Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. That's what the Neighborhood Stabilization Program is all about. And it creates jobs. It creates jobs, because now we've got the contractors, the subcontractors, the painters, the Realtors all involved in helping to rehab this neighborhood, helping to stabilize these communities, creating jobs, assisting the American taxpayers who got into these situations through no fault of their own. Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of those who rip off our taxpayers? Or are you on the side of the taxpayers who sent you here to look after them and to be responsible?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman and Members, I think that my colleague from Minnesota said it all: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the American taxpayers who trusted us to regulate this industry that had responsibility for these mortgages? Are you on the side of taxpayers who simply wanted to live the American Dream, who simply wanted to get into a mortgage so that they could own a home and do what it is the American Dream says we can do and we can accomplish? They trusted us to make sure that our regulators did their job. We all let them down. We allowed these mortgage firms, these loan initiators, these big banks to create these exotic products, products we had never heard of before. Nobody questioned what was a no doc loan. Nobody asked what is this teaser loan. Nobody talked about what happens when these loans reset. And the American taxpayer was confronted with a mortgage with 30, 40 pieces of paper and they signed on the dotted line, because they wanted to live the American Dream. Little did they know that they would not be able to meet the reset amount, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years from now; and so they got caught up in the scheme. It was a huge, fraudulent scheme perpetrated on the American people by major financial institutions. Americans didn't decide all of a sudden that they didn't want to pay their bills, that they didn't want to pay their mortgage. Something big happened. And what happened was this big fraud that was perpetrated on the American people came to reality and the devil came due, and now it was time to pay, and they couldn't afford it. Added to that, the recession that was caused by the subprime meltdown caused people to be in situations where they lost their jobs, or they were now in jobs that paid less than the jobs that they had when the economy was good. And so now we have people who have lost all these homes. They're foreclosed on, they're boarded up, they're abandoned. And, guess what, they're bringing down the neighborhoods. Those people who stay in the neighborhoods and keep up their homes, they're losing value because of these boarded-up properties and because of these abandoned properties. So the government said, and I said and Barney Frank said, those of us who created this program said, we have a responsibility to help the American people, because, through no fault of their own, now their homes are underwater, their homes have lost value, and so we have the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program does give money to counties and cities and nonprofits and all to go in and rehab these properties, put them back on the market, upgrade the neighborhood, reduce the cost to fire and police and all of those city agencies that now have got to look after these boarded-up properties, where the animals are coming in and the weeds are growing up and neighbors are saying, My government, please help me.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the statements that were just made by the new gentleman from Arkansas, the one who claims that he and others are providing legitimate leadership for the first time. I would like to be in opposition to the fact that he describes what we're doing as ``pouring money down a rat hole.'' Let me just be very clear about my opposition. I do not like the American people being referred to that way. One of the other gentlemen on the opposite side of the aisle this morning referred to our citizens as ``these people.'' Now I hear our citizens being referred to as people who are receiving funds that are going down a rat hole. The American citizens are not rats. The money that we are appropriating through good public policy is not money that's going down a rat hole. As a matter of fact, he knows, if he knows anything about this crisis that we're confronted with, that not only have we bailed out the biggest institutions in America that are too big to fail with billions of dollars that we loaned to them--and I didn't hear anybody talking about that money ``going down a rat hole'' or ``those people'' or ``these people.'' Let us be a little bit more respectful as representatives of the people in the way we describe our public policy here. I don't consider that credible leadership, Madam Chair, and I would ask the gentleman to refrain from referring to the citizens of this country in that way. And I would ask the Members of Congress to reject those arguments and to look at what we are doing and to understand, as the gentlelady from California has said, if they want to be credible in how they reduce the deficit, they should look at the money that we're spending on a war that we can't win--money, the billions that we're putting into Afghanistan. But no, they choose not to do that. They choose to attack the most vulnerable in our society, people who have worked all of their lives who are asking their government for a little assistance because now they're underemployed or unemployed or they have medical conditions that don't allow them to meet their obligations. I stand with the people. I stand with the citizens. The people on this side of the aisle generated the public policy under these four programs to help American citizens. And for those who don't want to help people whose homes are underwater, who don't want to help people whose neighborhoods are being decimated by these boarded-up properties, who don't want to help hardworking citizens who have worked all of their lives, who don't want to rise to the occasion of this crisis in our economic system, let them continue to identify themselves. I have an amendment here that says, okay, if that's how you feel, then let's post on the HUD Web site exactly what we're doing. We're eliminating this program. And let the citizens call us so that we can tell them, yes, we have a program. They would like to say this program has not been started. It has. As a matter of fact, we started to get calls right after the Dodd-Frank bill was signed into law with people asking about the program, wanting to get in the program, being thankful that we had somehow come up with ways to help them. It's not a program that has not begun; it has begun. And this amendment that I have before this floor would simply say: Tell the people that you are eliminating the program. Let them know that it no longer exists. Clear up any confusion about whether or not we stand with the people or we are going to work against the people.