Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. This legislation is to reiterate what the Congressional Budget Office says about----

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We keep talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. We've talked about that for several years now--jobs, jobs, jobs. What we are trying to do is to 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. And out-of-control Federal spending is hurting our economic recovery so that we can have those jobs. We've got a $14.2 trillion national debt. And economists agree that reducing government spending will create a more favorable environment for private sector growth and the ability to create jobs. We've got so much uncertainty there right now that we have got to stop the spending and stop the taxing and all the things that could happen. So exactly what unemployed Americans want and what homeowners want and need is a job and a paycheck, not a handout or another failed taxpayer-paid government program. I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and stop talking about the jobs. Let's focus on the substance of these amendments.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. My colleague from New York and many of the colleagues from that side of the aisle have been saying that if we end this program, there will be nothing. 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, or HARP, for homeowners with government-backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans. And don't forget about the Hardest Hit Fund. According to the Treasury Web site, the President established this in February, 2010, to provide targeted aid to families in States hard hit by the economic and housing market downturn. That includes $1.5 million that went to the hardest hit States--California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, and Michigan. Another $600 million went to another set--North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. And finally, $2 billion was distributed to 17 States and the District of Columbia. In 2008, $300 million in guarantees was committed for HOPE for Homeowners, a voluntary FHA program. Only 200 loans have been modified in this program, but it does exist; $475 million has been appropriated to Neighborhood Works for foreclosure counseling for homeowners. Finally, there are countless local, State, and private sector initiatives. We have to stop funding programs with money that we don't have. Let's make that clear. With that, I would urge opposition to this amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. We will accept the amendment. I have had similar occurrences in my district where actually one gentleman had to pay back $42,000 worth of late fees as well as the penalties and the difference between the loan modification. That's where I think this program has failed. Yet I think your amendment is a sense for Congress to encourage the banks to work with our constituents and to provide loan modifications to those who are eligible. It also encourages banks to work with our constituents and to provide them with the best services. It encourages the banks to assist prospective homeowners with foreclosure prevention and counseling. I think this is a help in the private sector and encourages the private sector to do this, so we would accept this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 839 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of House Resolution 170, the rule for consideration of H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, NSP, Termination Act, and H.R. 839, the Home Affordable Program (HAMP) Termination Act. H.R. 861 would end NSP and rescind 1 billion taxpayer dollars that would otherwise be spent to continue this troubled program. In total, Congress has already spent $7 billion for NSP. And instead of stabilizing neighborhoods or helping people whose mortgages are underwater, the program allows lenders and servicers to offload their bad investments onto taxpayers and delay market recovery. Even more disturbing is that critics warn that NSP creates incentives for banks and other lenders to foreclose on troubled borrowers, worsening the crisis and kicking families out of their homes. This program is not about helping homeowners. They have already lost their house to foreclosure. They are not involved in this. This is help for lenders and bankers to take the money and build more homes through the counties, through the States, through not-for-profits, and then to sell these homes and reap the benefits of the money. There is no place in this bill to tell us where that money goes. It probably is in a slush fund. The GAO, the inspector general for HUD, and other auditors have noted the program is plagued with problems, including lax reporting requirements and poor accountability. There is little evidence to suggest that the funds spent through NSP are producing cost-effective results. Finally, the program lacks any requirement that remaining NSP funds are returned to taxpayers when a sponsored property is sold. Instead, the money is treated like a fund, somewhere, never to be returned. The other bill approved by our committee is H.R. 839. This bill would terminate HAMP, which has become the poster child for failed foreclosure mitigation programs. According to the CBO, this bill would save $1.4 billion over 10 years. Announced by the Obama administration in February of 2009, the HAMP program to date has spent $840 million out of the $30 billion in TARP funds that were set aside for the program. For this extraordinary investment, the administration predicted that up to 4 million homeowners would receive help. Instead, only 580,000 homeowners have received mortgage modifications. Sadly, a failure to meet expectations is the least of the program's troubles. Of those who were promised help, 740,000 homeowners have had their modifications cancelled. In many cases, these homeowners were strung along on a false hope, only to end up in worse financial straits than if they had never heard of HAMP. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a statement from a March 2 subcommittee hearing during which Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the TARP program, or SIGTARP, exposed the most hazardous failings of the program. He said that there had been countless published reports on HAMP participants who wound up worse off, having engaged in a false attempt. Failed modifications often leave borrowers with more principal outstanding on their loans.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Numerous oversight bodies, including the GAO, have cited the Treasury for failing to respond to recommendations to increase the transparency, accountability, and consistency of the program. Americans for Tax Reform called the program ``a costly failure.'' Out-of-control spending has left us with a $14.1 trillion national debt that is damaging our recovery and harming job growth. Economists agree that reducing government spending will create a more favorable environment for private sector jobs; and that is what Americans need, a job and a paycheck, not more failed experiments and taxpayer-funded housing. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 861 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act, and I commend my colleague Mr. Miller for introducing this bill that would end NSP. As I mentioned during the debate on the rule for this bill, in total, Congress has appropriated $7 billion for NSP. This bill could save taxpayers up to $1 billion. Instead of stabilizing neighborhoods, NSP allows lenders and servicers to off-load their bad investments onto taxpayers, and some critics point to the hazard of NSP, which actually may speed up foreclosures for families. If the lenders and servicers know that they can quickly sell a property to a nonprofit or local government with NSP funds, why wouldn't they do this? Why wouldn't they simply evict the homeowner instead of doing a proprietary, private sector-funded modification of the mortgage that would allow the homeowner to keep his home? This program does not help homeowners facing foreclosure; and the bottom line is that, if the lenders and servicers own a home due to foreclosure--not the taxpayers but these same lenders and servicers-- they are responsible for the upkeep, security and eventual sale of that home. Why should the taxpayers pay for this responsibility which rightly belongs to the lender or servicer? They shouldn't. The GAO, the HUD Inspector General and other auditors have noted that the program is plagued with problems, including lax reporting requirements and poor accountability. There is no evidence to suggest that funds spent through NSP have produced cost-effective results. Finally, upon the sale of a property, NSP does not require these groups to return the profit to the taxpayer. Instead, the money is treated like a slush fund. This money is never returned to the taxpayer but will stay with the local governments and nonprofit entities that received it. Of course, any group would support keeping the profits of homes sold instead of returning it to the taxpayer. Who wouldn't? We need to break down barriers that have delayed recovery in the housing market, including expensive and ineffective government programs like NSP. We need to stop funding programs that don't work with money we don't have. NSP doesn't stabilize neighborhoods. It simply spends billions of taxpayer dollars to allow a few homes, scattered here and there, to be purchased, rehabilitated and resold. Again, upon the sale, the money is never returned to the taxpayer. We are facing a $14.1 trillion national debt. This debt is damaging our economic recovery and is stifling job growth. We have been warned. Economists say, if we don't address our debt, in a couple of years we could end up bankrupt like Greece. Economists also agree that we must reduce our out-of-control government spending to create a more favorable environment for private-sector job growth. Unemployed Americans and homeowners need a job and a paycheck, not a handout or another failed, taxpayer-funded program. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the sponsor of this bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Services on International Monetary Policy and Trade, Mr. Miller.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mrs. BIGGERT. May I inquire of the Chair how much time each side has remaining.

Mrs. BIGGERT. At this time I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mrs. BIGGERT. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield myself the balance of my time. The gentleman might be interested to know that there was a HOPE VI bill that was an amendment to that, to H.R. 3524, made by Representative Sessions. The amendment sought to maintain HUD's authority to issue demolition only grants, and that failed by a recorded vote of 186-221. Voting ``no'' on that was the gentleman, Mr. Frank and Ms. Waters, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Velazquez. I have been listening to all of this, and I think that everybody knows, we all want to get the housing market back on track. We all want to be able to help those that are in trouble. But many of my colleagues on the other side have said that if you end these programs there will be nothing, and that's just not 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. So there is a market out there. There is also the Home Affordable Refinance Program, HARP, for homeowners. And don't forget the Hardest Hit Fund, which President Obama established. And in 2008, $300 million in guarantees were committed for homeowners, a voluntary FHA program. $475 million had been appropriated to Neighbor Works for foreclosure counseling. And finally, there are countless local, State and private sector initiatives. So let us not forget that this is being taken care of. And rather than have a program that really doesn't affect those that have been foreclosed on, it really is a program for counties, not-for-profits, for States, and it can cause incentives for banks and other lenders to foreclose on troubled borrowers, worsening and prolonging the housing credit crisis. So let's get back to what this bill really does, and it doesn't help taxpayers.