Amendment Text: H.Amdt.193 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (03/16/2011)

This Amendment appears on page H1879 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H1860-H1896]
                          NSP TERMINATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 170 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 861.

                              {time}  1404


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 861) to rescind the third round of funding for the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program and to terminate the program, with Mr. Bass of 
New Hampshire in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H1861]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 861, the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program Termination Act, and I commend my colleague Mr. 
Miller for introducing this bill that would end NSP.
  As I mentioned during the debate on the rule for this bill, in total, 
Congress has appropriated $7 billion for NSP. This bill could save 
taxpayers up to $1 billion. Instead of stabilizing neighborhoods, NSP 
allows lenders and servicers to off-load their bad investments onto 
taxpayers, and some critics point to the hazard of NSP, which actually 
may speed up foreclosures for families.
  If the lenders and servicers know that they can quickly sell a 
property to a nonprofit or local government with NSP funds, why 
wouldn't they do this? Why wouldn't they simply evict the homeowner 
instead of doing a proprietary, private sector-funded modification of 
the mortgage that would allow the homeowner to keep his home?
  This program does not help homeowners facing foreclosure; and the 
bottom line is that, if the lenders and servicers own a home due to 
foreclosure--not the taxpayers but these same lenders and servicers--
they are responsible for the upkeep, security and eventual sale of that 
home. Why should the taxpayers pay for this responsibility which 
rightly belongs to the lender or servicer? They shouldn't.
  The GAO, the HUD Inspector General and other auditors have noted that 
the program is plagued with problems, including lax reporting 
requirements and poor accountability. There is no evidence to suggest 
that funds spent through NSP have produced cost-effective results.
  Finally, upon the sale of a property, NSP does not require these 
groups to return the profit to the taxpayer. Instead, the money is 
treated like a slush fund. This money is never returned to the taxpayer 
but will stay with the local governments and nonprofit entities that 
received it. Of course, any group would support keeping the profits of 
homes sold instead of returning it to the taxpayer. Who wouldn't?
  We need to break down barriers that have delayed recovery in the 
housing market, including expensive and ineffective government programs 
like NSP. We need to stop funding programs that don't work with money 
we don't have. NSP doesn't stabilize neighborhoods. It simply spends 
billions of taxpayer dollars to allow a few homes, scattered here and 
there, to be purchased, rehabilitated and resold. Again, upon the sale, 
the money is never returned to the taxpayer. We are facing a $14.1 
trillion national debt. This debt is damaging our economic recovery and 
is stifling job growth.
  We have been warned. Economists say, if we don't address our debt, in 
a couple of years we could end up bankrupt like Greece. Economists also 
agree that we must reduce our out-of-control government spending to 
create a more favorable environment for private-sector job growth. 
Unemployed Americans and homeowners need a job and a paycheck, not a 
handout or another failed, taxpayer-funded program.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a 
member of the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out that the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program that we're talking about here today isn't just 
dealing with foreclosures. As we all know in this country, there have 
been pockets where the foreclosure phenomenon and the wave of 
foreclosures and property abandonment have been concentrated. I have an 
area like that in my district, in the area of Brockton, Massachusetts, 
but I can point to other areas all across this country.
  What the Neighborhood Stabilization Program allows is for cooperation 
between communities, banks, lenders, homeowners, and servicers to 
either preserve homeownership; or in areas across this country such as 
in Illinois, Nevada, California, and Florida, where thousands and 
thousands of units have been abandoned in one concentrated area, it 
allows us to address those abandoned properties where the lender has 
taken a walk, where the homeowner has taken a walk, where the servicer 
has taken a walk.
  The surrounding communities of homeowners who are trying to stay in 
their homes are having, first of all, their property values lowered 
because of the density of abandoned properties in their neighborhoods. 
This Neighborhood Stabilization Program provides the only opportunity 
for us to address that crisis. We are trying to put a floor under the 
housing market in this country--some of us are--and this is one program 
that allows us to do that.
  So I rise in opposition to this bill. I ask that we rethink this idea 
about eliminating the four voluntary programs that we've got to support 
housing and to support families who are in a tough spot right now. I 
would just urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill and to try 
to preserve the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Grimm), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. GRIMM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this bill because it doesn't do 
what it's supposed to do.
  This is exactly why I came to Congress.
  This bill hurts struggling homeowners. It doesn't help them, because 
it gives some type of perverse incentive for the banks to foreclose. 
That's what this program actually does. It purchases these homes from 
the lenders, from those who are already foreclosed. That is not helping 
struggling homeowners. I don't deny that the intent was very good, but 
it is not following through on that intent. It's reckless; it's being 
misused; and it's wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. It really ends 
up being nothing more than another bailout. That's the last thing that 
we need is another bailout.
  It's a double hit to the taxpayer. Why? Very simple. Because when the 
city or municipality purchases this home, that means there are no taxes 
paid. The argument is, ``well, there are no taxes being paid now 
because it's abandoned,'' but that's not true. There is something 
called a ``tax lien,'' and the private sector at some point will buy 
that tax lien, and that municipality will get its incentive.