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I rise to present my amendment, which I believe is a commonsense provision that provides transparency and clarity for distressed homeowners. Specifically, this amendment would require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to publish on HUD's Web site a statement indicating that the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program has been eliminated. The amendment explains that this program would have provided unemployed homeowners with low or no-interest loans to assist them in paying their mortgages. Further, my amendment directs unemployed homeowners to contact their Members of Congress directly since the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program is no longer available. If you listen to the recent debate, you can understand why this is important. First of all, we need transparency in what we do and in the public policy that we make. We need to be able to communicate better and clearly with our constituents. And so they have been told and started to get involved with this program that would assist unemployed homeowners to be able to stay in their homes. As you know, this program was specifically developed so that it could deal with the high unemployment rates and the fact that people who had been working--some of them all of their lives--are now unemployed or underemployed or have medical conditions that cause them not to be able to pay their bills in the way that they had been paying them in the past. And so now that we are coming along just since this program has started and saying, oh, sorry, the program is eliminated, we need to be able to communicate that, and this is what this amendment would do. American homeowners deserve our assistance and they deserve our help. We have just experienced a recession, almost a depression, where small businesses and big businesses alike had to close their doors or to downsize, and it has left us with some of the highest unemployment rates that we have experienced in many, many years. And still the unemployment rates are unacceptably high, still hovering around 9 percent, and in some communities it's even worse than that. It goes up to 15 and 20, and in some communities even 30 percent. And so our American citizens have turned to government and said, What can I do? Can you help? This is but one of four programs that was designed to help them. Unfortunately, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle have decided that not only are they going to eliminate this program, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program for unemployed homeowners, but they have decided they are going to eliminate the HAMP program, that is the Home Affordable Modification Program. Yesterday, they voted off this floor the FHA program that would assist homeowners in refinancing. And don't forget, this FHA program was really for middle class citizens who paid their bills, who were not in default, had not lost their homes yet but their homes were underwater and they were trying to stay in them by reducing the mortgage. This legislation under the FHA would have helped them to do that. You're going to hear more about the NSP program that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are eliminating also. But today, this is the most sensitive that we're doing now. This is the most sensitive because we have seen in Pennsylvania, as was described by my friend Mr. Chaka Fattah from that State, how this program has worked well for the last 20 years in assisting unemployed homeowners. We will set the regulations for how this is done. And of course they will look at these individuals in terms of how long they've been unemployed, how they've paid their bills, and whether or not they believe they're capable of not only utilizing the program but repaying these loans at some point. I don't think it's too much to ask of us to be of assistance. I notice that my colleague from Texas referred to it as ``these people.'' These people are our people. These people are American citizens. These are constituents who vote and send us here to make good public policy. It has been said over and over again that we bailed out the too-big-to-fail institutions, that we were generous in our loans to them, billions of dollars that went into those too-big-to-fail institutions. So I would simply ask for an ``aye'' vote on this very simple amendment that would bring some transparency to what we're doing.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I rise to support the amendment. I'm opposed to the point of order. I think it is absolutely germane. Not only do we have a bill before us that will eliminate taxpayers' ability to have their homes that are underwater refinanced; this also impacts their taxes. They will continue to have to be taxed on those homes at the same rate. And so here we have before us the Universal Homeowner Tax Relief Act that would impact 30 million Americans nationwide. And I must add that if we can, in this House and in this Congress, give tax breaks to the richest 1 percent of Americans in the way that we have done, certainly we can support these homeowners who are underwater, these homeowners who have been tricked into mortgages that they didn't understand, these homeowners who are the victims of fraud. And I think this is germane.

Ms. WATERS. I do think this amendment is germane, for a number of reasons. The gentleman talked about the fact that this country was almost brought to the brink of total disaster because of this subprime meltdown. He pointed to things, that have already been identified, that we can put squarely on the shoulders of the servicers who are responsible for the management of these mortgages after they have been packaged, securitized, and then sent on their way to be collected on. This gentleman is talking about the fact that many of these servicers when they are trying to collect on these mortgages can see that fraud has taken place, but they do nothing about it. They can see that amendments have been slipped in that the homeowners did not know about. They can see that sometimes the signature does not even belong to the homeowner, but they continue to try and collect on these mortgages. I think that this amendment is germane. I would ask that the Chair rule in favor of this amendment. It is time somebody paid a price for what has been done to the American public.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, this amendment that I've worked on with my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle is simply about transparency. It is simply about making ourselves available to the homeowners who are trying to get some help because they are under water. This amendment would simply say that the program is no longer in existence and that you may call us to help you to get to your lender or to get to your servicer in some way. It is certainly not what I would prefer to have to do, but I understand we're going to lose. The Members on the opposite side of the aisle have made up their minds, and they have decided that this is important and that this is what they're going to do. So I would simply like our citizens to know that this program that they may have started to hear about is no longer in existence and that, if they call us, we will agree that we will try and help them, in some modest way, to get to their servicers or to their lenders. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 6 be modified with the modification that is at the desk.

