Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. No, I don't.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. I think what we are doing here is to terminate the mortgage letter which sets up the program and to make sure that there won't be a substantially similar letter.

Mrs. BIGGERT. I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because in my opinion it violates clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it's amending.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the amendment because in my opinion it violates clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it is amending. It is not germane to the bill because it expands the scope of the bill. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against this amendment because it violates clause 10 of rule XXI as it has the net effect of increasing mandatory spending within the time period set forth in the rule.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because, in my opinion, it violates clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it is amending. It is not germane to the bill because it is outside the scope of the bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against this amendment because in my opinion it violates clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it is amending. And it is not germane to the bill because it's outside the scope of the bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order against this amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment of my good friend and colleague because in my opinion it violates clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter it is amending. It is not germane to the bill because it is outside the scope of the bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, President Ronald Reagan famously said--with tongue in cheek, no doubt--that the closest thing to eternal life on this Earth is a Federal Government program. I rise today in support of H.R. 830, legislation offered by my friend from Illinois (Mr. Dold). At the risk of disproving the late President's axiom, let me just say that H.R. 830 will demonstrate that Congress does have the good sense, the fortitude, and the wherewithal to bring an end to a Federal program, especially one that is not working. The program in question is the FHA Refinancing Program, which was authorized under the broadest of provisions in the TARP legislation back in 2008. In 2010, the program was conceived in haste, enacted with no vote in Congress, and was designed to augment another failed program, the Making Homes Affordable Program, or HAMP, which has done more harm than good. Under the FHA Refinancing Program, the FHA is directed to use TARP funds to refinance mortgages that are current but underwater. Its record has been abysmal, with the FHA Commissioner stating during our hearing last month: ``As of February 11, 44 loans have been endorsed.'' Where else but in Washington would it be a good idea to obligate $8 billion in taxpayer funds and disburse $50 million of those dollars? Now, whether it's to help 44 homeowners or not, we don't know how many will be in default or what it will cost. But that money has been disbursed from the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Chairman, this bill ends another failed government program. Taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for failure. I would urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. This amendment came up in committee and failed during our committee markup by a vote of 33-22. The amendment removes all references to the mortgagee letter issued by HUD concerning the FHA Refinance Program, and I think that this announcement was the defining document for the program and provided guidance to lenders on the FHA Refinance Program. I think our concern is that the amendment leaves the door open for the Treasury and for HUD to at a later date create another substantially similar program to the FHA Refinance Program, again, without the express consent of Congress. As the sponsor of the bill mentioned, this program was never authorized by Congress. The funding came from the TARP moneys that were set aside for the HAMP program, and the mortgagee letter was effectively the authorizing document for the program. If this were to be in, there would be no nullification of the program; it wouldn't be terminated. This mortgagee letter speaks directly to this program, and I don't think that it affects the other parts of the FHA. It really just voids the letter, in doing so, to end the program. We don't need to further burden the FHA with this program. An FHA program right now is currently operating below its congressionally mandated 2 percent capital reserve ratio, and this program has the potential to further expose taxpayers to FHA losses. Even the administration has expressed concerns over the new program loan performance. During testimony delivered to the Financial Services Committee, the FHA Commissioner testified ``these loans may perform worse than refinanced loans that were not previously under water.'' This is another example of the administration's using TARP dollars in questionable ways. I think that the program is similar in scope to the failed HOPE for Homeowners program established under FHA in 2008, and even that program has helped fewer than 200 borrowers since its inception. So we are concerned that the method of funding for this program exposes taxpayers to higher levels of TARP money. I don't think that it affects FHA other than that this program is terminated. This program, along with its companion programs and the failed HAMP program, should be terminated, and all unobligated funds associated with the program should instead be used to pay down the Nation's unsustainable debt. I would oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 830, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the House.