Providing for Consideration of H.R. 839, HAMP Termination Act of 2011; and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 861, NSP Termination Act in Transcript

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Here we are again. At a time when Americans are calling for more jobs to improve the economy, my Republican colleagues want to pass legislation that won't create a single job and that will hurt the middle class by further destabilizing our housing markets.

Mr. Speaker, this week, we take up two more bills to continue weakening our housing markets and abandoning families who are working hard, struggling to stay in their homes, both of which show that my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to put partisan politics ahead of creating jobs and growing the economy.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, when we had several Members there from both sides who were testifying, the question was asked: Are we in a housing crisis? Everybody there agreed--and I think most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on my side of the aisle agreed as well--that we are in a housing crisis. So the answer is: What is and what should be the response?

Now, this response is what we have.

My colleague from Dallas said that the current program, HAMP, lacks accountability. Well, it seems like the logical answer to that would be to create accountability for the program, not to eliminate the program. We are talking about repeal without replace. We are talking about ending rather than mending. If there is truly a housing crisis, as I believe Members across both sides of the aisle agree there is, it calls for a public policy response. Rather than talking about what we shouldn't do, I think it would be more constructive to talk about what we should do.

We are leaving nothing in the wake if this proposed repeal moves forward. At a time when our economy is finally beginning to show signs of strong, sustained growth, we need to do everything we can to put people back to work and create jobs. Instead, here we have legislation after legislation that will increase burdens on already struggling middle class families. Rather than improving and building upon or even replacing programs that keep families in their homes, the Republicans have chosen to eliminate these four programs that keep families in their homes, and they have no plan to strengthen the housing market or to help the families who will, quite literally, be left on the street as a result.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 839 will eliminate one of the last lifelines available to many homeowners. According to Treasury Secretary Geithner, ending the HAMP program would cause a huge amount of damage to a very fragile housing market and would leave hundreds and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans, without the chance to take advantage of mortgage modifications that would allow them to stay in homes that they can afford.

Now, we could go into how we got into this mess in the first place, and we all know, Mr. Speaker, that there is plenty of blame to go around. Yes, people who got in over their heads with mortgages they couldn't afford deserve some of the blame. So do the brokers who shouldn't have sold them on those mortgages. So do the banks that underwrote those mortgages. So does Wall Street for packaging those mortgages and creating derivative products--and yes, so does the government for being asleep at the regulatory switch. There is plenty of blame to go around.

When the bankers needed help, they came to the government, and the government helped them. When the regulators needed help, they came to the government, and we passed financial regulatory reform last year. Well, the people who are most affected, the people who literally risk being tossed out on the street, rely on these programs to help them. How in good conscience can this Congress even consider bailing out Wall Street and bankers and not help mainstream America stay in their homes?

Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around. Believe me, many of these people facing this situation, who are barely able to make their mortgages, are not being rewarded for their bad decisions. They would much rather spend half as much on homes and not be under water, suffering as they are today. Yet the least we can do as a country to help them is to acknowledge that, yes, personal responsibility and blame don't just fall on their shoulders.

My Republican colleagues will argue that this is a failed government program and that this program hasn't helped the 3 million to 4 million homeowners it was originally projected to help. What they fail to mention is that HAMP, A, has helped to stabilize the housing market and that, B, it has helped over half a million families. Yes, that's not the 3 million or 4 million, and yes, our side of the aisle would be very open to suggestions about improving this program, whether it's the accountability of this program, the scale of this program, how it's delivered, or whether it's replacing it with another program to help those who are barely able to make their mortgage payments.

But what we are talking about today is to eliminate the tool that has kept one-half million American families in their homes, Mr. Speaker.

There is no doubt that many folks on the other side of the aisle are also calling this program a waste of taxpayer money. According to the CBO, the average cost per assisted homeowner in HAMP is $13,000. Now, that is a small price and actually a sound investment. It is far smaller than the $60,000 that it has been estimated to cost Freddie, Fannie, and large banks to foreclose on a home. So $13,000 to prevent the banks from foreclosing on a home, keeping that family in a home, allowing them to go to work and make their payments and pay back what is due; or, $60,000 to foreclose on that home and leave that family on the streets. The money for this program is well spent.

If an individual shows they can't stay current on their programs, they are removed from HAMP at no cost to taxpayers. In fact, of the homeowners that have had their trial modifications cancelled through the end of 2010, only 5.1 percent have been foreclosed on, and only 14.9 percent are at all in the foreclosure process.

Mr. Speaker, the program keeps families in their homes. Mortgages that have been modified under HAMP have a sustainability rate of 85 percent. Yes, we can do better. Yes, we would love to bring this program or others to keep 3 million to 4 million families in their home and stabilize housing prices. But what the bill before us does is repeal one of the only tools we have to help keep American families in their homes.

I understand the program hasn't reached the initial projections that the Obama administration put forward. But there is no question, talking to some of the families that this program has benefited, that it does work for them. With our help, the Treasury can continue to take steps to improve the effectiveness of this program and increase compliance from banks and borrowers.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 861 would rightly be titled the ``Illegal Trade Commercial Real Estate Act.'' The majority seeks to undermine the efforts of our Nation's mayors, city councils, and real estate developers and ensure that areas which have suffered due to economic downturn remain safely in control of those who do damage to communities. This is a critical program to help reform our communities.

