Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

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.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some items on the schedule for the gentleman from Dallas during his visit to Colorado as well. I'm the last speaker for my side, and I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any further requests for time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman to respond.

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. It is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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. It is my honor to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. POLIS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can offer an amendment to bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, while it has been over 2 months, we have yet to pass a single piece of legislation that promotes job growth in this country. My friends across the aisle repeatedly speak of their mandate to create jobs; and yet instead of listening, the Republicans have focused on bills that will hurt the middle class, disempower the middle class, and, in this case, force more Americans into losing their home. The Republicans have been talking about repeal and replace. Yet so far all we've seen is repeal, no replace. It's not as if there aren't many viable alternatives when we discuss health care reform. There was discussion, well, what do we do with people that have preexisting conditions? There was an enormous leap of faith with regard to repeal. Oh, we'll get to it someday. Oh, we'll get to it someday. We're hearing the same thing here. It's not as if these viable alternatives, the replace part, are a mystery. In fact, in the 111th Congress I introduced H.R. 4877, which would have provided a capital gains tax waiver for private investment in community banks, giving local banks sorely needed capital to lend to homeowners who needed to be rescued, to shore up their balance sheets, to encourage primary offerings of equity in the private sector. My bill would allow Americans to invest directly and profit directly from the economic recovery. I plan shortly to reintroduce this bipartisan bill, and I hope to see an outpouring of support from those who have called for repeal so that there is a replace component to what we actually do need to do as a country to mitigate the housing crisis and stabilize real estate. Republicans and Democrats alike should be interested in free market alternatives that don't just reduce taxes to revitalize the housing market, but can eliminate them. Mr. Speaker, instead of scrapping this program, we need to have a solid response to the housing crisis in this country. We welcome suggestions from Republicans, independents, all Americans to improve this program to make it accessible to more families. No program is perfect when it's created. And the FHA refinance program has shown that it can successfully keep families in their homes when given the chance. Our recovery is just beginning and it's fragile. We need to provide stability and predictability with regard to the Federal policies in this area. This is just another example of a broken promise, a repeal without a replace. And it is leaving what is fundamentally a critical public policy issue, on which Democrats and Republicans agree, namely, the stabilization of the housing market, without any answer. And even a partially correct answer, Mr. Speaker, is better than no answer. So I hope that the work proceeds to replace; but in the meantime, repealing without knowing what comes next is an enormous leap of faith that could cost too many middle class families their home, which is why I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. This bill, introduced today by my colleague, Mr. Bishop of New York, who we just heard from, would crack down on gas price gouging during international crises affecting oil markets, preventing sellers from taking unfair advantages of circumstances with prices that are unconscionably high. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with the extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can take up a bill that will help, rather than hurt, struggling families. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, now more than ever it's critical that we focus our efforts on creating jobs, continuing to stabilize our economy and the housing market, and I am happy to say there's some good news on that front. Just last month, Mr. Speaker, it was reported that we added 192,000 jobs and that unemployment dipped below 9 percent for the first time in almost 2 years. We're talking about private sector jobs. This was due in part to the recovery efforts that were passed in the 111th Congress and signed by the President. Now, however, instead of building on the successes of the previous Congress and introducing legislation to continue this economic growth, my colleagues are seeking to pull the plug and return us to policies that got us into this economic mess. Instead of talking about on the floor of the House creating jobs, the Republican leadership is focused on repealing the Patient Bill of Rights; passing H.R. 1, a spending bill that Chairman Bernanke stated will kill 200,000 jobs over the next 2 years; and now removing critical support for homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgages in this tough economic time. H.R. 830 is more of the same. At a time when housing markets are beginning to show signs of life, signs of recovery, my Republican colleagues want to eliminate programs that keep families in their homes and protect communities from the crippling consequences of foreclosures. Democrats want to empower homeowners to get their debts under control, not undermine our economic recovery for political gain. It's critical to preserve the American Dream by keeping families in their homes and out of shelters and unemployment lines, and preserving the integrity of neighborhoods that suffer when homes are foreclosed upon. Repealing the FHA refinance program would empower collection agencies and municipal eviction squads rather than empower hardworking American families who are suffering in this difficult economic climate or are victims of lenders that