues on the other
2:41 pm
side of the aisle have brought those to the floor to determinate these programs, claiming they have done more harm than good to the homeowner. and that struggling homeowners are in better hands with the private companies that contributed to the housing crisis in the first place. most of the homeowners got in trouble because the private sector is the one that got them into problems. i disagree with that and point to constituents who have reached out to my office to help because their services were not being responsive. the bill before us totally terminates the hamp program. however protects assistance to the homeowners in a trial or permanent modification. my amendment which was not made in order would have expanded that provision to include homeowners who on or before march 1 of this year submitted required paperwork for hamp. or had made a verified request to their services seeking that modification. my district office has heard from dozens and dozens of my
2:42 pm
constituents. who have been waiting for up to 16 months, 16 months for a response from their servicer regarding the you will ingibility of the hamp. they reach out to my office at the point of total frustration. due to the lengthy response time when they have submitted their required paperwork. i shudder to think what the response rate would have been without this program in place. it's very disheartening that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to shut down these distressed homeowners before they even have a chance to qualify for the assistance. the hamp program was by no means perfect. everybody agrees on that. nor was it meant to be permanent. we all agree on that. instead it was meant to hold the mortgage service industry accountable. and responsive to those that needed the assistance. at a time when our housing market is still very fragile and foreclosures continue to occur in record numbers, instead of terminating these programs, we should be trying to improve
2:43 pm
them. during the markup in committee when we were trying to improve and we asked our colleagues, all right, let's not terminate it -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mrs. mccarthy: supporting efforts to terminate -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. frank: i yield an additional minute. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for a-- an additional program. mrs. mcyartcloyn -- mrs. mccarthy: mr. speaker, we have our disagreements. no two ways about it. but with that being said, to judge a program from the beginning when we couldn't get services, now we are getting services, now we are getting people to be responsive on getting people to stay in their homes, and think about it. all these homes that are being lost to families, where are they supposed to go? in new york you can't find an apartment, so what are we doing? making more people homeless? it was not the fault of the homeowners. i agree. there were many people that
2:44 pm
shouldn't have bought a house for $700,000, $800,000. the majority of us in congress couldn't afford something like that. they should never have been getting that mortgage. all of us when we bought our homes had to go through the third degree, how much money do you earn, can you pay the insurance, can you pay taxes, that's why we also put legislation in there to have the service -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. mccarthy: with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: if i might inquire how much time is remaining on both sides? the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois has 19 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from massachusetts has 23 minutes. mrs. biggert: with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i yield to the
2:45 pm
gentleman from delaware, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from delaware. is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to owe -- mr. carney: we ought to focus on how we can move together, democrats and republicans, to address foreclosure crisis and keep families in their homes. since the housing bubble burst over nine million americans have gone into foreclosure. my little state of delaware, annual foreclosure filings nearly tripled over the past few years. . and we aren't the hardest-hit states. every situation is different and frankly, not every homeowner can or should be helped. and most of the help should come from the banks and mortgage servicers but they are not doing nearly enough in the
2:46 pm
state of delaware. what is incredible to me the hamp termination act, our friends on the other side of the aisle, have decided not to help at all. and that will mean a more direct path to foreclosure for thousands of families. the claim is hamp has hurt more people than helped. that is a ridiculous charge. back in my home state of delaware the hamp program has helped 1,600 homeowners, by the far the most effective government program. that's 25% of the homeowners who filed for foreclosure last year. and i know a little bit about this. i served as chair of the foreclosure task force when i was lieutenant governor for over a year. the best result we know is for the private banks, i said, and the servicers to make the modifications necessary for the private sector to shoulder the bulk of the burden, but they're just not doing it.
2:47 pm
and so public officials need tools to help out and hamp is one of the best tools we have. the real question here is whether you believe there is an appropriate role for government to help homeowners facing foreclosure through no fault of their own. it's ok to use taxpayer funds -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. carney: my friends on the other side don't want to use a small amount to help homeowners. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. biggert: the gentleman from delaware talks about his state. let me just say that in illinois if we look back quarter by quarter, hamp permit modifications, for example, in second quarter of 2010 were 167,000. but the proprietary were 331,000,883. the next quarter 97 hamp and
2:48 pm
346,910. i think -- and it goes on. i think that's something to keep in mind, that the private sector can do it better of the 401 -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mrs. biggert: i yield myself 30 seconds. out of 4.1 million remodifications -- modifications was 3.5 million of those were private sector and the rest 550. that's 750,000 modifications that were made by hamp that were canceled. and with that i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i yield myself 90 seconds to say that is an extraordinary bit of illogical that we just heard. nothing in the existence of
2:49 pm
hamp in any way has people going to the private sector. if you listen to the gentlewoman's time has expired you have this fantasy picture that people are being restrained by the federal government not to go to the private sector, go to hamp. hamp is the private sector. that is part of the problem. no could he hergs by the government. yes, it's true, the private sector has done the easy ones on their own. anyone that wants to go to the private sector does not go to hamp. there is no requirement that people go to hamp. it's set up that it's a choice you have to go to one another. people are free to go to the bank. if the bank won't do it they can go to hamp. so this is an absolutely illogical notion that one blocks the other. the problem is that hamp is the federal government bringing people into contact with the private sector. it is still openly a private sector decision. part of it remains voluntary.
2:50 pm
you no you can go bankrupt with anything but your private residence and my friends overwhelmingly blocked that from happening. absent that we don't have the leverage with the private sector we'd like to vfment but it's in every case the private sector that decides. the private sector does it without any hindrance. if there is a problem then you go into the hamp. the other point i've been waiting to hear members have said nor people harmed than helped. that statistic shows nowhere in the record. i want to see that explained. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: let me ask how much time is consumed. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 19 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from illinois has 18 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. frank: well, then i'll
2:51 pm
defer to the gentlewoman from illinois, we've been going back and forth. i believe it's their turn subsequently. mrs. biggert: with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of h.r. 839, the hamp termination act. i was sent to the 112th congress to do something about the $14 trillion national debt. we've made many difficult decisions about funding difficult decisions. in a time when people are being asked to do more with less, we cannot continue ineffective federal spending. like so many programs hatched in washington, hamps about within of those -- one of those programs that has grossly
2:52 pm
mismatched its mark. helping people seeking to avoid foreclosure, of the $30 billion of the program, only a fraction has been spent. only an eighth have seen any permanent modification. despite the fact that u.s. taxpayers have given lenders an average of $20,000 for each participating homeowner, there is nothing that prevents a lender from still foreclosuring after the modification. -- foreclosing after the modification. the bottom line of the hamp program is this -- false hope for homeowners who see the federal government send thousands to big lenders only to lose their home a few months later. according to the special inspector general of tarp programs, there have been countless a public lished reports of hamp participants worse off from having engaged in a futile attempt to obtain relief that the program promised. it leaves borrowers with more principal left on their home, depleted savings and even worse
2:53 pm
credit scores, closed quote. as we work to rein in government spending to create certainty, confidence and ultimately jobs, this program, well-intentioned as it is, has not been tax dollars well spent. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i yield to another member of the committee, the gentleman from indiana, mr. carson, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. carson: thank you, ranking member frank. thank you, mr. speaker. over the last few years, the united states has faced a devastating economic crisis. as a result of the economic downturn, many homeowners have lost their homes or at imminent risk of foreclosure. that is why the obama administration launched the home affordable modification program, to stem thess can lating tide of foreclosures and the dast russ impact it has on its -- disastrous impact it has
2:54 pm
on its communities. it helps homeowners foreclosure by providing them with permanent loan modifications to terms they can afford. although this program is far from perfect, it has helped more than 600,000 families lower than mortgage payments and stay in their homes. h.r. 839, the hamp termination act of 2011, will end this program and is the latest effort by house americans to avoid foreclosure and mittcation programs. with forecasts showing there will be three million foreclosures nationwide this year and the housing turnaround not expected for at least three years, republicans have yet to offer any alternative to help solving our housing crisis. republicans have also failed to address the impact this crisis is having on minority communities. an estimated 17% of latino families and 11% of
2:55 pm
african-american families have lost their homes or are at an imminent risk of losing their homes. eliminating support for distressed homeowners at this point in time would be disastrous for neighborhoods trying to recover from the foreclosure crisis. instead, we should focus our efforts on ways to make hamp a useful, wide-reaching program with meaningful goals. goals such as pushing lenders to reduce the principal on loans that are underwater and give struggling homeowners real relief. i urge opposition to this misguided bill. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: at this time i'd yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the financial services, mr. bachus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is
2:56 pm
recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. bachus: i thank the chairman. as republicans and democrats talk about what this bill does, this bill shuts down a federal program which spends money, and every dime of that money, over 1,000 million dollars has been spent. $1,000 million and they authorized $29.9 billion more to be spent. now, that's taxpayer money and that's money that in 2008 we promised the american people when the banks paid it back that it would go in the treasury. that was a promise that we made. so this bill keeps that promise and that's the money will be
2:57 pm
returned to the treasury. now, why do we make that promise and why do we defend that promise today on the floor of the house? because, ladies and gentlemen, we are spending our children and grandchildren into financial oblivion. we are threatening the security of this country. where do i get such a fact as that? where do i get it's a threat to national security which i said last week and i was criticized? well, let me quote defense secretary robert gates when he said two months ago, and i quote, the country's dire physical situation and the threat it poses to american influence and credibility around the world will only get worse unless the u.s. government gets its finances in
2:58 pm
order. and i was told, well, that didn't say that it was a threat to our national security. but following that statement admiral mike mullen made this statement, the chairman of our joint chiefs of staff, the most significant threat to our national security is our debt. in case you weren't listening, let me say that again. the most significant threat to our national security is our debt. now, that wasn't a republican on the floor of the house. that was the joint chiefs of staff, mike mullen. we're spending $1.42 for every $1 we get. we are we're borrowing 42 cents of that. 12% of our debt is owed to the chinese. every day we write the chinese for $120 million.
