Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 170 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 170 provides for a structured rule designed and designated by the Rules Committee for consideration of H.R. 861 and H.R. 839. This rule allows the amendments submitted to the Rules Committee to be made in order as long as they were not subject to a point of order and were germane to the underlying text of H.R. 861 and H.R. 839. This rule provides for debate and amendment opportunities for members of the minority and the majority to change the legislative text of the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the two underlying bills. The first piece of legislation, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act, was introduced by my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller) on March 1, 2011, and went through committee markup in the Financial Services Committee last week on March 9. The second bill, H.R. 839, the Home Affordable Modification Program Termination Act, was introduced by my dear friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) on February 28 and marked up last week as well. Both of these bills went through regular order, which allowed Members from both sides of the aisle the opportunity to offer amendments in the Financial Services Committee and in the Rules Committee yesterday. The chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier, has once again provided Members of this body a transparent and accountable structure under the rule that we are discussing today, allowing Members from both sides of this body to offer amendments and both sides to join in debate of the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, last fall, Republicans pledged to the American people that we would stop the wasteful spending and put Americans back to work. These two bills that we're discussing today continue to roll back the abuse of taxpayer funds, the diminishment of jobs, and the creation of a proper government responsibility with any balance in the housing sector. By the way, Mr. Speaker, we also said that we would make sure that we went through regular order and would allow Members time to read the bills. That is what Republicans bring forth to the floor today as we debate these two important aspects that have gone through regular order through the Financial Services Committee. H.R. 861, the NSP Termination Act, terminates the Neighborhood Stability Program and rescinds $1 billion in unobligated funds that was authorized in the Dodd-Frank bill last year. Congress has appropriated approximately $7 billion in three rounds of funding for this program. Eligible users for the funds include emergency assistance to State and local governments to acquire, develop, redevelop, or demolish foreclosed homes. So this doesn't stop or assist folks in getting through foreclosures. It gives money to lenders to fix up the houses to sell, while returning not one cent of the $7 billion back to the American taxpayer. The NSP has done little to resolve the root causes of the increase in foreclosures. In fact, the NSP continues to extend and further exacerbate the current housing downturn. This program represents a costly bailout for lenders, servicers, and real estate speculators who made risky bets on the housing market, all at the expense of the American taxpayer and our debt. While putting billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, we should understand that this is a program, two programs that must be halted. There should be an appropriate accountability and reporting, and this program lacks both. This is just another two examples, following up what we did last week with two other examples, of the Democrats' solution of throwing money at a problem rather than something that would work and be cost effective. Taxpayers from all over this Nation are struggling with their mortgage payments, keeping their jobs, and providing for their families. Allowing for a stable economy, a future, and reining in government spending by eliminating wasteful government spending will provide for more transparency and government accountability across economic markets. That is why we are eliminating these two programs today on the floor of the House of Representatives. Let's be honest about this. Republicans are here to try and save jobs that are on the chopping block from what wasteful government spending has done for us the last 4 years of Democrat control. Today, Republicans are on the floor to stop wasteful Washington government spending, which says directly to the taxpayers we don't want 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend to be put on a credit card, a future debt that our children and our future will be put at risk by mortgaging our future. Republicans are not going to allow that. That is why we're on the floor of the House of Representatives. That is why we will encourage every Member of this body, Republican or Democrat, to make tough decisions today about not just today, but about our future. The second bill under this rule today, H.R. 839, rescinds the Home Affordable Modification Program known as HAMP. This is another unnecessarily and poorly managed housing program that wastes tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars. Terminating this program would prevent the use of $29 billion of TARP funds, $29 billion of TARP funds we do not think should be spent. HAMP was established in February of 2009 with the goal of assisting with loan modifications for up to 4 million homeowners. Over the life of this program, only 521,306 loans have been permanently modified, and the redefault rate for these loans is very high. So what we started with is trying to help 4 million people. Thus far, we have only helped 521,000, but it comes at a high cost to the taxpayer. Only $840 million of the $29 billion earmarked for this purpose has been used--only $800 million of the $29 billion. We need the money back, Mr. Speaker. We need the money back because this is another case in which the program actually made matters worse for many of the homeowners who were seeking to