Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1106, Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009

Floor Speech

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1106, HELPING FAMILIES SAVE THEIR HOMES ACT OF 2009 -- (House of Representatives - February 26, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida and my good friend, Mr. Hastings, for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act and this rule. This Act throws a lifeline to families who are fighting to stay in their homes during this economic crisis.

Now, as Mr. Hastings knows, we have a very high rate of foreclosures in the State of Florida, and my Tampa Bay area community has been particularly hard hit. That is why last year I began holding foreclosure prevention workshops, so that homeowners could sit down, face to face with lenders and servicers and work out a refinancing. I'm planning my fourth workshop now.

These homeowners appreciate the opportunity to sit down one on one because most of the time they have a very difficult time getting in touch with the lender or servicer. They won't answer the phone.

I know many in the banking industry do not like this bankruptcy provision that allows bankruptcy judges to modify home loans. But, frankly, they've brought this on themselves to a great extent. I encourage you all to check the video of Congresswoman Maxine Waters staying on the phone for an hour just trying to get a bank to answer the phone and pick up the line so that a responsible homeowner can get into a refinance. They don't want a bailout. They just want a little breathing room and the opportunity to refinance.

This Act today will help. It won't help everyone, but it will also provide a prod, an incentive to these banks to refinance these loans. It's fair and equitable to allow home loan modifications because right now, in bankruptcy, every other asset can be worked out. The new law will allow loan modifications in bankruptcies and it will prod the lenders and servicers to hire the necessary personnel, answer the phone, begin the refinancing that they should have been doing over the past year.

Many of these banks have received billions in taxpayer dollars. And I know that President Bush did not include a condition that these banks should refinance or sit down with folks and begin a discussion, but that must be a requirement now, or else foreclosures and the continued deterioration of all of our property values will continue.

President Obama's plan also will provide responsible homeowners with additional leverage. And Congresswoman Doris Matsui from California and I have an amendment contained in this Act that will encourage a holiday for foreclosures until President Obama's plan takes effect.

We're going to continue to stand up for responsible families and ensure that if you work hard and you play by the rules, the tools and resources will be available to help you stay in your home.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to recognize for 5 minutes my distinguished colleague from Iowa (Mr. King) to discuss the amendment that he had written that I offered last night in the Rules Committee, which was rejected. And I think he will share some very enlightening comments with us.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding, and also for her diligent endeavor on the Rules Committee to try to hold together the integrity of this system and this process.

On this cramdown legislation, the amendment that I offered in the Judiciary Committee was an amendment that would have, and I'd just take the language right out of it, it would have allowed the court to find that there had not been misrepresentation, false pretenses or actual fraud on the part of the lender if there's going to be a change in this contract ordered by a judge.

Now, we don't want to reward people who are lawbreakers, or those who are disingenuous, or those who, by fraudulent or misrepresentative means to take advantage of a lender under these circumstances. This is new territory we're in. It's a narrow standard in a significant way.

This was an amendment that not only I thought was a good proposal, Republicans thought it was a good proposal, but the Democrats also thought it was a good proposal. And this amendment is an amendment that I negotiated across the other side of the aisle in committee. It's an amendment that the chairman voted for. It's an amendment that passed, the bill passed on a recorded vote in committee, 21-3, Mr. Speaker.

So when that happens in this process, the people who took government class all over America and read the Constitution believe that's the language that comes to the floor, that the language that's approved by the committee on a final markup is the language that comes to the floor.

But what happened was, H.R. 200 was switched out for H.R. 1109, or whatever this bill is that we're working with. The language of this cramdown was to be transferred into that, but it was changed in that process. It was changed after we had a committee markup, a committee markup that apparently doesn't have any value when the will of the committee can be usurped by the staff of the committee. And I say the staff of the committee, because when I asked the chairman about this yesterday in the Judiciary Committee, he didn't seem to be aware that my language had been changed. And so we talked to their staff, and their staff said, well, there were Democrats that had some second thoughts. Wouldn't that include the chairman of the committee? And so they reconsidered and they rewrote the bill after the fact. And the final answer that came from the staff, the unelected staff, probably still employed, not if they were working for me, is ``it is what it is.'' In other words, tough. You can pass an amendment. You can negotiate an amendment. You can get a 21-3 vote. You can have the support of the chairman. But if they decide when the sun comes up the next morning that they want to change their mind, they will change the language in the bill without even having the courtesy of contacting the sponsor of the amendment, the ranking member of the committee or, apparently, the chairman of the committee.

And so I brought an amendment request to the Rules Committee last night. And thankfully, Dr. Foxx offered that amendment to the Rules Committee. It was voted down on a party-line vote.

So what we have now is a process that does not reflect representative government. It doesn't reflect the will of this Congress. It reflects the will of somebody's staff.

And there's plenty of means to change the language if there happens to be some kind of flaw in it. And I'll argue there is not. But there's plenty of means. That means would be come to the Rules Committee, bring your own amendment. Or bring this out on the floor for an up-or-down vote, or lobby the Senate to amend it over there, or seek to get something amended in conference. None of those avenues were followed, Mr. Speaker. And I think it brings a sense of shame upon this Congress that the integrity of a Member, of the entire Republican side of the aisle and many of the Democrats has all been usurped by what appears to be a staff decision, because I can't find a single elected Member that will say yes, I took responsibility and I didn't think you ought to know when I changed your language. That's what's going on.

I urge this body to vote down this rule. Take this thing back to the Rules Committee, bring us the language that was passed out of the Judiciary Committee, or at least let's have some dialogue on why it was changed in the dark of the night by staff without a single Member that will take accountability for what's happened here.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source