2:59 pm
they could buy the most advanced strike jet fighter in the world and still have $20 million to put in their pocket each day. in 1970 only 19% of our national debt was owed to other countries. today it approaches 50%. now, let's not talk about whether we can afford this program. let's talk about whether our children or grandchildren can because let's not kid ourselves. we can't pay it back. now, do we want to spend $30 billion of our children and our grandchildren's money? well, first of all, should we do that morally? but let's just assume that you
3:00 pm
say yes, we should do this with our chirp and our grandchildren's money. well, who should we pay that money to? you talked about the banks. well, where does this money go? it goes to the banks. every dime of it is paid to a bank. you have a borrower. you have leaneder. as many of you have correctly said, and i agree with you, people want homeowners money they couldn't afford to pay back and is that the taxpayers' fault, should they pick up the bill? no. it's the banks or it may be the homeowners. but the people that ought to pay it back are not the taxpayers and if it can't be paid back the banks ought to take the loss. but you talk about the homeowners. but it is the banks that will be paid and you talk about 500,000 americans that have been helped. you didn't mention almost a
3:01 pm
million that have been made worse off. now, again, is that some mean republican saying they're worse off? no. today, march 29, a letter from the largest national hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the united states, you know who that is? now what did they say? let me quote what the largest and i think we'd all agree a very liberal organization, what did they say? i urge you to vote yes on this legislation, they said. especially the voluntary nature of hamp has resulted in an abysmal performance by mortgage servicers and hundreds of thousands of families losing their homes to foreclosure unnecessarily. they say this program has resulted in hundreds of
3:02 pm
thousands of american homeowners losing their family. now, are they the only people that have said this? no. our own inspector general, our own neil brodsky, who was nut charge of monitoring this program, what did he say? let me quote what he said. hamp benefits only a small portion of distressed homeowners. offers others little more than false hope and in certain cases causes more harm than good. when did he say that? he said it this month. before our committee. this month. how about the congressional oversight panel, made up a majority of which are democrats, what did they say? they said billions of taxpayer dollars, billions, billions, will have been spent to delay rather than prevent
3:03 pm
foreclosures. now, that's not republicans who are getting some crazy idea that this program isn't working. no, it's democrats. and who did president obama -- has he applauded to temporarily run the consumer financial protection bureau? well, it's elizabeth warren. we all know the answer to that. what does elizabeth warren say about this program? let me quote what she said. just the facts, not spencer bachus, not patrick mchenry, not judy biggert. no. elizabeth warren. who works out of the white house, who's in charge of consumer protection. because here's what she said, december 14, because treasury's authority to restructure hamp ended on october 3, 2000, the program's prospects are unlikely to improve substantially in the future.
3:04 pm
in other words, they're not going to -- they're not going to improve this program. so let's end by saying this, we say shut it down, you say mend. let's mend this program. why? let's not pretend. we're not talking about mending, we're talking about pretending. the treasury according to elizabeth warren doesn't even have the ability to do that. the administration itself, not someone here, but your administration, treasury official said that the mortgage banking conference february 24, just a month ago, you won't see any mainly new programs coming out. we may tweak around the edges but our primary objective in 2011 is excellent in the program we have.
3:05 pm
there's been no excellence in the program. it's flawed. the largest hispanic group in america has said, end this program. but i'll tell you what, our grandchildren and children would say that and you continue to say and i agree with you, we've got 13 million american families underwater with their mortgages. and you want to pick and choose 500,000 of those to help. what about the other 21,000? should the federal government pay everybody's mortgage that's behind? one out of four american families are underwater on their homes. it just came out yesterday, 13 million vacant houses in america and almost immediately you come up with a cash for keys program.
3:06 pm
where you're going to buy these abandoned properties. from the bank banks, from the speculators. i don't think you've listened to the american people. i don't think you've heard what they said in november. this program has been criticized every -- ever since its inception. you haven't mended it, you're talking about mending it today. where is your bill to mend it? is there a bill to amend it? have introduced it? is there a bill? mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. bachus: i will yield. mr. frank: finally. yes, we are introducing legislation to make sure the taxpayers are off the hook. mr. bachus: you will be? mr. frank: yeah, we've introduced a bill to say, to restore a program of prosecute provision that was -- mr. bachus: -- you will be? mr. frank: it has been filed. mr. bachus: was it filed today? mr. frank:, no, last week. last week. if the gentleman doesn't --
3:07 pm
mr. bachus: two years -- mr. frank: if the gentleman -- mr. bachus: i take back my time. mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. bachus: $29 billion of authorization, two years of a failed program and the week before -- mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. bachus: the week before we come to the floor you file a bill. you file a bill. i'm sorry -- mr. frank: will the gentleman yield? mr. bachus: to say to the ranking member that you can file the bill, we'll take a look at it, but we're ending this failure. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. frank: i yield myself two minutes. and i regret the ranking member's -- the chairman's refusal to allow me to answer the question he asked. yes, we just filed the bill because we are restoring a provision that was in the financial reform bill. the gentleman who has shown very little regard for the taxpayers in his own vote, sending money to brazil an cotton farmers, i wish he had listened to
3:08 pm
secretary gates and admiral mullen and not voted to force on them money for weapons systems they didn't want. they said those things and they tried to get the congress not to give them weapons they didn't want. but many of my republican friends in the majority disregarded that. but in the tarp legislation we said that in 2013 when this program ends any penny that we spent and not returned to the taxpayers will come from the banks. will come from the hedge funds. and we can anticipate republican opposition to that because in the financial reform bill last summer, already passed, not recently introduced, we said that for many of these programs to recover the cost of the foreclosure mitigation and dealing with the results of foreclosure we would get it from large financial institutions and the republicans objected to that and the republicans insisted in the senate that it be knocked out. so every time we have tried to get money from the large financial institutions to pay for the cost of the damage, the
3:09 pm
republicans have opposed it. and i wish again that when it came to brazilian cotton farmers or weapons the pentagon didn't want or infrastructure in afghanistan or iraq security forces, all the things the gentleman from alabama voted for to come out of the taxpayers' hide and then he votes against and opposes our legislation already passed and just reintroduced to have the large financial institutions pay for this. so his concern for taxpayers comes into play when we're trying to help people who are in need but it's not in play when we talk about heavy defense contracters, brazilian american cotton farmers or the large financial institutions because he and his fellow partisans have fought every effort we have made to get the large financial institutions to bear this cost. but we do have still in the tarp, as people will hear later, business to do that. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from illinois.
3:10 pm
mrs. biggert: may i request again the time? the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois has five minutes. the gentleman from massachusetts has 15 1/2 minutes. mrs. biggert: i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i will yield five minutes to the gentleman from north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to oppose this bill but i do so with mixed feelings because i have been one of the critics of the hamp program. this program has been widely crit side sised for more than two years, has been criticized by the congressional oversight panel, by the special inspector general for the troubled assets recovery program, by others. mr. miller: and yes, by me. but i have not criticized it for the reasons that the gentleman from alabama gave. if this bill is keeping a promise that is not a promise made in open to the american people, it is keeping a promise made in secret to the banks. because the cost of this program are not going to come out of the pockets of the american people.
3:11 pm
this comes out of the tarp program and that legislation said that any money not recovered by 2013 has to be recovered from the financial industry. and who is president in 2013 has to propose to congress how it is we're going to get that money back. they can afford it. 30% of all corporate profits are in the financial sector. they can more than afford it. the gentleman from alabama frequently says that he hates visiting debt on his grandchildren and i believe him when he says it, but i have good news for him. unless his grandchildren take a job on wall street in the nokes two years, they are not going to have to pay this debt. this debt, if congress does keep its promise to the american people, will not come from the american people, it will come from wall street, it will be -- it will come from the people who created the mess that we are now trying to clean up. but i have criticized this program because it is not as feblingtive as it should be -- effective as it should be, it is -- it has gone on for two years,
3:12 pm
it is not what we need. the problem, hour, -- however, has not been what government has made banks do. this program has been run by thebacks. it has not been run by the government. it's been run by the banks. every horror story by a homeowner being abused is being abused by the banks, not by the department of treasury, not by the federal government. so of course when they come to see a republican member of congress, the republican member of congress says, oh, isn't it terrible what the federal government made that poor bank do to you? no, the federal government didn't make the banks do that. my criticism of this program, and my criticism of the obama administration and how they run this program, is not they've made people -- made banks do what they've done but they have let banks do what they've done. this program can work if there are some tough rules that are really enforced, tough on the banks. mr. frank mentioned earlier the bankruptcy proposal three years ago.