                              {time}  1410

  So for many, many reasons this bill is failing. It does not follow 
through on the intent. And we must stop the out-of-control reckless 
spending. And this is exactly where we need to start, this type of 
program, $1 billion of hardworking taxpayer dollars. Let's end the 
bailouts. Let's stop and remember that the answer to everything is not 
the government. Often, it is the government that is the problem.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds 
to say that the gentleman has just explained why this is bad for the 
cities.
  Every organization representing cities and counties and local 
governments and local economic development agencies disagree with him. 
They have written to us and asked us to support this program because he 
is simply wrong about the tax implications.

                                H.R. __

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Mortgage Relief 
     and Neighborhood Stabilization Programs Cost Recoupment Act 
     of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. COST RECOUPMENT.

       Subtitle H of title XIV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
     Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203; 124 
     Stat. 2205 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 1499. FUNDING OFFSET FOR EMERGENCY MORTGAGE RELIEF AND 
                   NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAMS.

       ``The Secretary of the Treasury shall, for the purpose of 
     offsetting the costs of assistance under sections 1496 and 
     1497 of this Act and not later than the expiration of the 6-
     month period beginning on the date of the enactment of the 
     Emergency Mortgage Relief and Neighborhood Stabilization 
     Programs Cost Recoupment Act of 2011, make risk-based 
     assessments in the total amount of $2,500,000,000 on 
     financial companies that manage hedge funds with 
     $10,000,000,000 or more in assets under management on a 
     consolidated basis and on other financial companies with 
     $50,000,000,000 or more in total consolidated assets, subject 
     to such terms and conditions as the Treasury Secretary may 
     establish with the concurrence of the Board

[[Page H1862]]

     of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Board of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Any such 
     assessments collected shall be covered into the General Fund 
     of the Treasury.''.
                                  ____


   Provisions and Policies To Ensure That NSP Funds Used Effectively


                          Statutory Provisions

       All purchases of foreclosed properties must be below 
     current market appraised value, taking condition into 
     account.
       Rehabilitation of foreclosed properties can only be to 
     extent necessary to comply with housing safety, quality and 
     habitability codes, laws, regulations in order to sell, rent 
     or redevelop.
       No profit can be earned on the sale of an abandoned or 
     foreclosed upon home or residential property to an individual 
     as a primary residence--the sale must be in an amount equal 
     to or less than the cost to acquire and redevelop or 
     rehabilitate the home or property up to a decent, safe and 
     habitable condition.
       All funds must be used to assist individuals and families 
     with incomes at or below 120% AMI.
       At least 25% of funds must be used to purchase/redevelop 
     abandoned or foreclosed residential properties that will be 
     used to house individuals or families with incomes at or 
     below 50% of AMI.
       Requires HUD to ensure by rule ``to the maximum extent 
     practicable and for the longest feasible term'' that 
     properties assisted under program remain affordable to 
     households at/below 120% AMI.


                                  HUD

       Current fair market appraisals are required for all NSF-
     funded acquisition of foreclosed property except where 
     property value is below $25,000.
       Requires grantees to establish minimum rehabilitation 
     requirements and affordable rent policy pursuant to HERA.
       Weekly tracking of performance against the requirement that 
     25% of funds be used to benefit households at or below 50% of 
     AMI.
       Requires that program income to be used in accordance with 
     NSP rules. Program income is gross income received by a 
     grantee or a subrecipient directly generated by use of 
     program funds.
       Establishment of grantee internal audit requirement as an 
     NSP2 award condition.
       Monitors NSP grantees for compliance with program 
     requirements.
       Conducts a risk assessment process to identify grantees 
     having potential issues.
       Can impose sanctions on the grantee by HUD for programmatic 
     violations.
       OIG audits the NSF program and grantees.