Ms. WATERS. This is the point of order.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word, I suppose. If we terminate a program, we should understand the impacts of such a termination, and so this is relevant.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, my amendment would mandate that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of the Treasury conduct a study on the negative impacts of underwater mortgage loans, or loans where the borrower owes more than the house is worth, on the housing market and the economy of the United States and report those findings to Congress. Importantly, the report would also include recommendations to Congress on how to mitigate the effects of these underwater mortgages. Before I go any further talking about these underwater mortgages, I think it is extremely important for me to help everyone understand that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are moving to eliminate all of the programs that we have worked so hard to develop; good, strong public policy to assist homeowners of America in a number of ways. They are eliminating this FHA program that will assist with refinance on homes that are underwater. They are eliminating the HAMP program that we are going to hear more about. They are eliminating the neighborhood stabilization program, commonly referred to as NSP. And they are eliminating the program for homeowners who find themselves out of a job who would be able to borrow and, of course, to pay back the money that is loaned to them--they cannot afford to pay their mortgages because of the loss of their job. So while they are eliminating all of the programs that many of us have worked so hard to develop--in the former Congress, I was the chair of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, and so I know these programs very well. Not only do I know these programs very well, I understand very well what has happened here in America that has caused homeowners to be in the situations they are in now. We have a situation that occurred that created this crisis with the subprime meltdown. We had loans that were initiated in this country that were exotic loans, loans that were teaser loans, no documentation loans, liar loans, loans that reset. People were encouraged to sign up for mortgages that they did not understand. Now we have millions of Americans, really through no fault of their own, and I have said it once and I will say it again: That all of a sudden homeowners didn't decide that they were going to default, that somehow they weren't going to pay their bills. It certainly didn't happen like that. It happened because of what I just alluded to, all of the tricks and the fraud that were perpetrated on American homeowners who were simply trying to live the American dream. We don't have the numbers in committee any more or on this floor. My friends on the opposite side of the aisle are in control. They have the majority, and they are going to eliminate the programs. We have made every argument possible that you can make in committee to try and hold on to these programs. As you have seen on the floor today, we have the gentlelady from New York reminding them how many homes they have underwater. And, of course, they know because they are getting the calls, just as we are getting the calls, from homeowners begging for assistance. So while we won't be able to stop them, I'm trying to make sure that at least we do this study so we can help bring to light what has taken place and how these underwater mortgages pose a severe threat to our economy. If you owe more than your home is worth, you can't pick up and move if you get a new job. You're stuck. That impedes our economic recovery. Likewise, you can't move if you want to go attend school somewhere. And you can't move in order to care for an elderly parent. The chief economist for First American CoreLogic noted last month that negative equity is a significant drag on both the housing market and on economic growth. It is driving foreclosures and decreasing mobility for millions of homeowners. Since we expect home prices to slightly increase during 2010, negative equity will remain the dominant issue in the housing and mortgage markets for some time to come. The FHA refinance program is a modest step to address the problem of underwater mortgages. This program would provide that if banks agree to at least a 10 percent principal write-down for the borrower, the borrower can refinance into a FHA loan. Only borrowers current on their mortgages, not those in default, qualify for the program. So this study will help people to understand the impact it is having. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on my amendment. Point of Order

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I rise because I want to make sure that the chair of our committee, who just took the floor, understands that we understand the bill. When our chairman first took the floor to talk about what this bill is and what it is not, he said he did not think that we really understood what the bill was all about. I would like to assure you that the Members on this side of the aisle understand this legislation. I would like to assure you that those of us who work on the Financial Services Committee, who put these bills into operation, who organized these bills, who presented these bills, who got these bills passed into law to help homeowners, understand what is now happening to them. We understand that the bill before us would eliminate this program. This is an FHA program that's designed to provide refinance opportunities for those homes that are underwater. What do we mean when we say ``underwater''? We mean that when middle class homeowners, hardworking citizens went and signed for that mortgage where they were paying $250,000, $300,000, $400,000 for a home, they signed that mortgage, that was supposed to be the value of that home. That's what it was assessed at at the time. That was what it is supposed to be worth. Now, because of this crisis that we are in, the subprime meltdown that we are in, this economic difficulty, these homes have lost their value. They are no longer the homes that they signed that mortgage for. The value has changed. That $400,000 home, that $300,000 home that middle class citizens were now buying is 35 percent less, or 50 percent less in some areas.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WATERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WATERS. Thank you so much. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your cooperation on this amendment. I know that there are other words that you would, perhaps, use to explain to the homeowner or to the citizen your point of view; but you did work with me on this, and you thought that this kind of transparency was good. I do commend you because I know that you have worked directly with some of your constituents. We found out, as we talked with you, that you had helped 18 people with loan modifications and that you were willing to contact the servicers. As you know, there are those who tell us that we shouldn't be doing any of this, but I think you and I agree that we should offer some assistance to the homeowners who contact us. I would like to thank you for that.

Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, I am focused on the homeowner who was supposed to be protected by the regulators that have been appointed and given the jobs of regulation so that they could make sure that our consumers are being treated fairly. We failed them. We let them down. We allowed them to get into mortgages where fraud was quite evident. We did not do the job. And so now they have these homes that are underwater, and they're saying, Help us. And we did. That's what this FHA legislation would have done, helped to refinance so that they could lower their mortgage payments. Now, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are saying to the taxpayers and to the homeowners, No, we're not going to help you. We know your home is underwater. We know this information. We know what the servicers have done to you. We know that you are working every day to pay a mortgage for a home that you thought was worth an amount that is no longer so. So we are saying please don't do that. We're saying please don't do that. Don't strip the homeowners of this opportunity to refinance this home. In addition to stripping the homeowners of this opportunity, the other programs that you are going to hear about, the other three programs, the HAMP program, the NSP program, the program for homeowners who have lost their jobs who simply want a loan, we're saying no to all of this. We're saying, No, homeowners, we're not going to help you. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Waters

Ms. WATERS. No, I will not yield. These homeowners are saying, Will you please help me? Will you please do something about the fact that I am working every day, paying a mortgage amount for a home that's 35 to 50 percent less than what I signed up for? Will my government please help me? This is not fair. They're simply saying, Can't you do something? And we said, Yes. We put into play legislation, FHA, that would help to refinance these homes. Let's get the amounts right. I now yield to the gentleman from Alabama, because I don't want to deny my friend the opportunity to have his say.

Ms. WATERS. The point of order indicates that this is not germane. I am maintaining that this is germane because if we terminate a program, we should understand the impact of such termination. I believe that does speak to the point of order. The Republicans say this program doesn't work. So our regulators should suggest to Congress what they think will work. This is just a study. This is not a new program or an extension of the FHA short refinance program.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the King amendment. Repealing or de-funding health care reform is part of the Republicans' No Jobs Agenda. The Affordable Care Act will create jobs. One study says that repealing the law will put in jeopardy the 250,000 to 400,000 new jobs this law will create each year. More importantly, de-funding the Affordable Care Act will jeopardize the many benefits this law provides to the American people. 1. The Affordable Care Act prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, like diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and HIV/AIDS. 2. Starting this year, the Affordable Care Act provides seniors in the ``donut hole'' a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescription drugs. 3. Also starting this year, small businesses may qualify for a tax credit that covers up to 35 percent of the cost of providing health insurance to their workers. 4. The Affordable Care Act provides $11 billion for community health centers, which serve low-income and uninsured families in my district and throughout the country. 5. The Affordable Care Act provides $15 billion for wellness and prevention activities, such as cancer screenings and child immunizations. 6. The Affordable Care Act provides funding to train additional primary care doctors and nurses, who will be able to serve patients in underserved parts of the country, like Los Angeles County. 7. Most importantly, the Affordable Care Act guarantees all Americans access to affordable health insurance that covers essential medical benefits and that cannot be taken away when they get sick and need it most. De-funding the Affordable Care Act will impact all Americans, but especially harm the least of these--women, children, people of color, the poor, the homeless--people who often lack a voice and whom I have championed during my four decades in public service. People of color are disproportionately impacted by a lack of access to health insurance. According to the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Minority Health, 20 percent of African-Americans were uninsured in the United States in 2007, and 32 percent of the Hispanic population was uninsured. Quality health care must be available for all Americans regardless of race, level of income, gender, or the existence of a pre-existing condition. That's why the Affordable Care Act specifically addresses health disparities and protects the rights of people with pre-existing conditions, and that's we must fully fund the Affordable Care Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.