3:13 pm
i introduced that bill, i have been trying to put rules, requirements on the banks that they let people out, they try to begin to let people out in a very orderly, logical, fair way, through judges, through a judicial process, to begin to get control of the collapse of the housing market. something has got to happen to stop the continuing fall of housing values. something has got to happen to end the cycle of foreclosures and diminished home values and more foreclosures. republicans have offered nothing, nothing to do that. we know something can work. we know that we can design a program that will work because it has been done before. in the new deal, one of the most successful program notice new deal was the homeowners loan corporation which bought mortgages, modified them, worked with home owners, tailored the mortgages to to something the homeowner could buy, fore for those who could afford a house, the house they're in, but not
3:14 pm
the mortgage they had, but and most historians say that program saved the housing market in the great depression and saved the middle class. we have got to make something work. there are rules on the horizon. there is now a pending settlement negotiation for the violations of law by the banks and how they've managed mortgages, it is with states attorney general and it is with the federal regulatory agencies. some on the republican side have publicly pressured the federal agencies to lay off the banks. i really cannot tell much difference between what they are doing and the pressure they're putting on banks in the enforcement matter in what happened a generation ago but they're doing it, they're saying, lay off our buddy, the banks. don't come down too hard on them. but there is a real possibility that the result of that settlement will be some tough rules and there is now rule making authority. there is now a cop on the block. the cfpd has the authority to
3:15 pm
develop rules for banks in how they manage mortgages but something has to work. this has not been working, it can be fixed, it has to be fixed. something has to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: i yield one minute to the gentleman from north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. >> i thank my colleague for yielding and in responding to my colleague from north carolina, mr. chairman, i would say that we agree. mr. mchenry: the hamp program is a failure. and i think there is bipartisan agreement on that. even the sigtarp, mr. barofsky, has said that they are so contempt with the shameful status quo they refuse to even acknowledge the program is a failure. we agree. it's a failure. although it sounds like at the end of the day he's going to
3:16 pm
vote to defend a failed program. secondly, i'd remind my colleagues that this program actually writes checks to those evil banks that he talked with those evil profits he talks about to the tune of about $1 billion. so this program is actually cutting checks to banks. third and finally, the tarp money is the american people's money, not the banks' money, and we deserve to give that money -- we owe it to the american people to give back that money. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman's time has expired illinois reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. frank: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, this bill is just like saying, you know what, you said you were going to give us a loaf of bread but you only gave us a slice.
3:17 pm
because you didn't give us the whole loaf we are going to take all of the bread, even the slice. because the program isn't successful as it could be, we ought to be getting in here doing something about all of the foreclosures across america as opposed to what the majority wants to do which is give -- get rid of the program as it exists. this is a government that is turning its back and folding its arms on the american people. we got four million foreclosures and may end up with seven million and yet instead of trying to make a program work we just get rid of the whole thing. this is a really sad day and a big mistake. you know, look, you want to get up here and criticize the hamp program, you can do that. but you know what, the hamp program has come out with more than 600,000 active modifications. that's not nearly enough of what we need but it's done something. rather than get the program right we abandon all those people who are underwater, all those people who are in
3:18 pm
foreclosure, that is a shame and it's wrong. now, let me say, mr. speaker, the fact is that this program, this hamp program that we're terminating today, this program doesn't do anything to put americans back to work. it doesn't do anything at all. the republican majority has been here for 13 weeks and all they've done is cut programs that can put people to work. they haven't tried to fix anything that's not working. they just tried to cut back what america needs so we will be in position -- we have people not working. they won't be paying taxes. we won't address the deficit because of the republicans' no jobs agenda. it's really too bad. we were sent here to do something about jobs, we were sent here to do something about foreclosures. we're not doing anything about either because the republican majority refuses to address. you know, one of the biggest problems with the hamp program now that we're on this subject
3:19 pm
is we did just allow incentives. we didn't really make the banks do and the servicers do what they should do which was to readjust these mortgages. and people bought at bubble prices based on republican majority decisions did not regulate to abandon consumer protection and this bubble market created expansive and big prices shes loans people got, we didn't see consumers get protected from no doc, low doc ninja loans. we didn't do anything about the derivatives. when the bubble burst people are trying po pick up the pieces. what do the republican majority do? they just take away the one slice that maybe help some people instead of trying to do something to help the american people. and i hope the american people are watching this debate today, mr. speaker, because i just want to -- i just hope they take careful note of who is on the side of the american neighborhood, who is on the side of the american people and
3:20 pm
who's trying to take away that american dream. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentlewoman from illinois has four minutes remaining. mrs. biggert: mr. chairman, we have no further speakers and so i would reserve the balance of my time. mr. frank: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. watt: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. we should terminate it because it's run inefficiently. and that seems a fairly strange argument for most of us around here because we know that there are inefficiencies in every department of the government. if you use that as the touchstone for terminating programs, we would close down the entire defense department.
3:21 pm
we would close down the department of commerce. we would close down the department of health and human services. i mean, we would go right down the list and close them all because every one of the departments and every program has some inefficiencies in them. you don't solve the problem by closing a program. you solve the problem by trying to correct the problems that exist. and this is a whole new philosophy for this group of people because when the securities and exchange commission was not equipped to find the bernie madoff episode, their answer to it was let's cut out the s.e.c. or let's reduce this budget, not make it more efficient so it could stop the kind of fraud and abuse
3:22 pm
that was taking place but let's just -- let's just starve it to death. and that's the same philosophy that's being applied in this context, mr. chairman. because the program is inefficient, which all of us agree it has been. their answer is let's close it down. ours is to make the program more efficient and work for the purposes for which it was intended. and that's what we ought to be devoting our attention to today, not terminating the program. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: i yield 15 second to the gentleman from north carolina. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. mchenry: i'd respond to my colleague, mr. chairman if we can't eliminate this failed program what program can we eliminate?
3:23 pm
and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i would recognize -- i yield myself our remaining time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frank: how much? the chair: five minutes. mr. frank: $150 a year to the brazilon cotton farmers which the gentleman voted for. what we could have done -- what we could have done is instead of -- i yield to the gentleman. mr. mchenry: if i -- i didn't vote for the farm bill. mr. frank: the question was not the farm bill. it was the amendment of the gentleman from wisconsin to cut out $150 million that is being wrote subsequent to the farm bill to the cotton farmers of brazil. we had an amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind, not to pay $150 million a year to brazilian cotton farmers. now, we were told we had to do that because otherwise we would
3:24 pm
be in trouble but we had an alternative. we could have knocked $150 million out of the subsidies to american cotton farmers. that's $300 million a year that we are losing. we have the second engine on the f-35. my friends on the other side, the gentleman from alabama, quoted the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff saying national security is at risk. but then they vote against him and force on him money he doesn't want. the gentleman from alabama voted for a second engine. the administration at the request of secretary gates said he'd veto the bill if that had happened. so it doesn't seem good to quote the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to talk about -- brazilian cotton farmers, i would have eliminated the amount we pay others. there are a couple major deals here. i would yield. we heard several times from people on the majority side
3:25 pm
that more people are hurt than helped by hamp. that appears nowhere in anybody's testimony. neil barofsky didn't say. they said some people are hurt. i will yield if the gentleman wants to point to any document that says more people were hurt than helped. i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. mchenry: i'd be happy to accept his yielding. there are 800,000 people given verbal modifications that are kicked out of the program. those are the people that have their credit dinged and depleted. mr. frank: reclaiming my time. the gentleman was quoting barofsky. those figures are nowhere in there and their credit is not worse off because they're in the program. that's the fundamental flaw. what they are saying is -- and people have said the gentlewoman from illinois, go to the private sector. the problem, by the way, that la raza has is it's too much private sector. la raza's problem here is the problem that it leads too much to the private sector. the private sector does the
3:26 pm
easy stuff. the notion that more people are hurt than help is nonexistent. we heart from our republican friends that we shouldn't be the nanny state. no one is forced to go into this program. if they can go into another program they can make it better. final point i want to make is this. yes, there is a question on who pace for it. under the tarp bill that we passed it is mandated that in 2013 we get money from the financial institutions. in the financial reform bill that passed the house we had a provision that required that that assessment be made right away. in the conference report on financial reform we had an assessment on the financial institutions, those above $50 billion in assets and hedge funds above $10 billion. we had three legislative efforts to assess these costs on the financial institutions. the republicans had opposed every one, unfortunately with some success, although we still have one left. the final point i want to make is this, the hamp program have
3:27 pm
problems. solutions cannot be more elegant than the problems they seek to resolve. the absence of any program leaves people worse off. the republicans' successfully defeated efforts to give bankruptcy powers. thelf successfully opposed -- they have successfully opposed banks to pay for this. the taxpayers will be able to recover this. so i would say, again, mr. chairman, look at the votes on subsidizing brazilian cotton farmers or a second engine or money for ag -- for infrastructure in afghanistan or security in iraq, billions of dollars collectively in all those programs which my republican friends, including the 5d vow indicates -- advocates, voted for killing these programs.
3:28 pm
it is a program that people go to voluntarily. they have a right to go purely to a private sector program. if that doesn't work they can go in here. it has not helped everybody. the fact that some people didn't get a modification here i regret i wish we had given them more power but that doesn't mean they're worse off. no one quoted that a majority would be worse amount i wish the program is continued. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: i yield to the gentleman from north carolina such time as he may consume to close. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. mchenry: i appreciate my colleague for yielding and i certainly appreciate the rhetoric used on the floor. i respect my colleagues. i respect their opinion. i think people of good will created this program. i really do. the intent was to help homeowners. but two years after the fact
3:29 pm
we're left with a cold hart facts that this program has hurt more people has it's helped. a federal government program that brinks people in, destroys their credit, takes their savings, and at the end of the day takes their home. it offers home but it isn't able to deliver it. it's false hope that this program delivers. and i would point to the special inspector general's report from january 26, 2010 -- i'm sorry 2011. on page 11 a combined total of more than 792,000 trial and permanent modifications have been canceled. i'd also point my colleague to the treasury department's monthly report on their housing
3:30 pm
programs. the trial modifications that are canceled, those are the individuals that are brought in given a verbal modification and strung out for a period of months. some three, six months. i've had constituents tell me they've been in this trial modification period for up to a year. and at the end of the day these people are kicked out after their savings has been taken and they're left with nothing, not even their home, not their credit rating, not their savings, and it's a federal government program that's doing this. i have my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they're bleeding heart liberals and they're making their arguments. let me tell you if this actually burns your bleeding heart. a constituent of mine says they keep requesting the same information over and over again. they supposedly have been working with me to get approved under the make home affordable
3:31 pm
modification for over 14 months now. the person handling my case returned my call to tell me that they have declined my request for modification because i was unemployed. i've never been unemployed, i've been with the same employer for over five years now. and that has not changed through this whole process. and after sending her the proof of my income she now says that i do not qualify because i'm so behind on my payments. i would not be behind on my payments if they would have let me continue to pay them. you can believe this is a federal program? if that doesn't tear at your heart, if you don't see the tears of your constituents that have been put through the ringer in this federal program, this federal program that i would say that every program must be acceptable then, no matter how much harm it's doing. i don't know that we're better than that -- i know that we're
3:32 pm
better than that. i think the folks on the left and the right that have analyzed this program, bipartisan, nonpartisan, analysis of this and research has shown that it's been a failure and it's this congress' responsibility to end a failure of a program and make sure the federal taxpayers don't continue to write the check, the american people continue to write the check for a program that destroys people's lives and has hurt more people than it helps. i yield back and encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered read. no amendment to the committee amendment is in order september those printed in part a of house report 112-34.
