Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1175 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, at this time, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1175.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1175 provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, to concur in the Senate amendments with three House amendments. The rule provides 3 hours of debate on the motion, with 2 hours controlled by the Committee on Financial Services and 1 hour controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule also provides for a division of the question on the adoption of the three House amendments listed in the Rules Committee report. Mr. Speaker, I think we all know why this rule and the underlying bill are so important. Millions of Americans are confronting the growing prospect of losing their home. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have already lost their home in a foreclosure epidemic that is the legacy of the subprime mortgage crisis. According to recent reports, the most severe real estate recession in decades is going to continue to weigh down the economy, the pace of foreclosures is going to continue to rise, and homes continue to lose their value at increasing rates. This foreclosure epidemic has spread to virtually every major city in the United States. What the Committee on Financial Services has done here is brought us a bill that addresses this problem directly. It's not a bill that intends to lay blame. There is plenty of that to go around. It's a bill that's intended to solve a problem. Here are some of the sobering facts about the problem: The number of homes entering foreclosure in the first 3 months this year was double the same period as last year. One in every 194 homes received a foreclosure filing in the first quarter of this year. And home prices are down, on average, 12.7 percent, which is basically the first time that's happened since the Great Depression in the early 1930s. As the foreclosure trends intensify, the problem can only get worse. As foreclosure signs go up in neighborhoods, the value of the property in that neighborhood declines, even if the creditworthiness and the ability to pay of the homeowner is as strong as ever. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about, as I mentioned, solving a problem. It creates opportunity for the lenders and the mortgage servicers to minimize their loss; it provides an opportunity for homeowners to stay in their homes, but it shares the pain as well as the opportunity. In order for lenders to take advantage of the opportunity presented in this bill, they are going to have to write down the value of the loan consistent with the current appraisal value. In order for homeowners to have an opportunity to participate in this program, they are going to have to give up the equity that they thought they had, including any moneys they had paid in downpayments. House Resolution 1175 provides for the consideration of three House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Amendment No. 1 includes H.R. 5830 regarding the FHA refinancing, H.R. 1852 regarding FHA modernization, H.R. 1427 regarding government- sponsored entity reform, those being Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and H.R. 1066 regarding community development investments, among other bills. Each piece of legislation in this amendment has already been passed by the House so we are really going over work that this entire body has considered before, or it has been rigorously debated and amended through the committee process in Financial Services and Ways and Means. Amendment No. 2 includes H.R. 5720, the Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008 under which middle-class families would be eligible for a loan of up to $7,500 toward the purchase of a new home, and homeowners filing jointly would receive an additional deduction from their property taxes of $700. States will also receive a temporary increase in low-income housing tax credits and $10 billion of additional tax exempt bond authority for low-interest loans to build low-income rental housing and to refinance certain subprime mortgages. One of the underlying causes of the subprime crisis was that more and more Americans who wanted to rent couldn't and had to get themselves housing by getting into loans they couldn't afford. Amendment No. 3 is a bipartisan amendment offered by Congressman Miller and Congressman LaTourette regarding the preemption of State laws regulating foreclosure. The centerpiece of this legislation is H.R. 5830, the FHA Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act included in amendment No. 1. That bill would enact a voluntary program, voluntary, for homeowners and lenders, and I emphasize voluntary, nothing is being forced on anyone except the opportunity to work this out. The process would begin with a homeowner or servicer of an existing eligible loan with an FHA- approved lender, and the FHA-approved lender would then determine the size of the loan that meets the requirements of the program and that the borrower could reasonably repay. The plan targets a group of homeowners who would be able to stay in their homes if they had a reduction in principal and monthly servicing charges. The Congressional Budget Office says that this legislation could save 500,000 mortgages from foreclosure. Other estimates put that number much higher, at over a million. Just as important as keeping Americans in their homes, this legislation protects American taxpayers. The government's liability under this program is limited and only applies if a borrower defaults and the amount recovered in foreclosure is below the outstanding debt still owed. This is a program that will be paid for largely by the folks participating in it and benefiting from this option as an alternative to foreclosure, and that is through a series of financing and copayments that will be assessed at the time of closing as the life of the loan continues through fees for a period of about 5 years. There are going to be about $300 billion made available under this bill for guarantees, but the CBO scored the legislation as having an outside risk to taxpayers of about $2.4 billion. And I would like to have my colleagues think about that for a moment in the context of the $29 billion that was made available to back the rescue of the investment banks when Bear Stearns collapsed. The biggest cost to the taxpayer would be to let the economy unravel, to let neighborhoods decay, and to let thousands if not millions of homes go into foreclosure. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5830 and other critical parts of this legislation provides an avenue to stability, to restoring economic stability to our neighborhoods, to our working families in this country, and to our lenders. We all thank the excellent leadership of the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Ways and Means for working together, Republicans and Democrats, to bring this legislation to the floor for consideration. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield the gentleman an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott.)

