Carolyn Maloney

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, a study conducted by the Center for International and Security Studies found that those who said they received most of their news from NPR were only about one-fourth as likely to hold a demonstrably false belief about important issues relating to the Iraq war as those who primarily consumed news from our colleagues' favorite news channel. A similar study conducted last year on mainly economic issues produced similar results. Those who primarily listened to NPR were considerably less likely to hold demonstrably false beliefs. So now our colleagues across the aisle want to pull the plug on NPR, one of the most accurate sources of demonstrably true news and information. Our colleagues want to fire the messenger. This is not a move to create jobs or save money. This is a move to save face at the expense of truth. And I believe that such a move comes at a price that we simply cannot afford to pay. This country needs NPR. Vote against the Republican bill.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a new version of the StartUp Visa Act, a bill that would encourage innovation and economic growth by permitting immigrant entrepreneurs greater access to temporary U.S. visas. The bill matches legislation introduced this week by Senators John Kerry, Richard Lugar, and Mark Udall in the Senate. What do American household names such as Google, eBay and Proctor & Gamble have in common? They are all former start-ups founded by immigrants. Our current visa laws have made it unnecessarily difficult for immigrants to launch new companies in the United States. I am reintroducing the StartUp Visa Act because the economic dynamism of foreign-born talent has always been a crucial factor in our country's growth, and we must take steps to enable it to continue. By allowing immigrant entrepreneurs greater access to American visas, we truly can drive American job creation and channel the power of innovation. This legislation would be an expansion of the bill from last Congress, extending the pool of eligible immigrants to include holders of H-18 visas and entrepreneurs living outside the United States with a market presence in the country. The entrepreneurial spirit is ingrained in our country's history and success. I believe that this legislation is a vital component of promoting our global competitiveness. We must ensure a strong foundation for foreign-born, highly-skilled talent to create American jobs and promote economic prosperity and this bill works toward that end.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk which is in order under the rule.

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

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act which will quantify the number of vacant homes across the country and add findings to the bill listing these numbers in every State so that it will be transparent exactly what the impact will be in not continuing this program that is needed. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program is one of four programs that my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to eliminate. All of these programs in one way or another help to stabilize neighborhoods and help to provide affordable housing to keep people in their homes. Economists have testified before our committee and other committees that housing is as much as 25 percent of our economy, so it is critical that we do what we can to stabilize housing, not just for the benefit of the families benefiting from the housing, but also for their neighbors, for their localities, for their cities, for their States and for the overall economy. Foreclosed properties lead to volatile housing prices, blight and the deterioration of communities. The mayor of New York cited at a recent meeting of the delegation how important the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has been to help New York recover from the housing crisis. He said that over 500 units were rehabbed and converted into affordable rental housing through the three rounds of funding that have come forward. Now, some of my colleagues say this is not important or should not be a priority, but I can tell you it has been a lifesaving program, particularly to the families that are living there now and to their neighbors and to the housing prices and the neighbors where these housing units are located. Funding has also been used to assist multifamily buildings in distress and has provided long-term affordability for renters. It also has provided jobs. The two main priorities of most communities across this country are housing and jobs, and this program helps provide both. My amendment points out why the program is so desperately needed by listing, through findings, the number of vacant homes that could be eligible for funding by State. For example, in the home State of my good friend and colleague Mr. Miller, California, there are over 92,000 homes that have been vacant for 90 or more days. In my State of New York, there are over 16,000 homes that have been vacant for over 90 days. The amendment clarifies that by terminating the program, vacant homes across the country cannot benefit from the Neighborhood Stabilization funds that could help acquire, demolish in some cases, rehab in some cases and redevelop in other cases. We have all seen the pictures on television of bulldozers plowing vacant homes under because they are pulling down the prices and are a blight in neighborhoods. This is one program that I have received phone calls on, not just from the mayor in the city in which I serve, but in cities across this country, where they have expressed the importance of the program in helping them to stabilize and to recover from this financial crisis caused primarily from the subprime mortgages. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program accomplishes the dual goals of incentivizing homeownership while also improving the housing stock in neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures. Vacant, foreclosed properties have a very negative effect on the surrounding neighborhoods and on the property values of homes in those neighborhoods. I believe this is an important amendment to highlight the potential housing stock in this country that Neighborhood Stabilization funds could be used to help, to rehab, to redevelop, to resell, to preserve neighborhood property values in communities across our great country; so I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. The problem is the other side of the aisle wants to abolish four programs that help people stay in their homes, helps affordable housing. They have no idea or no program to be helpful. They say it will be taxpayers' money. But if they supported the Democratic plan, it would have come out of an assessment on the banks. I understand the chairman will be introducing a bill, and I would like to cosponsor that.

Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mrs. MALONEY. Reclaiming my time, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 861--NSP Termination Act (Rep. Miller, R-CA, and 4 cosponsors) The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 861, which would eliminate the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) and rescind $1 billion of funding from the program's current efforts. This program allows States and select local governments to stabilize neighborhoods by redeveloping foreclosed and abandoned properties, leading to increased property values and lowered risk of foreclosure from remaining residents. The Administration is committed to helping struggling American homeowners stay in their homes, and has taken many steps over the last two years to stabilize what was a rapidly-declining housing market. With many communities still struggling with the impact of the severe decline in the housing market, the Administration believes that continued funding of the NSP grants is important to the Nation's sustained economic recovery. If the President is presented with H.R. 861, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

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

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a new version of the StartUp Visa Act, a bill that would encourage innovation and economic growth by permitting immigrant entrepreneurs greater access to temporary U.S. visas. The bill matches legislation introduced this week by Senators John Kerry, Richard Lugar, and Mark Udall in the Senate. What do American household names such as Google, eBay and Proctor & Gamble have in common? They are all former start-ups founded by immigrants. Our current visa laws have made it unnecessarily difficult for immigrants to launch new companies in the United States. I am reintroducing the StartUp Visa Act because the economic dynamism of foreign-born talent has always been a crucial factor in our country's growth, and we must take steps to enable it to continue. By allowing immigrant entrepreneurs greater access to American visas, we truly can drive American job creation and channel the power of innovation. This legislation would be an expansion of the bill from last Congress, extending the pool of eligible immigrants to include holders of H-1B visas and entrepreneurs living outside the United States with a market presence in the country. The entrepreneurial spirit is ingrained in our country's history and success. I believe that this legislation is a vital component of promoting our global competitiveness. We must ensure a strong foundation for foreign-born, highly-skilled talent to create American jobs and promote economic prosperity and this bill works toward that end.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to H.R. 836. This is one of four anti- foreclosure programs that the majority is voting to terminate. This particular program they want to terminate today is designed to assist homeowners who have experienced a significant reduction in income or are at risk of foreclosure due to loss of a job, involuntary unemployment, underemployment, or a medical condition. This is a group that needs our help. There are 1.2 million households with a mortgage where a head of household or spouse is unemployed. And in my home State of New York, where Mr. Grimm--I wish I had the opportunity to ask him, was he aware that 142,000 households in our home State have a mortgage with a person who is the head of the household or spouse is unemployed. And this program potentially could have helped those people. The majority leader who spoke earlier, in his home State, the great State of Virginia, there are over 59,000 households that have a mortgage in which someone in the family is underemployed or unemployed. And in the great State of Texas, the largest number of households with a mortgage and a spouse or head of household who is unemployed, there are over 172,000 families in this terrible situation. Families across the country would benefit from the program. But instead, they are cutting it. The program fulfills an important gap because it addresses a temporary loss of income and helps homeowners when they are most vulnerable. It has been successful in Pennsylvania, which has its own State-run program. Over 45,000 homeowners have been assisted, with an average loan of $11,000; and 85 percent of these recipients have been able to stay in their homes as a result. If we continued this program, we would be able to help families across the country. So I oppose terminating the program, and I oppose tossing hardworking Americans out in the street. I oppose this mean-spirited effort to terminate help for unemployed Americans. Now, to put this in perspective, this program is one of four that the majority is putting forward to terminate programs that would help people stay in their homes. Yesterday, they terminated the FHA Refinance Program. Next week they're going to attempt to terminate HAMP and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Yet economist after economist tell us that in order to strengthen our economy we have to stabilize the housing market. So these cuts are wrong. They are wrong in the first place, and they are certainly wrong at this time when we are working to dig our way out of this hole and to get people back to work. This program, like the others, is narrowly tailored to help a specific class of homeowners because of this economy and because of the high level of unemployment. During the financial crisis, we lost 7 million jobs in this country. We are slowly gaining jobs again, but we are not even at the point where we are keeping place with the workforce. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. Yes, I do. As a point of information, there are very strict criteria from the FHA and from the individual banks that are voluntarily participating, and one of those criteria is that you must be current on your payments. You must be current. What the gentleman said was inaccurate, that they could be behind on their payments or not making their payments. They're having difficulty making it because their home value is not equal to what the mortgage is. And so it's difficult. But they must all be current on their payments.