3:33 pm
each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report. it shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number one printed in part a of house report 112-34. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. hanna: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, made in order under the rule, numbered 1 of part a of house report 112-34. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 112-34 offered by mr. hanna of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 170, the gentleman from new york, mr. hanna, and a member opposed each will control
3:34 pm
five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. hanna. mr. hanna: thank you. this amendment would add a finding section detailing the flaws of the home affordability modification program or hamp. it would also state that terminating hamp would result in significant savings for the american taxpayer. i filed this amendment during sunshine week which highlights the importance of open government in keeping with the spirit of transparency. this amendment would include within the bill the specific reasons why we should end the failed hamp program. the hamp program was designed to assist between three million and four million homeowners. however, as of february only 607,000 active permanent mortgages modifications were made under hamp while $40 billion was obligated by the treasury to hamp, only $1.04
3:35 pm
billion has been disbursed. furthermore the special inspector of the general for tarp reported that hamp offers many homeowners little more than false hope and in certain cases causes more harm than good. the program does not fulfill its intended purpose of helping american homeowners, it delays rather than prevents foreclosure. this program was flawed from the beginning. according to "the wall street journal", the number of applications canceled so far far exceeds those approved and the number of applications continues to slow. i agree with the journal's assessment. which also pointed out that keeping people in homes they cannot afford is bad policy. incentivizing mortgage services to do just that exacerbates our housing crisis. moreover the private sector is better equipped to deal with the
3:36 pm
problem and they have modified nearly double the number of loans themselves without government involvement. my amendment concludes that ending this ineffective program would save taxpayers $1.4 billion, that's according to the congressional budget office. this is one step towards restoring fiscal discipline to our federal government. too often our constituents receive biased or incomplete information on the issues we're discussing in congress. thus making it difficult for them to make informed assessments of our work. including additional facts on the intended consequences of legislation is beneficial to the public. that is why i urge support for the hanna amendment in the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: mr. chairman, i wish to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
3:37 pm
the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition of mr. hanna's amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill today. mr. chair, the middle class is shrinking and deficits are rising because republicans are giving a pass to especially interests who cheated american homeowners and wrecked our economy. this is the 13th week of the republican-controlled congress, republicans continue to ignore the people's top priority which is jobs. instead of working to keep middle class families in their homes, the republican plan is to foreclose on the american middle class. the american people sent us here to protect the dream, not destroy it. not to perpetuate a wall street nightmare. americans are standing with the american people and democrats are standing with the american people to create good paying american jobs and keeping americans in their homes. this legislation is just the latest attempt by republican majority to end foreclosure programs to help meddle -- middle class americans. the majority's housing plan is
3:38 pm
very simple. foreclose on the middle class. now that millions of families have already lost their homes, their plan is to hand out foreclosure notices to everybody out -- else. what's the republican answer? if you lose your home to foreclosure? so be it. what's the republican answer if your neighborhood loses their home? so be it. what's the republican answer to if you lose your job? so be it. mr. chair, i'd like to yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from new york for a question i have for him. i'm offering the gentleman 20 seconds because i want to ask him a question. will the gentleman answer the question? the gentlelady? the gentlelady, how many jobs does this amendment create? mrs. biggert: this legislation is to reiterate what the congressional budget office says about -- mr. ellison: reclaiming my time. the gentlelady hasn't told me
3:39 pm
the jobs. i'll yield. how many jobs is this amendment going to create or is this bill going to create? mr. mchenry: this doesn't create any real private sector jobs. mr. ellison: reclaiming my time. no jobs is the answer from the gentleman from north carolina. i appreciate his candor. let me just finish here. i have some specific -- mr. chairman, we're here -- the chair: the gentleman from minnesota controls the time. mr. ellison: we're here for the specific purpose of trying to create jobs and help american people create their own dream. that's about jobs. we've been here 13 weeks and the majority caucus, mr. speaker, mr. chairman, hasn't created any single jobs. i just asked the gentleman from new york how many jobs this bill's creating and his answer ises, he went off on a tangent somewhere. i'm looking for some kind of a number. i'll even take an estimate. how many jobs does this bill create and i yield to the
3:40 pm
gentleman. american hearn -- mr. mchenry: when you cut federal spending you create private sector jobs. when you tax people more -- mr. ellison: reclaiming my time. the chair: the gentleman reclaims his time. mr. ellison: look, we're supposed to be creating jobs around here, mr. speaker. we're not creating anything. the fact is we get spend and we get imaginary arguments and we get failed and flawed and economic theories but no answer to the fundamental question which is when are the jobs going to start arriving around here? it's a pretty simple question, it's a pretty simple question, how many jobs does this bill create, how many families will this bill help keep in their homes. in fact, mr. chair, i have three major step studies here with me today which i'd like to enter into the record -- the chair: without objection. mr. ellison: which state very clearly that republican spending bill eliminates nearly a million jobs. the economic policy institute study shows that the republican spending bill, h.r. 1, will cut nearly a million american jobs. mark zandi of moody's economics
3:41 pm
said that the republican spending bill will cut a million jobs. a report from goldman sachs says that republicans' spending bill will cut nearly a million jobs. why is the republican majority against jobs? why don't they take a moment to do something about jobs? i have a parliamentary inquiry for the chair. does the author of the amendment need to be on the floor for his amendment? the chair: the gentleman from new york had yielded back all of his time. mr. ellison: so what's the answer to the question? is that no? the chair: the gentleman had no time remaining. mr. ellison: well, i reserve the balance of my time. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from
3:42 pm
minnesota has the only time remaining. mr. ellison: let me close then. we've seen 13 weeks of the republican majority. the american people made changes and expected jobs. they've gotten zero job bills at all. what they've seen is the republican agenda that cuts a million jobs. cuts a million jobs. and on this critical issue of americans keeping their homes, the republican majority has nothing but to take away the small programs that exist. this is a shame and i hope the american people are watching this debate today, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. biggert: mr. chairman, i would request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested.
3:43 pm
pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 president clintonned -- printed in part ambs of house report 112-34. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: congressman quigley as haas an amendment at the desk and i rise to offer his amendment on his behalf. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.
3:44 pm
the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 112-34 offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 170, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: i rise to offer this amendment on behalf of congressman quigley and i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: mr. chairman, it's important that the american people are well aware that the republican majority has had 13 weeks to introduce some kind of jobs bill and they have introduced exactly none. instead what they've done is we read the constitution and that's good except for we should probably do it on our own time. and then we have pursued and effort to cut american jobs and now that we're dealing with housing programs, in the midst of the worst foreclosure crisis since the great depression, the
3:45 pm
republican majority has nothing to offer except to take away the little programs -- program that does work. the republican majority is quick to say although 600,000 people who did get a modification, that's nothing. but to those people that's a lot. to those people that's home. a responsible majority would say, well, how can we double the numbers? how can we triple them, how can we help americans stay in their homes? but that's not what we have. what we have today in america's congress is a republican plan to foreclose on the american dream. and so congressman quigley offers some very commonsense findings that should be contained within this legislation that point out the fact that as of february 25, $1.04 billion of hamp funding has been disbursed, that as of january 31, there have been
3:46 pm
about 500-plus thousand permanent modifications, about another 145,000 active trial modifications for a total of well over 600,000 currently active modifications. the record should reflect that, mr. chairman, because the record should tell the truth. the record should tell the truth about the successes that have happened. and it's the same if we can't pass this very simple commonsense amendment and we need to pass it today. and i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the baffle his time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. hehn-i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mchenry: well, let's talk about the substance of the amendment. if the sponsor will not, i intend to. the sponsor of the amendment and the amendment here says that it costs about $1,500 per
3:47 pm
mortgage modification. that is in fact not the case. the substance of this amendment is extremely deceptive and flawed. in fact, the statistics used within it are not even the dissenting views of the democrats on the financial services committee. they're not even the views of the treasury department. the treasury department testified in front of the congressional oversight panel and said that the permanent modifications under hamp would cost about $20,000. this amendment says $1,500. on its face it's false. i would encourage my colleagues to vote against it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: to clearly correct the record, the paragraph 5 says, each current active modification has cost the department of treasury
3:48 pm
approximately $1,518. that's an act rate state. i think the gentleman -- that's an accurate statement. i think the gentleman ought to read the document. it's an accurate statement. my question goes even deeper than that. who is the republican majority going to do about the massive foreclosure crisis in america today? my question is, do you all stand by the proposition that is laysa fair economics? and we have hardcore capitalism for the american people. that's the question i'd like to hear the majority to answer today. but this is ack accurate statement. this has been up to now the existing cost of mr. quig low's amendment for each modification. -- quigley's amendment for each modification. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: i'd say that his views is from the ranking member of the financial
3:49 pm
services committee, mr. frank and his staff. $7,500 he claims. the treasury department claims $20,000. my colleagues also said this is a little program. that's absolutely absurd, mr. chairman. that's absurd. it's a $29.5 billion program of our taxpayer dollars. but, you know, i think he needs to understand something -- my colleague needs to understand what this program is actually doing to people. you ask my colleague from hickory who is in a hamp program. we have been in a hamp program since february of 2010 and still have no answer. we're being charged late fees and we've been reported to the credit bureau. we've been in underwater since april and on trial payments for six months which is only supposed to have been three months. we've not received an answer. another constituent from stanley said, we've paid payments every month but now
3:50 pm
we're being told we're behind in payments because it was not the original monthly amount on the -- on our original loan. but it's the amount we were told to pay in 2010. how can we be behind? this program i've heard from constituents that tell the same story. it's a reduced monthly trial payments. they've been rejected due to eligibility issues or lost documentation. by payments being reduced in the trial payment period they've ended up defaulting on their mortgage. this is a federal program that's actually harmed them. i'd ask my colleagues to look at the substance of the facts of this program and admit it's been a failure and vote to repeal and end this program. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: may i inquire to the remaining time.