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my friend from Texas. We have no additional speakers at this time, and I will be the last speaker.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I have at least one, and some who have requested but who have not yet arrived on the floor.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my good friend from Texas. Madam Speaker, this 110th Congress has to decide, as does every Congress, whether it's going to focus its collective energies on devising practical solutions to real problems or will this Congress use the practical problems that everyday Americans face as fodder for endless debate on irresolvable, ideological disputes. Our Financial Services Committee, with cooperation on both sides, and our Ways and Means Committee have made a very clear decision to focus their energies on the resolution of practical problems. They have taken note of something that we all are well aware of: We do have a foreclosure crisis in this country. Eight thousand families a day are receiving a foreclosure notice. And the decision that our committees made was to bring forward to this body for its consideration a practical approach that is going to provide some relief to creditors, it's fair to them; a bill that's fair to borrowers, it's fair to them; and a bill that's going to be good for the economy to provide stability that we need in order to get back on our feet. This is a very practical bill. If it's going to give an opportunity to homeowners who are facing foreclosure, they are going to pay the price of losing their equity that they had achieved or thought they had. If it's going to be fair to the creditors, it's going to require some sacrifice on their part because they're going to have to write down the value of their loan to reflect what the current appraisal value is. But already it's having a positive effect on the economy. We're going to hear plenty about the pros and cons of this bill in the 2 hours or 3 hours of debate that will follow. But there's another element to this story that's really quite remarkable and I think something which we all can take heart from. This bill is a product principally of three people from extraordinarily different backgrounds: a war hero in Korea, African American from Harlem; a Massachusetts so- called Democratic liberal; and a man from Wall Street who probably is one of the most successful capitalists and entrepreneurs in the history of this country, the Secretary of the Treasury. They made a decision to focus on the practical and urgent needs. They had a capacity, each of them, to have some understanding of the pain and fear that a mom and dad would experience when their child was coming in wanting to know if they were going to the Little League game that night and they were poring over a foreclosure notice and trying to figure out how they were going to keep that household together. And those men, the three of them, from totally different backgrounds, probably with completely different ideological perspectives on the world, decided they had to find a way to help that mother and father and that family stay in their home. And what they did is they came up with a practical solution not just because they cared about that family, but they cared about the security and the future of this American economy. The bill that they have helped put together, again, for our collective consideration, is one that is hopeful for America. It is not about finding blame and fault about how we got here. And we all have our theories on this. But we know there was a large element of agreed. But instead of focusing, by looking in the rearview mirror and playing the blame game, we have people of different backgrounds, different ideologies who said they were united in the common objective to help American families and to stabilize the American economy. And I believe that all of us can be proud of their willingness to help each other. What they have shown us with the work that they did was that there is redemptive power in cooperation. And the beneficiaries of that can be families of this country that we all love. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Speaker, for the past 7 years, President Bush has been delivering an energy policy that has resulted in the highest increase in the cost of energy in the history of this country. Last week, the President continued his call for more of the same when he touted an old plan for domestic drilling in the Arctic that would produce a 6-month supply of oil 10 years from now. It is not going to do anything about the price at the pump now, it is not going to do anything about the price at the pump later. Instead, the President is blaming congressional Democrats for not addressing the problem, but it's the President who won't suspend purchases of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which would bring down prices 25 cents immediately. It's the President who won't work with us to get rid of the Enron loophole which is enriching speculators and clobbering middle class families. This year, in fact, the Democratic Congress has passed energy legislation that's getting nowhere because of being held hostage in the Senate and it has no support from the President of the United States. The reality is that we have actions we can take in the short term, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Enron loophole, and in the long term, to reduce our reliance on carbon.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am the last speaker.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I have mainly listened as this debate has unfolded, and I have an observation. This is a sad spectacle. The Congress of the United States has before it now a bill that is intended to address an urgent need to provide research funding for our small businesses. Small business is the backbone of our economy, it is where most jobs are created, it is where some of the best innovations occur, and where our small businesses need some assistance to put together the financing package required to explore innovative research and development ideas. Our small businesses don't have the funds that are available oftentimes through big venture capital operations. And what we are hearing in this debate is a complete and utter disregard for the content of this bill and, instead, turning it into a political debate that veers wildly away from any truth about what the history of this whole gas crisis is. Number one, the basic question before us is, are we going to help the research and development needs of our small businesses? We believe it is urgent that we do so, and we won't be deterred by what is now a political argument. Second, since our friends on the other side have made an accusation that there has been Democratic culpability, almost a conspiracy, in raising gas prices, I want to respond to the absurdity of that. We have heard from our speakers how the price of a barrel of oil when President Bush took over was $25, it is now $119. We know that the war in Iraq, when it started, that catastrophic war, the price was $35, it is now $119. But what we also know is that under the leadership of the Republican Congress, we turned a blind eye on the Government's responsibility to look out for the middle class. Why? We destroyed regulatory oversight that is necessary to help folks pulling up with their pickup truck to fill up their gas tank. This Enron loophole, snuck in, in the middle of the night with the complicity of a Republican Congress is, Mr. Speaker, and I say this intentionally, unconscionable, unconscionable to meeting the needs of average Americans who are trying to work hard and pay their bills. Fifty cents at least in the price of a gallon of gasoline is because the speculators, the hedge fund managers, are singing every day as they make wire transfers to their bank accounts at the expense of everyday Americans. And my question is, why will not those who are expressing concern about the cost of gasoline and how that impacts small business and impacts our families, why will they not get behind Congressman Stupak and support The PUMP Act, get rid of the Enron loophole? Why will they not join with many of us who have sent letters to the President imploring him to release the strategic petroleum reserve or at least stop buying. One action would reduce, according to Goldman Sachs, the cost of a gallon of gasoline by 25 cents. And then there is the legislation that we passed that the Republicans voted against. So what we have is an accusation made by people who every time they have had an opportunity to take a concrete specific action that would help, have said no, have said no to the Enron loophole reform, have said no to The PUMP Act, have said no to stop buying in the strategic petroleum reserves. So it leaves me with a question. Is what we are hearing about politics, or is it about policy? I have come to my own conclusion. But we are here on a bill that is going to help small business. That is our job. And our job in this rule should be to make that bill a better bill, not to hijack what is a good bill and turn it into a political food fight. We have got two issues here that have been injected. One is, are we going to help small business or not? There is broad bipartisan support. The two committees of jurisdiction have done an excellent job.