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, House Resolution 151, and House Resolution 150, the rule for H.R. 830. Last week, the Committee on Financial Services considered and approved two bills: H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act, and H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act. H.R. 836 would terminate the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program and rescind any unobligated balances remaining under the program. The Emergency Mortgage Relief Program, created by the Dodd-Frank Act, establishes a $1 billion fund to provide loans or credit advances to borrowers who cannot pay their mortgages because of unemployment or reduction in income. To date, no funds have been provided to homeowners under this program, and serious questions remain about its cost, effectiveness, and benefits. The CBO estimates the program will have a 98 percent subsidy rate, meaning that for every dollar loaned under this program, 98 cents is not expected to be repaid. Given the country's current fiscal situation, no program warrants funding when benefits are speculative at best and substantial taxpayer losses are certain. The other bill approved by the Financial Services Committee, H.R. 830, which will be addressed by rule in a little bit, H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act, would rescind all unobligated balances made available for use under this program. More than $8 billion in TARP funds have been set aside for the FHA Refinance Program, and $50 million has been disbursed since September 2010. For this extraordinary investment of their money, taxpayers have thus far gotten very little return. The administration originally estimated this program would help between 500,000 and 1.5 million homeowners. However, only 44 loans have been refinanced and only 245 applications have been submitted. This program has been plagued by problems from the start. Borrowers are frustrated that few lenders participate in the program, and it is difficult for borrowers to even find out if their mortgage servicer has agreed to participate. Rather than continue to spend money we do not have on programs that do not work, Congress should focus on creating the certainty job creators need for economic activity and hiring. This means we must root out wasteful government spending on ineffective programs such as the FHA Refinance Program. What the American people want are jobs, not a handout or a program that doesn't work or is ineffective. I urge my colleagues to support the rules for H.R. 836 and H.R. 830.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the members of the Westmont Lions Club as they celebrate the club's 75th year of service in the Village of Westmont. Chartered on January 8, 1936, the Lions Club is the oldest and one of the most dedicated service organizations in Westmont. Over the past 75 years, the Westmont Lions Club has risen to Helen Keller's challenge to become the ``knights of the blind'' by setting up several scholarship programs, as well as by hosting such fundraising events as A Magical Vision Fundraiser. They have worked very hard to become a pillar of service in my congressional district. I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating the Westmont Lions Club for its 75 years of service to the Village of Westmont and wish them the best in their future endeavors.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 69, I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we are now 6 months into our fiscal year, and we have not been able to pass a dozen or more individual appropriations bills within that time. We inherited a spending regime, but we have a mandate from the American people to cut spending. We must do it equitably, fairly and quickly; and I think that Mr. LaTourette has come up with an amendment which has a really fair way of doing this: Don't zero out programs without hearings. Don't pick winners and losers. Don't do this without having the proper hearings and oversight. By reducing our discretionary programs at the same rate across the board, we don't risk alienating future priorities or vulnerable constituencies that may receive funding which is at risk of being terminated. The chairman of Appropriations and this whole body have done a great job in looking at all of this, and I think we will come out with something that we will all be very proud of. The LaTourette amendment offers another way to do just that.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kline amendment. It is imperative that Congress put the brakes on what has become this administration's culture of runaway regulation. Specifically, the amendment under consideration will prohibit the use of funds in the underlying bill for the implementation of a misguided regulation commonly referred to as the gainful employment rule, which has already led to job loss and uncertainty in the proprietary college sector. Moving forward, I'm concerned that that rule will jeopardize access to many educational and training programs that provide students with skills to meet the demands of an ever-changing labor market. In function, this rule would prohibit college programs from receiving Federal student loans unless new complicated loan repayment criteria are met. As such, the rule incentivizes institutions to pursue only those repayment plans which satisfy arbitrary government goals rather than the plans that best fit students' needs. This may be loan repayment; also ignoring measures of seemingly equal importance such as on-time graduation rates and clear placement. Equally troubling, under the rule, proprietary institutions would, sadly, be forced to navigate an additional restrictive layer of Federal bureaucracy, requiring Federal approval in order to offer any new programs. Unfortunately, this provision fails to realize what is the agile nature of these proprietary institutions that uniquely position them to help unite a properly equipped workforce with employers in today's uncertain job market. By unlawfully restricting the flexibility, we risk failure to capitalize on emergency economic opportunities. Moreover the gainful employment rule applies almost exclusively to one sector of higher education, the proprietary schools which tend to teach job-specific skills, often to at-risk populations such as low- income, minorities, single parents, high school dropouts with GEDs, and first-generation college students who do not have financial help from parents. Somehow there is the notion that the bad actors of the Federal higher education loans world is exclusively within the proprietary college sector. This is preposterous, but the fact is that the administration has chosen to discriminate against these schools. The fact remains, a student can graduate from any institution of higher education with inadequate income to repay their debts, and students should not suffer simply because the school that best suits their needs operates under a for-profit model. I have repeatedly asked the Department of Education to refrain from implementing this rule until we have clear data on the state of our Nation's overall higher education system. If the administration were serious about addressing unscrupulous recruiting practices at the college level, this data would be compiled and made available, and particularly to Members of Congress. As it stands, we have little more than this singular, last-minute vote to slow down the administration's race to squeeze the for-profit college sector out of existence. I yield back the balance of my time.