3:51 pm
the chair: the gentleman from minnesota has two minutes. the gentleman from north carolina has two minutes. mr. ellison: well, i'd like to point out that in fact the state -- the number $1,518 is accurate for the cost up until today. that's how much the program has cost. projected costs are a different matter. i think if the gentleman digs into the facts he'll learn that. in fact, let's talk about the bigger issue at work here. we're talking about a system which under republican control we have not regulated markets, have not pursued consumer protection, consumers getting into no doc, low doc loans, being taken advantage of but unscrupulous individuals who republican majority refused to regulate under republican majorities in congress and in the white house. this chicken has come home to roost and has wreaked havoc on
3:52 pm
the american economy. instead of trying to do something about it the republican majority is not doing anything about it. it's one thing to get up here and talk about, hey, that program isn't working very well. and here's somebody who thinks it doesn't work well. you know, i'm quite sure that the story you read is probably true, but you know, there's a lot of people who have been helped and more than that, why don't we fix it? what is the majority's program to deal with foreclosure? do they have one? or do they just have criticism for what other people propose? it's easy to be a critic. i'd rather a critic to a movie than make one. i think making one is tougher. even a bad one. but being a critic is easy. the worst movie is better than a bad review. the republican majority has a responsibility to respond to the american people. they have a responsibility to do something about foreclosures. and i'm hoping to hear somewhere sometime today that they're ready to do something
3:53 pm
in favor of the american people and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: i intend to close. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: remaining time, sir? the chair: the gentleman from minnesota has 15 seconds. mr. ellison: the republicans' no jobs agenda has been exposed, mr. chair. the majority has done nothing to create jobs or protect homes. all they do is criticize programs that could use some improvement. rather they would get rid of them altogether. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mchenry: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from north carolina has two minutes remaining. mr. mchenry: i'd say, mr. chairman, my colleague is right. it is easy to be a critic of this program because it is an epic failure. i yield the balance of my time to my colleague from illinois. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman.
3:54 pm
the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. biggert: you know what we keep talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. we talked about that for several years now, jobs, jobs, jobs. what we're trying to do is create an environment that we will be able to have the private sector create the jobs. we need to stop funding programs that don't work with money that we don't have. an out-of-control federal spending is hurting our economic recovery so we can have those jobs. we got a $14.2 trillion national debt, and the economists agree that reducing government spending will create a more favorable environment for the private sector growth and the ability to create jobs. we got so much uncertainty there right now that we have to stop the spending so that -- and stop the taxing and all the things that could happen. so what exactly what unemployed americans want and what homeowners want and need is a job and a paycheck, not a handout or another failed
3:55 pm
taxpayer government program. i would urge my colleagues to support this -- to oppose this amendment. and stop talking about the jobs. let's focus on what is the substance of this -- of these amendments. and yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: i thank the chair. the chair: 15 seconds. mr. mchenry: i thank the chair. i would encourage my colleagues to understand that when government taxes more and spends more it crowds out private sector job creation and growth. we're about growing jobs in this congress, and i'd urge my colleagues to get onboard. the chair: 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.
3:56 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment made in order under the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 112-34 offered by mr. canseco of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 170, the gentleman from texas, mr. canseco, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. canseco: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my colleague from north carolina, mr. mchenry, for offering this bill that eliminates a wasteful and ineffective program. i'm offering an amendment to this bill that will ensure that every dime of savings that comes from terminating the program will go back to the treasury to reduce the dealt of
3:57 pm
our country. our country finds itself in a spending crisis. and back in november the american people sent a message that was loud and clear, stop the out-of-control spending in washington. for two years the motto in washington was "spend now, worry later." this is unfair to future generations who will inherit a bankrupt country if we don't act. it's only appropriate that we in this country begin our work by gutting -- cutting programs that simply don't work. the home affordable modification program, or hamp, has hurt the very people it was intended to help by giving them false hope. in his most recently quarterly report to congress, the inspector general to tarp, t-a-r-p-, says that the hamp program continues to fall
3:58 pm
dramatically short of any meaningful standard of success. that, mr. chairman, is washington speak for failure. the program has done nothing to halt foreclosure. in fact, home foreclosures in the united states have risen from 2.3 million in 2008 to 2.9 million in 2010. hamp is not only a bad deal for homeowners. it's a bad deal for taxpayers as well. every child born in america today is responsible for over $45,000 of our national debt. it is simply unacceptable for washington to continue spending money on a program that doesn't work and for two years washington acted as if it didn't have a spending problem. as we look around the world at countries who now find themselves in fiscal nightmares because of out-of-control government, we have to take in the mirror.
3:59 pm
the most dangerous words in america right now are, "it can't happen here," but just take a look at the facts. moody's has recently downgraded the debt of spain, a country that is expected to run a budget deficit equal to 6% of g.d.p. in 2011. today, portugal and greece were downgraded by the s&p because of overspending and budget deficits. and now the united states is expected to run a much greater deficit of 9.8% of g.d.p. in 2011. admiral mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has stated that the most significant threat to our nation and our national security is our debt. so make no mistake about it, it can happen here and it will happen here unless something is done. i just returned from a constituent workweek in my district, the 23rd district of texas.
4:00 pm
i had many town hall meetings and conversations with constituents, and all the while i heard over and over again their concerns of our exploding national debt. speaking with one constituent who is an example of every constituent that i spoke to will and debbie brenson. most concerned about their grandchildren, caitlin and taylor, what kind of a country are they going to inherit? certainly not with the opportunities they had to build their small business in texas. if we don't change course we will be guilty of committing an intergenerational theft, the likes that no country has ever seen. we'll be the first generation of americans to ever leave the next generation with a diminished future. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle often feel that only government can steer our economy on the right course, but we now know just how wrong that argument is.
4:01 pm
unemployment is at an acceptable 8.9% and over 13 million americans remain unemployed. we are on track for a third -- our third straight trillion-dollar deficit and we don't have much to show for it. we have to put an end to wasteful spending and we must reduce the debt for future generations. mr. mchenry's bill and my amendment, with them we will stop wasting taxpayer dollars on failing programs and ensure that any savings from termination are not recycled into yet another program. the savings will go towards paying down our country's exploding debt and i urge passage of my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: mr. chairman, i have the right to close and i'm my only speaker. the chair: does the gentleman wish to claim time in opposition?