participate. The government is pushing a program which harms these homeowners. It creates a perverse incentive for borrowers to deliberately and willfully stop making their mortgage payments in the hopes that they can get government loans to reduce their payments. This program that the government has actually encourages people to quit making payments, which still add up, including the interest on what they owe. It harms their credit ratings and adds, what I think, is a further unfair circumstance in which the government is pushing ``we're here to help you'' when, in fact, it doesn't know the rules of the game or whether a homeowner will even be able to qualify, making the homeowner wait months to then find out, ``Whoops. Sorry. You didn't qualify. Now you need to continue what you're doing.'' A false hope, Mr. Speaker. The Washington Times, which is a great newspaper here in Washington, published an article on this program on March 1 of this year. It stated that in, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of cases, homeowners are far worse off after HAMP than they were before being talked into and getting involved with the program. Borrowers are typically not told all the potential consequences of falling behind on their mortgages. They're simply told that there's a government plan out there to help you when, in fact, they do fall behind on their mortgages. Services have repeatedly lost documentation and have provided false information to home borrowers who were in need of assistance and good discussion about how to pay their bills--instead, trying to talk them into participating in a government program and, in some instances, even pushing individuals into default, individuals who could have continued making their payments. In a report from the Inspector General of TARP to Secretary of the Treasury Geithner on March 25, 2010--that is 1 year ago--he notes: ``Several aspects of the HAMP design make it particularly vulnerable to redefaults.'' It is time to pull the plug. That is why Republicans are on the floor today to say straight up: We need to look at what is not working. We need to look at the $29 billion that has been spent on this program, and we need to be honest with ourselves, as has been noted in newspapers across the country, as to what the Democrats have done. What this administration and this House have done has been adversarial in helping people who needed assistance. Today, we can save the taxpayers $28 billion that has not been spent on this program. Continued government intervention and the questionable use of taxpayer dollars only prolong our current economic crisis and ensure that the housing market will simply continue to struggle. The market needs to find its own footing free of government intervention and manipulation by this government so that we can get on with a full recovery. The deficit is expected to reach a record under President Obama: using his numbers, $1.65 trillion this year while our national debt is well over $14 trillion. The U.S. and its citizens cannot afford to spend billions of taxpayer dollars that will not be repaid, and it ends up, in many instances, harming the people it was intended to help. Job creation is the most effective foreclosure prevention tool. Job losses rather than unsustainable mortgage terms are now the driving force behind foreclosures and mortgage defaults. Eliminating these programs will not only save taxpayer dollars; it will encourage more responsible government spending by the Federal Government. So, Mr. Speaker, as no surprise to you, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the underlying legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments about our being here today on the floor in a bipartisan way with a bill that went through regular order with an opportunity for any Member that would choose that has any ideas that are germane to the issue and that fall within the rules to be included. And you are going to see where there are a bunch of amendments today. Mr. Speaker, the conversation that the gentleman and I were having should further extend, and that is the common sense that is related to why we are on the floor today, the discussion about whether we should make it better or simply repeal it. And I would quote from the IG of the TARP fund in his report to Secretary Geithner: ``Although in the final analysis it is up to the policymakers in the administration and the Congress to determine whether it is worth spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on a program that is assumed at its outset to fail ultimately for 40 percent of the participants, several aspects of HAMP's design make it particularly vulnerable to redefaults.'' I think the IG has said it best. When any objective person looked at what the Democrat Congress passed, they would have to question whether it was worth spending tens of billions of dollars on a program at the outset we should have known would fail for 40 percent of the participants. I think that is good reason to say, common sense should say, let's stop the plan, not continue it. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the author of one of the pieces of underlying legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I was just reminded by the gentleman, Mr. Mica, the favorite son of Florida, who's the chairman of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) had referred that we've done nothing about jobs. But the gentleman, Mr. Mica, as chairman of the committee reminded me that this House passed just 2 weeks ago a transportation bill that had been lagging, waiting since 2009, that will add a substantial number of jobs. And that was a good jobs bill. So I wouldn't expect to get credit for anything, necessarily, on the floor, but at least we need to be honest about this. The Republicans did pass a bill that was adding jobs as opposed to this massive undertaking that we are trying to save jobs that are at risk as a result of the outlandish spending and wasteful government spending taking place here. Secondly, the gentleman said, Why are Republicans now trying to get rid of this? Why didn't