created financial products through the housing crisis that led to reckless lending. The bill we have before us today would be harmful to middle class families who are struggling to stay in their homes. Middle class Americans hurt by this bill are exactly the people we should be protecting in this Congress as we start to build a stronger and more stable economic future for our country. Instead, we saw that this House has raised their taxes with the passage of H.R. 4, and now the Republicans are threatening to remove working families from their homes. Mr. Speaker, we do all agree that this Nation needs to get its fiscal house in order and resolve the housing crisis. But this bill, an outright repeal of the FHA program, is not the right approach. A strong rebound in the housing market is critical to our economic recovery, creating jobs and ensuring that our banks remain stable. A good indication of the housing market is the amount of delinquencies or the number of mortgages that are at least 30 days late on their payment. According to Jay Brinkmann, the chief economist for the Mortgage Bankers Association, the latest delinquency numbers represent significant across-the-board decreases in mortgage delinquency rates in the U.S. More importantly, loans that are past due by 90 days or more fell 28 percent. It's clear that through programs like the FHA short refinance option, which the Republicans are trying to eliminate, we have begun to stabilize the housing market while helping Americans pay their mortgages and stay in their homes. These numbers coincide with signs of a recovery in the job market, and now is not the time to abandon the program. The FHA refinance program allows people who have mortgages that are worth more than their homes to refinance to a more affordable FHA- insured mortgage. This program allows lenders to write down at least 10 percent of the outstanding principal to help bring monthly payments down to affordable levels. According to CoreLogic, in December of last year, about 22\1/2\ percent of all residential properties with mortgages were underwater. We are no stranger to that in Colorado. Many homes in Adams County and Boulder County are underwater. These distressed mortgages pose a threat to our economy and the integrity of the banking system. We can't risk another housing crisis and banking crisis by removing programs that help keep families in their homes and keep the homes out of foreclosure. My friends on the other side of the aisle will argue that this program has fallen short of its original goals. I agree that this program is not perfect. Instead of scrapping it entirely, we should work to strengthen it, build on success, and figure out how best to resolve the housing crisis this Nation faces. We need to mend it, not end it. Until just recently, many homeowners weren't even able to partake in this program. Borrowers had difficulty finding banks that had the capacity to refinance under the stringent guidelines of this program. But recently, we've had some good news. Two major banks who underwrite many loans in Colorado, Wells Fargo and Allied Financial, announced pilot projects that would allow underwater borrowers to refinance under this FHA program. By adding these two giants to the mix, the FHA Refinance Program will begin to grow and prosper while it continues to add more banks and increase accessibility. Terminating this project now would result in many families losing their homes and would be a tragic mistake. Mr. Speaker, banks support this program; homeowners support this program. It's critical that we all allow this program the chance to succeed, rather than make arbitrary budget cuts rather than help struggling families. This program does not bail out individuals who made mistakes, who made poor decisions, who bought houses they couldn't afford or are looking for a way out of foreclosure. It's not a program to protect vacation homes or mega-mansions. It's not a free line of credit for anybody. This program is a helping hand to the many hardworking Americans who are in a difficult spot, individuals with good credit scores who can help themselves and the banks who hold their mortgages by participating in this program. In my home State of Colorado, almost 20 percent of all homes were in negative equity. This means about 220,000 families in Colorado are stuck with mortgages that are worth more than their homes. According to The New York Times, ending this program would squander an important chance to prevent foreclosures. In addition, Mark Fleming, the chief economist at CoreLogic, stated, ``Negative equity is a primary factor holding back the housing market and broader economy.'' With so many families underwater, it would be irresponsible of us to eliminate this program and unnecessarily put more Americans at risk of foreclosure. Mr. Speaker, to date, not a single mortgage that has been refinanced through this program has gone into default. The majority of costs associated with this program occur if these FHA-insured mortgages go into default. Now, there's no way my friends on the other side of the aisle can call this a waste of taxpayer money because it has yet to spend $1 of the funds it was allocated. In fact, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Congress passed and the President signed last year requires all unused funds from the program to be returned to the Treasury. By strengthening this program, improving this program, we can continue to keep Americans in their homes at a minimal cost to taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, we must improve this program so we can keep families from defaulting, strengthen the economy, save taxpayer dollars, and stabilize the real estate market. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Does section 4 of H.R. 4 violate the rules of the House by proposing a tax increase?

Mr. POLIS. After continuing to be amazed that the gentleman from Virginia somehow said that a tax increase is not a tax increase and is not germane, I am happy to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. POLIS. Since the gentleman from New York has been unable to enter into a colloquy with the several gentlemen he has sought to, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)