4:02 pm
mr. frank: yes, and i'm the only speaker so i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has the only time remaining. mr. frank: did the gentleman use up all his time? the chair: the gentleman from texas' time has expired. mr. frank: i apologize. i heard him say reserve. i will say about this amendment that it is harmless and perfectly ok for people to claim credit for what's already been done. kind of like going to a tax determinist and shooting the bear. here's the result. temporarily this comes out of tax funds. but because it's tarp money it's subject to a -- and by the way we passed an amendment that says it goes back to the treasury temporarily. i say temporarily because over republican objections, and hope they're going to relent in these, we put into the tarp legislation language that says
4:03 pm
that in 2013 whatever hasn't been paid back from the tarp to the general treasury will be assessed to financial institutions. what that means is that if this does have a net cost to the treasury, in twirt, the president in power at that -- in 2013, the president in power at that time will be directed to send us legislation to require that this come out of the large financial institutions. that is not from the treasury. i say i'm worried about it because we've had two further instances of this which the republicans have opposed. we've just had a package of four bills. two of them came out of the financial reform bill. help for the unemployed homeowners and the neighborhood stabilization program. in the version of the bill that we put first into context, that bill was to be recovered by an assessment on banks with $50 billion or more and hedge funds with $10 billion or more. and republican opposition to it
4:04 pm
killed it. so, yes, it is true that temporarily now the unemployed homeowners and the neighborhood stabilization come out of the treasury. we have filed legislation, it goes back to where we were in july, that would take a large financial institutions. the financial reform bill, we had a provision that said over republican objections that the fdic would immediately assess the amount that we thought we would need for the tarp on the large financial institutions. so let's be very clear. if we carry out our promises and commitments, this money will not come out of the taxpayer, it will come out of the tarp. i can't say at that this -- that it will come out of the large financial institutions. i can't say the same for certain other wasteful spending. members on the other side insisted, for example, overriding the objection of secretary gates to the second engine. the gentleman from texas was with secretary gates and i appreciate that. but a majority of the republicans voted to give him the second engine even though he
4:05 pm
told the president to veto the bill. president disregarded our majority in the house on both sides, the request that the osprey be killed. in other words, people cite secretary gates and cite admiral mullen but we still hear on the republican side criticism of them for trying to live up to their own words when they say we're going to limit military spending. i don't think it is a reasonable policy to cite their worries about the deficit and then override them in specific cases. and we also have of course -- and here the pentagon wanted, i think they belong, $1.2 billion, my colleagues voted for, i voted against, it, to spend money to build up the security forces of iraq. you talk about money not being well spent. at its worst i can't imagine that anyone thinking any foreclosure program here would be spent worse than in iraq. the inspector general did say he was going to go to the program. when didded asked by mr. green of houston, he said, no, he
4:06 pm
would not abolish it. he specifically said he wouldn't abolish it. he was asked that in the hearing and said no. and we have consistently heard from the other side a statistic they have never yet validated that more people were harmed than thened. none of the people they quote say that. it's a program that's difficult because we wouldn't do bankruptcy and we have left the voluntary decision in the hands of the private sector. that's why this argument that the private sector can do it better is so nonsensical. it is the refusal of the private sector to fully participate in this program and its full spirit that's been the problem. yes. >> are you opposed to the amendment? mr. frank: i am indifferent -- well, i'm against the amendment. i am against the amendment because i had to be against the amendment to get the time to speak. so i am against the amendment but i'm not against it on substantive grounds. i hate to clutter things up with an amendment that doesn't do anything. let me go back to the substance. the substance is that we have a false claim that this is because of the taxpayers when the tarp
4:07 pm
will make sure that it doesn't come out of the taxpayers. the tarp legislation. and members who vote to send money, a billion, two, to build up the security forces of iraq, please don't have them tell me, mr. chairman, that they're for efficient spending. the security forces in iraq, how about afghanistan infrastructure? the majority voted to send money to afghanistan for infrastructure. there's a great mark of efficiency. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. canseco. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 112-34. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina
4:08 pm
seek recognition? >> to offer the amendment of the designee of mr. inslee of washington. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 112-34 offered by mr. miller of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 170, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. miller, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. now the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. miller: thank you, mr. chairman. i first of all want to assure the gentleman from texas that if he's worried about the debt burden that children being born today face, this program, unless one of those children takes a job on wall street within the next two years, like the talking baby in the etrade ads, they aren't going to have to pay for this program. this program is going to come to the financial sector. that was the promise made in the tarp legislation and unless they plan to break that promise and i'm beginning to get the feeling that they are, this is not going to be something born, a cost
4:09 pm
borne by innocent taxpayers but by the industry they thank creates the myths. now, many people have criticized the tarp program including me. the congressional oversight panel has, the especially inspector general for the tarp program, yes, a lot of people have criticized the program. unlike republicans, a lot of us have been trying to figure out a way to make it work. i have offered several suggestions. i have criticized it continuously for two years and said what we should be doing instead and on what we should be doing instead there has been a deafening silence from republicans. we know we can do something, we know we have to do something, the foreclosures and the drop in home values are grinding down the middle class, the value they have in the home, the equity they have in their home is the bulk of their life savings so when their home goes down in value, their life savings goes away. we know we can make something work because we have before. one of the most successful programs in the new deal got
4:10 pm
control of the foreclosure crisis then and the federal government made a profit from the program. this program -- and there is reason to think that there will be real rules, real enforceable rules soon. there is now -- there are talks pending on enforcement action by states attorney jens and by federal agencies for the violations of law by the biggest banks that handle most of these mortgages, which republicans have opposed. and there are rules from the cfpd, the consumer financial protection bureau, who which they have also opposed. something that will really rl make this work. mr. inslee's amendment is much the same. it requires a pullback, a hard look at the program, what will make it work, one of the guidelines that need to make it work, what are the standards that need to make it work and it requires that those suggested changes be irm -- implemented in the program. i urge the adoption of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.
4:11 pm
who seeks recognition? the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mchenry: i rise in opposition to this amendment. i think it's a fundamentally flawed amendment. what this amendment essentially does is say that the last agency in government that we'd ask to conduct a review of this program would be in charge of the review of the program and would be in charge of designing a new program even though the previous program they designed is flawed and harmful and a failure. and immediately report back to congress a program that is basically the same. look, ronald reagan once said, the closest thing to eternal life is a federal program. that quote is this amendment. i ask my colleagues to oppose it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his
4:12 pm
time. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. miller: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: i would say that if you read a quote from special inspector general from tarp, the basic idea of a well-run government program is to have clear goals, have a plan to meet these goals, measure progress along the way against these goals, change your program when necessary so you can still achieve those goals. but this is how the tarp has been implemented and in particular this program within tarp. set goals, ignore goals entirely, hope for the best, when the best is different, change your goals and say you never really meant it when you had those goals. pretend that the program is a success, even though it is not meeting these goals. that is his analysis of treasury's implementation.
4:13 pm
i would ask my colleague if that is in keeping with his expectations for a new government program. that's what they'll come up with. this treasury has defended tarp and defended hamp in particular, hamp which has been roundly criticized even those opposed will vote no by laraza which have been tried and true liberal activists for a long time, but they've been defending it. why? i'm not sure. but instead of reforming the program, instead of fixing the program, they refuse to do it, so we must end it and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. both sides having yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.
4:14 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part a of house report 112-34. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: mr. chairman, have an amendment to h.r. 839 at the desk that is number 5. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part a 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 chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of my amendment which is a commonsense provision that provides transparency and clarity for distressed
4:15 pm
homeowners. my amendment would require the secretary of the treasury to send a letter to hamp applicants that they will not be considered for a modification due to termination of the program and that they can contact their member of congress for assistance in negotiating with or acquiring a loan modification from their servicer. i raise this amendment because my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have been majority in the house and they will probably prevail on this amendment. but i think that we have a responsibility to say to our constituents what we're doing and what we're not doing. many of them have just began to learn about the loan modification program, the hamp program, and all of a sudden it's going to be pulled out from under them if this amendment prevails and if it passes on the opposite side of the aisle and
4:16 pm
in the senate, etc. and they need to know, the constituents need to know exactly what with we've done. now, i work with mr. mchenry on this amendment and we worked out some language that he thought was fair and i believe we do have his support. that's not to say that i support the bill because i don't support this amendment. i don't support this amendment that will literal loedis mantle the hamp program. yes, there are criticisms about this program. i and others would have liked for it to have been broader, for it to help more people. but don't forget over 600,000 people have been helped. i know the target was three million to four million people and we certainly haven't come close to that. but to do away with this program would leave the american taxpayers who have gotten into loans oftentimes
4:17 pm
tricked into these loans, misled into these loans by the loan initiators, the banks and the mortgage companies that told them that they could help them get a mortgage even though these were exotic products, these were teaser loans, these were no doc loans, these were loans that were going to reset and cause the taxpayer to be in a loan they could not afford. many innocent people trying to live the american dream signed on the dotted line and also there was a lot of fraud involved where some of these loan initiators signed on the dotted line for the homeowner, the would-be homeowner. and so we have this crisis, this subprime crisis that we have been going through and there's a lot of misery out there and people that tried to own a home who now find themselves in foreclosure. the banks were not helping with
4:18 pm
loan modification, so we had to come up with something. the administration came up with the hamp program. it's a voluntary program, but they signed on to these agreements with the banks to say that they would do loan modifications under certain conditions and the administration had to do this because the banks were not helping out the homeowners. as a matter of fact, the banks said, well, we don't have anything to do with this any more. it's up to the servicers. well, a lot of people don't know who is, who is the servicer? the servicer is in most cases a company that's owned by the banks. they own their own servicing companies which means that once the mortgage is signed on by the homeowner they now give it to this other company that they own, these servicers, and the servicers have the responsibility for collecting on the mortgage, for collecting on late fees, for collecting on
4:19 pm
attorney fees and for doing loan modifications. but the homeowners couldn't get to them. hamp is supposed to help them get to them. these servicers have gotten away with being unregulated all of these years. in fact, there are no standards for servicers. you call one bank, they'll send you to their loss mitigation service. a bank such as bank of america, the loss mitigation is an offshore operation. you may be talking to somebody in india who has this little cookie cutter sheet which says, how much money do you make, how many times have you been late on your payment,? let's give you a few months to catch up. but loss mittification means different things to -- mitigation means different things to these banks. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired.
4:20 pm
ms. waters: i would simply ask support for transparency and support to keep this program going, and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: i claim time in opposition even though i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for five minutes. mrs. biggert: thank you. i just have a question for the sponsor of this amendment. you've had several amendments in several of these bills and i wondered -- i just wanted to make sure this was the same what you and mr. mchenry agreed to. ms. waters: yes. this is absolutely the same thing we agreed to. mrs. biggert: you're just asking for support of this amendment and not for anything concerning the bill? ms. waters: this amendment is a
4:21 pm
transparency amendment that i worked on with mr. mchenry where our constituents would be notified and -- mrs. biggert: ok. reclaiming my time. we accept the amendment. ms. waters: thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. mrs. biggert: i yield back. the chair: all time 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 have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in part a of house report 112-34. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, amendment at the desk. -- i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in part a of house
4:22 pm
report 112-34 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 170, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman very much and i thank my colleagues very much as well. as we come to the floor of the house, i know that members on both sides of the aisle are committed to knowing the facts. we want to know the facts when we go to town hall meetings when our constituents pose very deliberative questions. we want to give them numbers. we want to be able to reason with them. one of the deliberative aspects of legislation is that you fix it, you don't end it. and so i rise today to ask my colleagues who support our amendment, an amendment that i think makes common sense. it's an amendment that thoughtful members can support. it's an amendment that whether you are republican or democrat you want to know what works. my amendment would call on the secretary of treasury to commission a study that would identify what aspects of the
4:23 pm
hamp program was successful and effectively carry out the original intent of the program. it would then require the secretary to issue a report to congress containing all findings and determinations of the study and legislative recommendations for a new modification program that could more successfully and effectively achieve the original purpose of the home affordable modification program. we have to thank the administration for recognizing that people are literally on their knees. there is no doubt that we have different philosophies of our friends on the side of the aisle. they keep talking about the deficit of the depressing aspect of the trillion-dollar debt. we keep talking about invest and grow the economy. when you grow the economy you have the ability to pay down on your debt. you have the ability to address the question of the debt ceiling. and so my question is, why wouldn't you want to know the best practices? let me give you some of the things that have been represented. one suggesting that this legislation that we have before
4:24 pm
us to end the hamp program will prevent another $30 billion from going to one of these programs. that is inaccurate. the repeal of this program will in essence save only $1.37 billion. that's all that it will save. but more importantly, what you will have is you will slow homeowners -- flow homeowners into the streets. when major assets for americans, hardworking americans is their homes. let's find out the best practices and make this work. the monthly rate of new loan approval would have to triple in order to approximate the amount cited by the chairman of this committee suggesting $30 billion. actually, we expect the rates are instead likely to modestly decline. so you're not going to have that much savings and you're not going to in essence blow up with so many people using it that you are going to use this amount of money. one republican has suggested that for every dollar that the program goes to private
4:25 pm
lenders, well, for every dollar the hamp program has paid out, homeowners have received from lenders $5 in reduced mortgage payments, most of the program funds do not go to lenders but go directly to homeowners for incentives for the ontime mortgage payments. it's giving individuals a leg up. it's interesting we would not want to focus on the best practices. when you look at this map you'll see that every single state has a hamp impact. someone has a mortgage program that the hamp program has helped. now, can we fix it? yes, we can make it better. but let me tell this to a person by a name of laurel. she indicated how this program has helped her. well, my income has not fully come back. she was unemployed. i am making much less than i was making before, so it's been difficult -- a difficult time. with the modification my mortgage payment has gone down $800, and i'm able to make my payment on time.