    Organizations Supporting the Neighborhood Stabilization Program

       Given the impact the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 
     (NSP) has had throughout the country, over 50 national, state 
     and local organizations have expressed their strong support 
     for continued funding of the program and their strong 
     opposition to H.R. 861.
       National Association of Counties, National League of 
     Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Community 
     Development Association, National Association for County 
     Community and Economic Development, Council of State 
     Community Development Agencies, Enterprise Community 
     Partners, Inc., Association for Neighborhood and Housing 
     Development, Arizona Foreclosure Prevention Task Force, 
     Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership, Inc., Center 
     for Community Progress, Center for New York City 
     Neighborhoods, Citizens' Housing and Planning Association, 
     City of Chicago Department of Housing and Economic 
     Development, City of Newark, Columbus Housing Partnership, 
     Council of State Community Development Agencies, Cypress 
     Hills Local Development Corporation, Detroit Office of 
     Foreclosure Prevention and Response, Diamond State Community 
     Land Trust.
       Enterprise Community Partners, Habitat for Humanity 
     International, Healthy Neighborhoods, Inc., HousingWorks RI, 
     Greater Rochester Housing Partnership, Local Initiatives 
     Support Corporation, Louisiana Housing Alliance, 
     Massachusetts Housing Partnership, Mercy Housing, National 
     Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, National 
     Community Land Trust Network, National Community Reinvestment 
     Coalition, National Community Stabilization Trust, National 
     Council of State Housing Agencies, National Housing 
     Conference, National Housing Institute, National Law Center 
     on Homelessness & Poverty, National NeighborWorks 
     Association, Neighborhood Housing Services of Phoenix, Inc., 
     Neighborhood Housing Services of South Florida.
       New York Mortgage Coalition, Northfield Community LDC of 
     Staten Island, Inc., Omni New York, LLC, PolicyLink, 
     Rebuilding Together, Restoring Urban Neighborhoods, LLC, 
     RISE, America!, Smart Growth America, St. Ambrose Housing Aid 
     Center, Stewards for Affordable Housing for the Future, The 
     Community Builders, Inc., The Housing Partnership Network, 
     The Wisconsin Partnership for Housing Development, Inc., 
     Urban Housing Solutions, Inc.

  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
  Today we are here again not to discuss any piece of legislation that 
will create jobs, but to eliminate a program that helps communities 
across the country--and I state, communities that are helped across the 
country.
  The Neighborhood Stabilizing Program allows local governments to 
purchase, rehab, and sell foreclosure properties. Without these 
programs, houses would stay empty--and I say, would stay empty--so we 
would have to look at our neighborhoods and other areas, causing the 
value of property to plummet. Local neighborhoods would be forced to 
use their own funds for maintenance measures and legal fees. 
Additionally, any empty properties also force communities to adjust and 
deal with the missing tax revenue--and I say, missing tax revenue--at a 
time that we need the additional revenue within our communities.
  A lot has been made by my colleagues on the other side about one 
particular group that receives NSP funds, Chicanos por la Causa. What 
if it was another name? It doesn't matter. But because it has the name 
of ``Chicanos,'' the stereotypes and the images are there. It is about 
programs that are doing good, not because of the name that is there.
  Chicanos por la Causa has unmatched records of providing affordable 
housing, stabilizing neighborhoods, and serving the needs of low-income 
communities. They offer a broad range of programs and services and 
serve over 1,000 clients each year, many of whom live below the Federal 
poverty, which in a family of four is only $22,000.
  In 2009, the Chicanos led the application for a group of 13 members 
of the National Association of Latino Community Asset Builders. 
Together, this group received over $130 million in NSP funds and put 
this money to use in projects like in California, where we have a high 
deficit, Arizona, and 16 other States.
  Instead of looking out for Wall Street, instead of looking out for 
Wall Street and protecting the banks that caused the crisis--and I say, 
that caused the crisis--NSP awards this funding to invest in Main 
Street.
  This award represents one of the largest single Federal investments 
ever made that target Latinos and low-income communities, the same 
communities that have seen a higher rate of foreclosure and 
unemployment than the national average.
  I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go to the 
communities where Chicanos or Hispanics or Latinos and their parents 
spend their money. Instead of using this tunnel vision--I say, this 
tunnel vision--solely looking at the numbers, I would ask my friends to 
look at the actual work that is done in the communities and how those 
communities have improved and have gotten a lot better.
  It is time to stop letting partisan talking points set the agenda for 
our government. It is time that we start focusing on programs--I say, 
it is time that we start focusing on programs like NSP and the Chicanos 
por la Causa that help the Americans get back on their feet.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the 
sponsor of this bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial 
Services on International Monetary Policy and Trade, Mr. Miller.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I enjoyed the comments of my good 
friend, Mr. Baca, from San Bernardino County. I have some 
correspondence from San Bernardino County that might interest him.
  According to the county offices, there is no one at the county that 
would support current NSP programs, period. The letters of support did 
not come from San Bernardino County, which is one of the hardest hit in 
the Nation. In fact, the county might have supported the current NSP, 
but this is before they fell victim to complete lack of direction from 
HUD, mixed messages from HUD, and gross misallocation of awards that 
were released.
  As it applies to my bill, the county says, ``We believe it is a means 
for Congress to get its financial house in order, just like the 
challenges we are facing at the local level.''
  Mr. Baca made a very nice written speech, but his own county that he 
represents does not support the program. And I was disappointed that a 
group called Chicanos por la Causa was mentioned. Well, let me just 
talk about the numbers that I have a problem with.