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the ranking member for yielding. I rise in opposition to H.R. 830. This bill is one of four separate anti-foreclosure programs aimed at helping troubled homeowners stay in their homes that the new House Republican majority is planning to end. What is very troubling is that they don't have any idea of what to put in its place. We know that we have 12 million mortgages that are underwater, that need help. They are in all of our States, but they are not coming forward with any ideas of how to help the economy or how to help the people. Now, this particular program is just getting started. It is the FHA Short Refinance Program, and it is one of the foreclosure prevention programs that would not only help the individual homeowners, but also help to stabilize the overall U.S. housing market, which is 25 percent of our economy. So it not only helps an individual. It helps a locality, it helps our country, it helps our economic strength. The result of ending this program would be hundreds of thousands of additional foreclosures and steeper price declines in our housing. It is outrageous. It is shortsighted. It is mean, and it is wrong. Now, in this program it would allow the borrowers to reduce the principal owed on their homes up to 10 percent so that their payments are lower, so that they can save money that they can't afford. And in return, the banks would get an FHA-insured loan that is subject to all of FHA's strict standards. So to get this loan, you will have to jump through hoops to be able to qualify. And it is voluntary. Just last week, several major banks in America voluntarily walked forward to help out--Citibank, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America, to name a few. So the program is just getting started and the $50 million line of credit is like a line of credit you draw down on. Hopefully, we won't even have to tap into it. Hopefully, our economy improves and people are able to pay their mortgages. The standards are very strict. The owners must be current on their payments. It must be their primary residence. They have to have full documentation to qualify. So it is a strict program. I want to come back to an issue that is very important to me and, that is, this affects lives. This affects people. In Congressman Frank's home State, there are over 222,000 residents whose mortgages are underwater that could qualify possibly if they could meet the criteria. It is part of a total package to help our economy move forward, and the opposition, the Republican majority, has no ideas of their own. It is just to come in and cut a good program that is just getting started. They mentioned the 44 people that have been helped. They say that is not important. I would say it is very important to the 44 people who have been helped, and there could be 12 million who could be helped under this program.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment has the purpose of making very clear what we're doing today to the American people. This amendment makes clear that we are ending a program that has the potential to help hundreds of thousands of underwater borrowers. H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act, ignores the underwater borrowers of this country and does nothing to help families save their homes. Very simply, the bill ends a program that has the potential to help hundreds of thousands of people whose mortgages now exceed the value of their home, and also help the communities and help the overall economy. The majority crafted a so-called ``open rule'' in such a way that it's nearly impossible to offer any substantive amendments--a number were voted down on a party line in the committee debates--in response to this reality. In an effort to highlight the true nature of this harmful bill, my amendment identifies the numbers in each State of the hundreds of thousands of underwater borrowers across the country and makes clear that the Republican majority has no solution to the problem, nor do they have any desire to find one. Americans must be made aware of the intention of this majority. This program allows borrowers to write down at least 10 percent to reduce the debt burden. They are all paying. They are in financial difficulty. Banks then can get an insured FHA guarantee and move forward and people can keep living in their homes and can keep participating in the economy. Because of this vote today, if the majority wins, homeowners across the country may not have the opportunity to take advantage of the program that has just begun, and which should be made, in my opinion, available to them. Now what this does, it goes down all of the impacts across the country. It shows that in my home State of New York there are over 129,000 mortgages underwater that would not be able to apply for this program to allow people to stay in their homes. In Chairman Bachus' State, there are over 35,000 mortgages underwater. In Florida, there are more than 2 million mortgages underwater, and they have no alternative of any way to help these people. And these numbers are from an independent company's study. If you go to California, our largest State, over 2 million homes are underwater. Nevada, 390,000 individuals are facing the loss of their homes. In Arizona, there are over 648,000 families that are underwater. Their home is not worth what they're paying for it, what the mortgage is. So this program is one that I think is thoughtful, one that has only $50 million as sort of a line of credit that will be pulled down if there are defaults. But the banks participating have very strict standards, as does the FHA. It has to be their primary residence. They have to provide full documentation. No more of these ``no doc'' loans. They must be current on the mortgage. They must have a job. They have to have many, many levels that they have to meet before they get the loan. But at least it's a lifeline to these 12 million families whose homes are underwater. With declining home values, borrowers are caught in mortgages they no longer can afford because their rates have reset or because their interest-only payments have not allowed them to grow any equity in their homes. They are making their payments, but just barely. And so this one is there to help them. And it simply adds findings to the bill with the number of underwater mortgages in each State that we've secured the data for so that it becomes very clear to the American people how many homeowners in each State we are not helping if we do what the majority wants, to terminate this program. And I might say this program is one of four that the Obama administration has put forward to help homeowners stay in their homes and to help stabilize our economy, which is still fragile and is still recovering. Housing is 25 percent of our economy, according to many economists. So the strength of housing is important to the overall health of our Nation's economic future. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, to make it clear by the vote on this bill how many Americans across this country will not be helped if the majority gets their passage of their bill that would terminate a program that has the potential of helping literally millions in America. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment. Point of Order

Mrs. MALONEY. The amendment is germane, Mr. Chairman. This program has the potential to help underwater mortgages across our great country, which is germane to the bill we're debating today, because the bill terminates the potential of this help. You have no findings in this bill that you're rushing to the floor. It is germane to talk about the hundreds of thousands of homeowners that are out there that possibly could lose their home because this program is being terminated. This is germane, in my opinion, to the underlying bill.