4:26 pm
i have been able to remain in the home that i love and that has provided me with great stability. i am extremely grateful that i received the modification. she has saved an asset that contributes to the economy. what would be the result of ending the modification program? i can tell you what the results will be. the results will be that laurel will have dump another home onto the market that no one could buy, that would bring down the income or bring down the quality of the neighborhood and the house appraisal prices of the neighborhood and therefore add another, if you will, debt to this economy. invest and grow. and the question is, all of my friends on the other side of the aisle, here's a document that's 15 pages long that shows that your district, your cities have been impacted positively by the hamp program. job growth is picking up. invest and grow jobs should be the mindset of the american
4:27 pm
congress for that's what we were sent back to washington to do. there is no doubt that we have a collective commitment to bringing down the debt. there is a collective commitment to doing that and we can look reasonably at what and how to do it. but when you don't have the best practices or know why you're repealing something, and right now people are in the middle of addressing this question of modifying their mortgage, i ask my colleagues to support my amendment because it does in fact provide a lifeline and it invests in the economy, creates jobs and stabilizes the middle-class, hardworking americans. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. mchenry: i rise in opposition. choim the gentleman is recognized -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized in opposition for five minutes. mr. mchenry: mr. chairman, i'm not sure if my colleague from texas heard at our town hall meetings but i heard from my constituents, i have one resident from stanley, north carolina, who said, quote, we paid payments every month.
4:28 pm
now, i tell you to my colleague, i read this before, but i wasn't sure if you were on the floor for this. but one constituent of mine said we've paid payments every month. but now we're being told we're behind in our payments because it's not the original monthly payment on our original loan. but it's an amount we were told to pay in 2010. how can we be behind? i ask my colleague to read the special inspector general's report, the details of failures of hamp. i ask my colleagues to listen to their constituents who more -- people in america, i'd remind my colleagues, more people in america, close to 800,000 americans have been actively harmed and left worse off under this federal program than have actually been helped. my colleague points to a laudable survey of the positives. the survey dund detail the destroyed lives -- doesn't detail the destroyed lives that the hamp program has pushed on
4:29 pm
people, has created. so this amendment, the reason why i rise in opposition, because this amendment is similar to ones we had in committee that we rejected in committee. this directs the treasury to conduct a study of hamp and will be completely counterproductive. the reason it will be counterpro duckive, every -- counterproductive, is we've seen a six-month media campaign for this program. they won't admit it's a failure although the rest of the world is largely saying it's a failure. they won't -- they've offered a veto threat on this legislation . the special inspector general, mr. barofsky, said just earlier this week, this treasury department is so content with the retched, shameful status quo they refuse to even acknowledge that this program is a failure. and that's why simply to offer
4:30 pm
the treasury to study this really is beneath the house. and with that -- ms. jackson lee: will the gentleman yield? will the gentleman yield? mr. mchenry: i ask how much time remains on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina has 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: will the gentleman yield? mr. mchenry: i yield back. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider
4:31 pm
amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 112-34. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. matsui: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 112-34 offered by mrs. mass suey of california. -- ms. matsui of california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california, ms. matsui, and a member owes pode -- opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california for five minutes. ms. matsui: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, i rise today to offer an amendment to h.r. 839, the hamp termination act, that calls on mortgage lenders to continue to publicly report basic home loan modification information. because of the amendment i offered to the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act which passed the house unanimously last congress, mortgage lenders and servicers
4:32 pm
participating in the home affordable modification program are required to report basic loan modification information to the department of the treasury. due to the enactment of my amendment, we now now know that 2.5 million americans have applied to participate in the home affordable modification program and well over 600,000 of those applicants began permanent modifications. in the sacramento region, over 9,000 of the nearly 12,000 homeowners who applied for permanent modifications have been approved. providing assistance to thousands of homeowners in my district. this information is crucial to accountability and transparency and for this congress to measure the performance of the mortgage industry. the amendment i offered today requires the same basic home loan modification reporting to continue, such as the number of applications they receive, the number of applications processed or the number of modifications
4:33 pm
they approve or deny. in its current form h.r. 839 would eliminate hamp and as a result financial institutions who receive hamp taxpayer funds would not no longer be obligated to continue reporting such basic information to the public. mr. chairman, the foreclosure crisis was a root cause of the dire economic situation that led to the near collapse of our financial system, increase in our climate and caused housing and credit crisis. sadly there are still men millions of american homeowners facing foreclosure and my -- in my home district of -- and my home district of sacramento, california, has been hit hard by this crisis. during the last few years i've been to foreclosure workshops in my district where i've met with constituents who are facing losing their homes. i was recently contacted by joan, a constituent of mine who would have lost her house without assistance from hamp. joan paid her bills on time and was current on her mortgage when her son was diagnosed with a
4:34 pm
psychiatric disorder that rendered him unable to work. when her adult son moved in with her shortly after, joan was no longer able to provide for him and make her mortgage payments at the same time and sought assistance. with proper assistance, joan received a low interest rate, hamp loan, and now is able to once again make her mortgage payments on time. joan shared with me that her home was saved due to the hamp program and that her son would have been homeless without it. she says that and i quote, i have no words to express my feelings of gratitude for my loan modification. mr. chairman, i've heard a number of significant stories in sacramento. it is essential that we require lenders to continue to report the loan modification activities. we need to know how many jones are out there struggling but seeking assistance. we need to know where the lenders are doing all they can.
4:35 pm
mr. chairman, this amendment will ensure that a level of transparency and accountability will continue. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense transparency amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. mchenry: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. hen hearn i appreciate -- mr. mchenry: i appreciate the gentlelady from offering this amendment. unfortunately i must rise in opposition to it. the requirements in this amendment are both cumbersome and unnecessary. it requires servicers and lenders to provide information regarding proprietary information on their entire portfolios, not just hamp. the reporting requirement for, quote, requests for modification, unquote, is undefined in the amendment and is therefore unworkable based on the research that we've done. it's unclear why this new rule is necessary in the negotiations
4:36 pm
between private citizens and private companies. furthermore servicers already provide results of their modification efforts to the hope now alliance as well as in their annual reports without disclosing proprietary information. in fact, i hope now alliance reports servicers completed 961,355 proprietary modifications in 2008, 1,172,490 proprietary modifications in 2009, 1.2 million in 2010. now, i might add, this is many multiples in the private sector in terms of mortgage modifications than had been provided under the hamp government-funded program that we're discussing here today and trying to eliminate here today. the program that has hurt about 800,000, just shy of 800,000
4:37 pm
americans, destroyed their credit, taken their savings and at the end of the day taking their homes. so i would encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. matsui: thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to say that these base reporting requirements are not new. it's about hamp. every financial institution receiving hamp funds from the tarp program is currently required to report this information today. in the current industry reporting requirements have played a significant role in providing a sense of transparency and accountability and that's what we're talking about, transparency and accountability in our efforts to help homeowners and stabilize our housing market. basic information to be reported to provide this congress with the information to make future decisions on loan misdemeanorfication programs as well as monitor the performance of the mortgage industry. mr. chairman, i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment, to bring clarity and
4:38 pm
transparency to the mortgage industry and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time -- the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. mchenry: in closing i would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. the reporting my colleague references are required by servicers and they're required to disclose the information related to the federal program hamp. so this amendment goes much further and requires these servicers to disclose hundreds of thousands of other modifications that are in the private sector. we know the aggregate number, what is being requested here is detailed information that is not correct for personal privacy and is not proper in keeping with hundreds of thousands of private transactions going on across this country. i'd urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance
4:39 pm
of my time. the chair: both sides having yielded back, 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 8 printed in part a of house report 11-34. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? mrs. maloney: 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 8 printed in part a of house report 112-34 offered by mrs. maloney of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 170, the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york for
4:40 pm
five minutes. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, for every one who cares about the issues of property, housing, economic growth and community life, the last couple of weeks have brought some troubling news. wednesday came the news that purchasers of new u.s. homes declined last month to the slowest pace on record and new home prices dropped to the lowest level since december, 2003. and yet over the past two weeks house republicans have said with their votes again and again that their policy to help homeowners is to just give up. to delow in the towel and say that there's just nothing that congress can do or will do to address the problem to help struggling american families. they have already voted to terminate three federal programs that help americans who are struggling to stay in their
4:41 pm
homes and now we are considering yet another one that has helped more than 32,000 new yorkers stay in their homes, over 600,000 across our great country. and what bothers me is that they are leading the effort to eliminate these programs, voting against them, and yet they have no plans of their own to address the foreclosure crisis that is hurting neighborhoods and disrupting lives throughout their country. like the jobs bills they said they would have. we have yet to see them. and the only initiative to help housing is to eliminate the programs that are thrrd will. -- already there. now the hamp program has been successful in helping, as i said, over 600,000. and with over 0,000 mortgages modified -- 40,000 mortgages modified each month nationaly, hamp is continuing to provide relief to struggling families across this country. my amendment will add findings
4:42 pm
to the bill with the number of trial and permanent modifications stated under the hamp program. the findings will also state the number of seriously delinquent mortgages in the u.s. that may be eligible for hamp modifications, but won't be because the program is being terminated. i believe it is important for the public to understand state by state the number of mortgages, the number of families who are still in their homes because of the hamp program. families are saving an average of over $500 per month on their mortgage payments. this amounts to nearly $5 billion in savings since the program started. these are real families and real savings. if our friends who have proposed to terminate this program want to talk about savings, they should think about the number of people in these states who have
4:43 pm
benefited from hamp and are now saving money every single month. they should also think about the number of seriously delinquent mortgages out there that are on the verge of foreclosure. currently over two million families in our country are in this situation. many of theep these could be eligible to participate in the hamp program but by terminating it now our friends are saying that these families are on their own. the numbers speak for themselves and i think it is important that we highlight how we have helped families across this country and how many more are not helping -- or not going to be helped or not being held hepped by terminating and closing this program. so i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to oppose the underlying bill. and i would like to place in the record a statement of administration policy from the
4:44 pm
executive office of president obama in support of the hamp program, urging a no vote on the efforts by the republican majority -- the chair: the gentlelady's request will be covered by general leave. mrs. maloney: thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: i seek recognition. the chair: for what purpose does do you rise? -- for what purpose do you rise? mr. mchenry: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. chairman. there are more failed modifications than successful modifications. in fact, in the dissenting views from the financial service committee democrats of which my colleague from new york, mrs. malma leonie, signed along with 40 of her democrat colleagues, it states that in their view 570,000 homeowners would be assisted under hamp if the program were allowed to continue. this amendment, however, states
4:45 pm
that that number is $2.-- 2.8 million. this differs from the facts of her own party and i think both numbers are much higher than would have been agreed upon by the congressional oversight panel of tarp. their numbers are much, much lower. i think if you use her words, my colleague's words, and figures, it's fair to say that those are grossly inflated and go well beyond what is reasonable, what is serious and what is agreed upon in the private sector or by even most of her democrat colleagues. and so i would urge my colleagues to vote against that and i retain the balance of my time in my tongue-tied way. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york.