[[Page H1863]]

  This NSP allocation program was meant to be a one-time program. It 
ended up three times. Now, the allocations applied, the problems I had 
when you look at a county the size of Los Angeles County, they got 
$26.3 million; San Bernardino County, Mr. Baca's county, got $33.2 
million; Orange County got $4.3 million; and San Diego County got $5.1 
million.
  Now, all of these counties had to apply Davis-Bacon rules and wage 
standards to rehab these houses, which meant it cost 25 percent more to 
do it than the private sector could have done it on a competitive 
bidding nature.
  Now, my good friend Mr. Baca mentioned one group, as if I had 
something against Chicanos. The problem I have is that nongovernment 
agencies, such as Neighborhood Lending Partners, got $50 million--$50 
million; the Community Builders, Inc. got $78.6 million; Los Angeles 
Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. got $60 million; Neighborhood 
Lending Partners of West Florida, Incorporated got $50 million; 
Chicanos por la Causa got $137 million.
  Understand, L.A. County got $26.3 million; San Bernardino County got 
$33.2 million; Orange County got $4.3 million; San Diego County got 
$4.5 million. The largest population base in California got less money 
than Chicanos por la Causa. Does that make anybody in America happy?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Does the gentleman not want to mention 
that Chicanos por la Causa----
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I reclaim my time.
  If it had been Germans for Affordable Housing, I would have opposed 
it. If it had been Italians for Affordable Housing, I would have 
opposed it. Had it been Irish Germans for Affordable Housing at $137 
million, I would have opposed it.
  Understand, these are taxpayer dollars from people who lost their 
houses, people who are behind in their payments, people who are facing 
foreclosure, and none of this money does one thing to help you. It was 
not an equitable application based on who got money and how they got 
it. In fact, a lot of these private groups write off 17 percent off the 
top for overhead and costs--17 percent.
  Now, we talked about banks. When we lent banks the money in TARP 1, 
they paid us interest. We paid money because we got our money back. 
Freddie and Fannie, the money we allocated to them, we are charging 
them 10 percent interest and they have to pay us back, and the American 
public is furious at that.
  We just gave away $50 million to one private group, gave $78 million 
to another, $60 million to another, $50 million to another. And as my 
good friend Joe Baca says, Chicanos por la Causa, the poor group, got 
$137 million given to you. We are not charging you interest. We gave 
you the money.
  Now, are we helping housing this country? No. Housing starts fell 22 
percent in February, the lowest levels since 1959. It has done nothing 
for housing: 11.8 percent fall in single-family, 47 percent fall in 
multifamily. Tell me one thing this has done. It has not kept one 
person in their house.
  Now, let's assume this is supposed to be helping poor people buy 
houses. You just lost your house. In Hawaii, a person making $73,825 
can buy a house through these organizations. A person in California 
making over $68,000 can buy a house through these organizations. A 
group in Virginia, $74,000; New Jersey, $78,000; Massachusetts, 
$72,000; Utah, $75,000; Alaska, $76,000; Colorado, $73,000; New 
Hampshire, $79,000.
  So a group, an entity, a State, a county, a city can buy a house. 
They have to sell it for less than they have in it, and they can sell 
it to people making more than the person who may have lost the house.