Mrs. MALONEY. I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. MALONEY. I'm distressed with this ruling because I think it is germane that people will lose their homes, that they are eliminating a program that is just starting that is thoughtful, that would give FHA financing and guarantees to help people stay in their homes, and that people in Nevada, over 390,000, could be affected by this; California, over 2 million people's homes are underwater; in Florida, over 2 million homes are underwater; Arizona, 648. And in my own State, over 129,000 people will not have the access to this program that allows them to adjust their mortgages so that they reflect the true value of their homes, make their payments on that value so that they can move forward and be part of the community, keep these homes from becoming blight and emptied in an area. We all have stories in our districts and across the Nation where people cannot make their mortgage payments because they have lost values in their home. They are deserting them. They are leaving them. In some States, they are literally bulldozing the homes underground because no one can afford to live in them. This is an answer to some of the challenges. And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the cost. Well, I would say that the cost--not only to the individual homeowner, but to the overall economy--will be greater by terminating the four efforts, the four antiforeclosure efforts from the Obama administration to help with the housing crisis. And we know that the subprime crisis was a scandal. Many people were not--got into homes they couldn't afford under misinformation. We have helped other areas of our economy. We certainly should help the homeowners, the working Americans to help them through this economic crisis, too. And we have to remember that although we are digging our way out of this Great Recession, the recovery has been slow. We are still in a fragile recovery. The economists testified before the Financial Services Committee that housing was 25 percent of our economy. So, helping people stay in their homes, I would say that our overall economy has a stake in it. Now, some people said, well, the banks will run in and do this. Banks are not going to do this unless they think that the loan is going to be paid and they're not going to be hurt with it. And the standards from FHA are very high. You have to be current. You have to have a job. You have to live in your home. You have to have a proven track record. You have to have good credit before you can be approved. So that is why only 50 million is the line of credit that will be drawn down if there are foreclosures. Hopefully the economy improves, people keep their jobs. Hopefully the banks do a good job and do not hand out loans unless people can actually repay them. And this will be a tool to move forward not only to help people, but to help the overall economy. Now, what I find very troubling about this is that my friends on the other side of the aisle want to terminate four antiforeclosure programs, but they have no alternative. It's sort of like their approach to jobs. They have not come forward with any program to help create jobs. They have not come forward with any program to help people stay in their homes. It's part of the ``so be it'' attitude. You're on your own. We're not going to help you. But this is a program that helps people help themselves adjust to the reality of what their homes are actually worth. And I think that it's important that this information of how many people, the 12 million people and where they live in America, is important information that should be part of this bill. And that's why I am now respectfully requesting unanimous consent to place into the Record the listing of where these 12 million people live so people will know these are the people we are saying ``no,'' ``so be it,'' ``we're not going to be there to help you.'' And let me tell you, my follow colleagues. I would be cautious about voting for this, because you're voting against your economy. You're voting against your State. You are voting against your own colleagues, your own residents and neighbors who may need this. We know the trouble that's in this economy. Practically every family in America has some relative who's lost a job or is unemployed. So this is some way to help with this economic recovery. It is thoughtful. It is a good program. And I urge my colleagues to vote against the ``so be it'' bill the Republicans have before us today and to really work with, in a bipartisan way, the Obama administration to help working Americans, struggling Americans stay in their home. It's the least that we can do as a caring Nation, absolutely the least we can do as a caring Nation. So I urge my colleagues, and I would be very cautious in your vote, because I believe your constituents are going to remember this vote if this program is terminated and their lifeline, their ability to stay in their homes, is terminated because of your vote today.

Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. MALONEY. I would just like to point out to Congressman Fitzpatrick from the great State of Pennsylvania that there are over 132,000 homes that are underwater now that could benefit from this program, and urge my colleagues to support the program.

Mrs. MALONEY

Mrs. MALONEY. I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. MALONEY. Congresswoman Biggert, do you know how many underwater mortgages there are in your home State?

Mrs. MALONEY. Reclaiming my time, there are 431,000 mortgages that are underwater in the great State of Illinois where the residents would be eligible to participate in this program that the Republican majority is voting to terminate. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. Reclaiming my time, I would like to point out to the gentleman from Minnesota that there are over 90,000 homes, 90,000 homeowners who are underwater in the great State of Minnesota and that could benefit if they meet the criteria in this important program that the Republican majority is urging to be eliminated today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MALONEY. I move to strike the last word.