4:46 pm
mrs. maloney: the number delinquent mortgages in the united states is the range of people that are -- could be eligible, who could apply for the program. but not all of them would qualify. you have to reach certain standards to qualify to enter the program. so this is the range of people who could be helped. the difficulty with my republican colleagues is that they have no alternative. they are abolishing a program without coming forward with any idea to help themselves. and as mark zandi said in his recent report, housing remains fragile in america and housing is roughly 25% of our economy. so to the extent that we can help people stay in their homes, thereby not only helping that family but helping their commount and helping their country, helping to stabilize the housing prices around that house so it doesn't become delinquent and abandon, pulling
4:47 pm
down the values in the community, this is an important program and should be continued. it's no taxpayer dollars used. it's from the tarp program. funded by the banks. and so this is an effort to help the overall economy, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: mr. chairman, you said the lady's time has expired? the chair: the lady's time has expired. mr. mchenry: in closing, i would quote from page 17 of the dissenting views of the financial service committee democrats of which my colleague, mrs. maloney, signed on. page 17, a reasonable estimate is that the program participation will double by the end of next year which i might add is a bit -- is a bit ambitious. but -- ok. i'll just continue with a quote. a reasonable estimate is that participation will double by the end of next year for a
4:48 pm
cumulative total of 1.1 million homeowners. it would deny modification for more than half a million homeowners at risk of foreclosure. i might add, the statistics also bear out that for every half a million that are helped in this program you're actively hurting about 800,000 americans. so with this -- what the opposition on the other side of the aisle is doing is saying, we should continue failure, we should endorse failure. in fact, we should continue to hurt people by keeping this program open and that under their view it means that you'll have 800,000 americans that will be left worse off because this program exists. worse off, their credit depleted, their home taken, their credit rating destroyed. i think that is highly inappropriate, mr. chairman. that's why i oppose this
4:49 pm
amendment and i yield my colleague from illinois the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman for yielding. my colleague from new york and many of my colleagues from that side of the aisle have been talking about the fact that -- are saying that if you end these programs -- if we end this program there will be nothing and that simply isn't true. of the 4.1 million mortgage modifications that were completed, 3.5 million were done by the private sector with no government program and not a dime from the taxpayers. there's also the home affordable refinance program, harp, for homeowners with government-backed, fannie mae and freddie mac loans, and don't forget about the hardest hit funds. according to the treasury website, the president established this in february, 2010, to provide targeted
4:50 pm
families and states hit hard by the economic downturn. that includes 1.5 million went to california, arizona, florida, nevada and michigan. another 600 million went to another set, north carolina, rhode island, south carolina. and two billion were distributed to 17 states and the district of columbia. in 2008, $300 million in guarantees was committed for hope for homeowners, a voluntary f.h.a. program. only 200 loans had been modified in this program but it exists. $475 million have been appropriated to neighborhood works for a foreclosure counseling for homeowners. there is private initiatives. we cannot have -- we have to stop funding programs that don't work with money we don't have. let's make that clear and with that i would urge opposition to this amendment and yield back.
4:51 pm
the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. maloney: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in part a of house report 112-34. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. sanchez: mr. chairman, i rise to offer my amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment numb 9 printed in part a of house report 112-34 offered by ms. loretta sanchez of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 170, the gentlewoman from california, ms. sanchez,
4:52 pm
and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. ms. sanchez: mr. chairman -- >> will the gentleman yield for unanimous consent? ms. sanchez: i yield for unanimous consent. mr. miller: it's with great regret that i rise in opposition to the home affordable modification program, known as hamp, without significant changes. hamp was designed to help millions of homeowners who had fallen victim to the crisis of 2008 but regrettably at this time it is not working under its current structure. i thank the gentlewoman's time has expired for yielding. the chair: the gentlelady from california. ms. sanchez: mr. chairman, since my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are repealing the home affordable modification program, my amendment states that congress encourages banks that our qualifying neighbors with loan modification. it encourages banks to provide our friends and family on foreclosure prevention and loan
4:53 pm
modification. my republican colleagues say that the home affordable modification program is not helping enough people. well, it didn't help all the people. that's true. i know people who went and tried to get their homes -- their loans mod foid and it didn't work for them, but there had been quite a few who had been helped. i want to give you some examples just in my own area. for example, there is this couple in garden grove, california, and the husband became unemployed. he was a construction worker, and as we all know construction was the first industry to fold. well, the family fell behind on their mortgage payments despite the fact that they're extremely frugal and had been saving money for emergencies. the husband found a job, of course, which paid less and they owed $8,825 in missed payments and late fees and they had a balance of $482,000 on their mortgage. thanks to the modification
4:54 pm
program the debts were forgiven and the balance was dropped by $87,000 so they have a new balance. even with the loss of income they're very thankful they can keep their home and they have a mortgage payment they can make. the home affordable modification program allowed this family to keep their home. a family from ms. sanchez: was close to lose -- a family from santa ana was close to losing their home. to make ends meet he supplemented his primary job with a part-time job. these are not people who are asking for a handout. these are people who are trying to figure out a way to keep stability with their children. the gentleman wanted to keep this home and so he worked with a counseling agency to formulate a budget that was affordable to him. and thanks to the loan modification program his payment was reduced and the family can stay in their home. that's one more family in santa
4:55 pm
ana that is in their home today. then, there was this couple who worked for a school district and the budget restraints in the state forced them to have furloughs which took a significant toll on their income. they were a couple from anaheim. they were usually their unused vacation days just so they could get that check in order to make the mortgage. thanks to the loan modification program, the couple was able to permanently modify their loans and to keep their home. their monthly mortgage payment was reduced. it made it more affordable. and even with income reduction this is another couple that another family that is still in their home. that's only three of the success stories we had. maybe -- i mean, i know that i had worked very hard with my housing agencies and with people in putting on forums and talking to people and calling them in and getting the banks and trying to modify these homes. this is a five-year process at home that we have been working on.
4:56 pm
i don't know. maybe the rest of my colleagues didn't do this or didn't know how to do it or they weren't as successful but we have had success. so we have families who are in their homes. it's my hope that my republican colleagues will reconsider this bill. let's work together to find solutions for people because when you keep a family in their home the stability of the family stays intact. when you have that. in particular, if you have children, they need that stability. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: i rise in opposition to the amendment even though i am not opposed. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. biggert: thank you. we would accept the amendment. you know, i have had similar occurrences in my district and have -- where actually one gentleman had to spend -- pay back $42,000 with the late fees
4:57 pm
and the penalties and the difference between the loan modification but -- and that's why i think this program has failed, but i think that your amendment, which is the sense of congress -- for congress to encourage the banks to work with our constituents to provide loan modifications to those that are eligible and it encourages banks to work with our constituents to provide them with the best services and to assist them and prospective homeowners with foreclosure prevention and counseling. i think this is help in the private sector and encourage the private sector to do this. we would accept that amendment. and i would yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.
4:58 pm
for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: mr. chairman, i move that the committee now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the house will be in order. mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r.
4:59 pm
839 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 839 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately
146 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on