                              {time}  1420

  Now, how in the world does that do one thing for poor people? It does 
not do one thing for poor people.
  Now let's talk about jobs. If we had invested $1 billion in the 
construction industry to build houses, you would have got $2.8 billion 
in economic activities.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. If you would have invested $1 
billion, you would have generated $2.8 billion in economic activities: 
$5.5 million in wages, $138 million in income for small businesses, 
$156 million in corporate profits, $1.98 billion in spending on goods 
and services from the above three line items. It is huge. So if we are 
talking about jobs, let's create jobs.
  Now, they say we have had no alternative to what they did. In 2008, I 
endorsed a bill and introduced it called the Public-Private Partnership 
Community Stabilization Act. It took government dollars and invested 
them with private groups to do the same thing, to buy houses that were 
foreclosed upon and rehab them in communities. And when the houses were 
sold, guess what? The money would have been paid back to the Federal 
Government. We would have probably made a profit. We wouldn't have 
given a dime away. We would have made money on doing the same thing.
  Now, the other side talks about abandoned houses. Not a dime of this 
money can be used for eminent domain, so either the house is for sale 
or it can't be bought. It can't be foreclosed upon by the government 
through eminent domain. So to say that some private group could not 
have bought this house and rehabbed it themselves is ludicrous, because 
the house has to be for sale.
  Now, this group can go out and buy the house, demolish it and end up 
with a vacant lot. They can go out and buy a house, rehab it and sell 
it for a dollar, 10, any amount they want to sell it for, to anybody 
they want to sell it to, as long as it is less than they have in it.
  I had a bill passed out of this House that Mr. Frank cosponsored--he 
thought it was a good bill--that allowed banks to take foreclosed 
properties and lease them for 5 years. If you want to get rid of 
foreclosed properties, allow banks to take the property, rehab it, put 
it on the marketplace, or lease it out for 5 years. It would have done 
the same thing, and perhaps banks would not have driven the marketplace 
down on resales because they were glutted with foreclosures.
  We could have taken these houses, leased them, and in 5 years when 
the market turned around, they could have sold them. And guess what. 
They could have given a lease option to the person losing the house to 
stay in the house for 5 years and buy it back at the end of 5 years. It 
would have at least helped foreclosure projects.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself the 30 seconds the 
gentleman wouldn't allow me to mention--Chicanos Por la Causa, which he 
keeps invoking, in what I must say is an inflammatory way, yes, it has 
$137 million in eight States. It is a consortium of several groups. 
Comparing it to one county is quite misleading. It is $137 million to 
an organization that has eight States in which it works and which has 
produced affordable housing units. And as to his argument that it is 
not for the poor people, almost all of the groups in this country that 
advocate for housing for low-income groups have sent us a letter urging 
that this go forward, Habitat for Humanity and others. I take them as 
more credible on this than my friend.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).
  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Thank you, Ranking Member Frank.
  As our Nation's economy moves forward, we must not forget about our 
neighborhoods, and we must continue to help those areas that are still 
struggling to come back. That is why I am appalled at the efforts to 
terminate the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
  In my own district of Indianapolis, the neighborhood of Mapleton Fall 
Creek has been revitalized with NSP funds. What were once eyesores and 
magnets for crime, they have been renovated, and they are now for 
resale. These improvements have encouraged low- and middle-income 
residents to settle into areas known for abandonment and blight. New 
businesses have opened, and an area once in decline is actually 
blossoming again. This was all possible because of NSP funding.
  We must continue this program for the neighborhoods in Indianapolis 
and across this great Nation.
  I would like to express my support for the Neighborhood Stabilization 
Program (NSP)