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which I remind my colleagues was established and signed into law by President Bush, was designed to turn a crisis into an opportunity. In 2008, almost $4 billion was appropriated and helped 307 State and local agencies acquire, rehabilitate, and sell abandoned and foreclosed properties, exactly what is most needed now not only to revitalize our blighted areas but to help prevent the housing crisis and commercial real estate crisis from getting worse. I remind my colleagues that every dime of this program that is not spent by the sunset of this program will already, under statute, be returned to the Treasury.

By creating a mechanism for communities to acquire, rehabilitate, and sell back to the private market abandoned and blighted properties, we give local governments a very powerful tool for economic growth and fighting crime and keeping our communities safe.

In the midst of our ongoing liquidity crisis, where many developers are having a tough time finding financing for many of their prime projects, it is a matter of public safety and critical economic importance that we continue this vehicle by which blighted properties are returned to being productive economic engines, particularly in our Nation's most troubled neighborhoods.

I also want to point out that this program isn't limited to commercial property. In my district in Adams County, Colorado, which like other areas of the country was devastated by the wave of foreclosures, we have used this program to revitalize residential neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program allows local governments to build communities with home rehabilitation, down payment and closing cost assistance for low- and middle-income families. By using these Federal dollars to leverage local efforts, many struggling families have been able to find and keep a home, and a modest Federal investment has been magnified severalfold by private investment, city investment, and county investment.

Mr. Speaker, I think most people in this country agree, yes, there is a housing crisis and, yes, there is plenty of blame to go around and, yes, we need a public policy response. These programs aren't perfect. We hope to work in a bipartisan way with our colleagues across the aisle on improving these programs, coming up with new market-oriented programs to help end the crisis in real estate. But the answer is not to simply repeal one of the only instruments that we have to keep families in their homes with only the vaguest of assurances that someday, somehow Congress might think up a better plan.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would point out that the one bill that the gentleman from Texas has pointed to as a jobs bill is one bill that contained many, many earmarks from previous sessions. Also included is continuing funding for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. So if this is the best jobs bill that a Republican Congress can bring forward, I think the American people deserve better.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

With regard to the jobs bill, I acknowledge that that was the bill that my colleague from Texas cited as the one jobs bill the Republicans have brought before us. This was a bill that had dozens and dozens of earmarks, which is why, in standing with President Obama, I opposed that bill, including an indefensible earmark on which we proposed an amendment on the floor, which was voted down, I might add, without a single Republican vote, to eliminate funding for what I thought there was broad consensus we should eliminate funding for; namely, a $300 million bridge in Alaska. There was a $70 million bridge to an island with 50 people, and an additional project that is another bridge.

This is an example of earmarks at their worst, of pork barrel politics at their worst. I'm beginning to think if the Republicans do come up with a job bill, we need to ask at what price jobs? Is it going to be so filled up with Republican pork that we have to either take it or leave it? That's a choice the American people don't want to face.

Mr. Speaker, I will be the first to admit that we can improve HAMP. We can improve the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. There's no doubt about that. I would advance that we should be doing exactly that. My colleague from Michigan (Mr. Clarke) had some excellent ideas about improving these programs. I am a cosponsor of a bill to provide for a capital gains tax exemption for investment in community banks to help them shore up their balance sheets. Why not look at, for instance, allowing investment properties to have the same mortgage deductibility as primary residences? There's a number of great ideas that I'm sure Members on both sides of the aisle could discuss and agree upon to address our housing crisis. But what the answer isn't is to repeal one of the only tools we have and to replace it with silence.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you a few stories from constituents in my district that the HAMP program has helped. My office has helped a number of constituents with this program, and I'm not alone in doing that.

Last year, I had a local artist who ran her own small business contact my office asking for help with her mortgage. Her income had declined significantly and unexpectedly due to the tough economy. She tried to find a second job but it wasn't enough. With the help of a HAMP loan modification, she's still in her home today.

We also helped a truckdriver who had become ill and needed dialysis. Although he still receives Social Security, he couldn't afford his mortgage payments without his old salary. He had nowhere else to turn, but with the HAMP modification, he was able to lower his interest rate by 2 percent and convert his loan from an adjustable rate to a 30-year fixed and stay in his home.

Mr. Speaker, the stories don't end there. HAMP has proven that it can save families on the brink of foreclosure and keep them there for the long haul. It's not the ideal program. It hasn't reached the 3 million families that were initially projected, but you ask any of those 500,000 families that HAMP has helped keep in their home and they will agree that this program works for them.

Mr. Speaker, we should be focusing on jobs. Last month, I'm proud to say, our economy added over 150,000 private sector jobs, and instead of working to increase that number, we've been passing legislation that threatens to reverse the progress that has been made by creating additional uncertainty within the real estate sector and leaving more families at risk of losing their homes.

Republicans promised to promote job creation and economic growth with their new majority. Instead of delivering on these promises, they've already used their majority to raise taxes on middle class Americans, to attack the middle class, and promote their own social agenda. This is not the change that the American people asked for.

It is time to get our fiscal house in order. I'd like to make it clear that this is not the way to solve our budget problems, by repealing a program that helps keep middle class families in their home. Mr. Speaker, the best way to get our deficit under control is through creating jobs, not through cutting the safety net of hardworking Americans and preventing our cities and counties from revitalizing their blighted neighborhoods.

Most distressing, however, is that through these bills the promise of job creation is broken yet again. I ask my colleagues to join me and vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation so we can keep our promise to help all of our communities rebuild and succeed, and work in a bipartisan fashion to get the very best ideas on the table about what our proper public policy response should be with regard to the housing crisis and the jobs crisis that this Nation faces.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source