we do something to fix the program? But I would remind the American people that this is a report that went to the Secretary of the Treasury over a year ago. And I would ask the question: Why did the Democrats, why did this administration continue a failed program? Why did they continue it? That's because they were happy with it. In fact, as we've already read, a 40 percent failure rate and thousands of more people harmed. That's why Republicans are trying to fix this--because we have tried to work. Today, we're going to pass this on the floor. It's a great bill. And we're going to ask every single person to be able to vote for this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. As soon as it's on the floor, I'll consider that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again, my friends and colleagues are talking about a no jobs bill, nothing about jobs. But at least there's a purist on the floor and, that is, there was one Democrat in the House who voted against the Republican jobs bill, transportation bill. That was the gentleman, Mr. Polis. So I would think that he would have great standing on saying we've never had a bill that added jobs, but everybody else I would have to question that because they voted for the bill, because, in fact, it's a good jobs bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if it worked that way, we'd be for it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will assure the gentleman I will be in Aurora, Colorado, and I'll be pleased to be there this year and probably next year, also. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman's asking. I have no further requests for time, and I appreciate the collegiality the gentleman has extended me.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for not only engaging in a spirited debate here on floor but also for his collegiality in that endeavor. Mr. Speaker, this Nation is being overrun still by too high a taxation, borrowing, and spending, and just last month, we hit a record deficit, $223 billion in 1 month. That is simply unacceptable. With the debt looming at over $14 trillion and unemployment hovering still around 9 percent, Americans want solutions, not handouts. And that is why we are here on the floor today, to protect the taxpayer and the integrity, I think, of the government, rather than creating more problems, at least trying to alleviate some of those and give the taxpayer back some money. The American people asked Congress to rein in spending and for efficiency, and that is what Republicans are here to do today. We did this in an open process where every single Member of this body had a chance through regular order to prepare themselves and to come to the floor today. Since Republicans have gained the majority in January we have cut $1.2 trillion worth of spending, first of all, by repealing ObamaCare; secondly, by cutting $61 billion in H.R. 1, $8 billion last week in additional unnecessary government housing programs, and another $30 billion with this rule today. We're getting our job done. By gaining control of government spending and eliminating wasteful government handouts, the private sector can, again, gain confidence in our economy and the direction of the future of this country to begin investing in jobs and our economic future. After all, we finally decided last year that what we would do is extend tax cuts which will help save jobs and grow our economy. I applaud my colleagues for introducing the bills we are discussing here today. In just a few minutes, you will see the chairman of the Financial Services Committee or his designee lead that discussion through lots of amendments, lots of ideas by Members. I want to thank the young chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, David Dreier, for providing us such a great, open, and transparent process. I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and perhaps, more importantly, on the resolution before us today. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the way, we are working with all the Members of Congress. And that's why we went through regular order, which was a new process for this House from the last 4 years. We also came to the Rules Committee and allowed an open process. And any Member that chose to have an amendment to be offered today simply had to go and tell us ahead of time that they would like a preprinting notice and they could get that done. That is working together with every single Member of Congress. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as she may consume to the chairwoman of the Housing Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 151 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman, my friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today is a very special day for not only me but many people who live in Dallas, Texas, because today is Ebby Halliday's 100th birthday. I have known Ebby for 22 years. This incredibly successful woman is one of the most generous and hardworking individuals I have ever known. Ebby has always been an entrepreneur, beginning her career selling hats. Today, she is the driving force for change in the real estate industry and a household name all across north Texas. Ebby's incredible story is the embodiment of America's dream. Her dedication, work ethic, and vision have turned Ebby Halliday Realtors into one of the largest independently owned residential real estate companies in the Nation. Ebby is also well known as a respected community leader. Her active civic involvement and philanthropic efforts have inspired others to give back to those in need. Her name has become synonymous with ethics, class, and generosity. Over the course of her lifetime, Ebby has witnessed many historic events and changes in our fast-paced world, yet her love for family, friends, community, and this Nation remains steadfast. I am proud to call her my friend, and I know she will be surrounded by many of those today in Dallas, Texas, as she celebrates her 100th birthday. May she be blessed with many more years of health and happiness. Happy birthday, Ebby Halliday.