[[Page H1864]]

and to oppose the majority's plans to terminate the program.
  All three rounds of NSP are critical because they provide emergency 
assistance to states, local governments, and nonprofits to acquire and 
redevelop foreclosed, vacant, and abandoned properties. Many of these 
properties have become blights on the community and are driving down 
neighboring property values. The first two rounds of the NSP program 
impacted an estimated 80,000 foreclosed, abandoned, or vacant 
properties, and it is estimated that NSP3 will impact tens of thousands 
more. Terminating the program in the middle of the worst foreclosure 
crisis since the Great Depression would further harm neighborhoods and 
many struggling American families. This would most certainly slow the 
recovery of the housing market.
  Specifically in the 7th district of Indiana, the district I 
represent, I would like to highlight the work of Mapleton Fall Creek 
Development Corporation which has used NSP funds effectively. On March 
14, 2011, Mapleton Fall Creek Development Corporation reported they are 
halfway through their NSP work. They have completed renovations on 50 
units of rental housing and 47 of them are rented. Many of these 
properties sat empty and boarded up for 5 years and 25 of them were 
foreclosure properties. They have also acquired 32 houses and 28 lots 
that will be renovated for new homes. The rebuilt homes will vary from 
low income apartments to market rate homes for purchase. Lastly, they 
have demolished 12 vacant and blighted structures, leveraged funds from 
local banks and other not for profits to increase cash flow and stretch 
their NSP dollars further, and provided work for four construction 
managers and numerous contractors.
  Mr. Chair, in the 7th district of Indiana, nearly $3 million of NSP 
funds were used to obtain and rehab 32 residences as part of the 2012 
Super Bowl Housing Legacy Project on Indianapolis' near eastside. NSP 3 
funds will also be used to demolish blighted structures in key 
neighborhoods that have high foreclosure rates, including the old 
Winona Hospital and Keystone Towers--two enormous blighted structures 
that have been plagued with crime and environmental concerns for years.
  I strongly urge the majority to permit the Neighborhood Stabilization 
Program to continue. As our nation's economy moves forward we must not 
forget about our neighborhoods and middle class families. We must help 
those families and communities that are still struggling to come back.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I seem to have hit a nerve with my 
good friends on the other side of the aisle when I said Chicanos Por la 
Causa. It is not who it went to if it is not a government agency, if it 
was Germans for Affordable Housing. It is $137 million that I object to 
going to a group that is a non-government entity that has the money 
that we will not get back.
  And we keep talking about letters of support. Now, if you are a city, 
a county, or if you are one of these nonprofit groups that received the 
money, you would be an absolute hypocrite to take the money and then 
not send a letter saying, thank you for the money. I think the money 
was well spent because you gave it to me to spend. Nobody would take 
money that they didn't want to take.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 861, the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act. The program has 
been ill-fated from the start. It has been plagued with problems. We 
have given almost $7 billion into a program that has yet to work. HUD 
was slow in getting the money out the door. Poor reporting has hampered 
our ability to even measure what has been happening on the program.
  Further, the NSP simply acts as a taxpayer bailout for risky lenders, 
servicers and real estate speculators who bet on the housing market and 
now can't sell their properties. It has become an even bigger example 
of those people who believe that the government is the solution to the 
problems. Government is not the solution to the problem; government is 
the problem.
  We are spending $3.5 trillion in our annual government spending, and 
we are bringing in $2.2 trillion. Next year we are going to have a 
deficit of $1.6 trillion; and it is composed of programs exactly like 
this, programs that do no good, that don't really cause the market to 
cure itself, and instead taxpayers pay the bill for people who have 
been speculating and people who just want out.
  I had a friend in the office today who talked about his situation 
with a house in Tucson where he got in at a higher price than it should 
have been. He was willing to settle for a lesser amount. He was willing 
to pay. But because the bank could go to the government and make up the 
difference, they did not have to negotiate with this individual 
homeowner. Instead, this program causes lenders to say, the taxpayer 
will make us whole and we are not going to take our losses.
  The market will cure the problems we face if we allow the markets to 
work, but this government program does not allow the market to work. 
This Nation is dying for jobs, and it is government spending, 
government regulation and government taxation that are causing the jobs 
to be killed and to be sent out of this country.
  If we will get our focus correct on lowering taxes, lowering the 
regulatory environment, especially to lenders who would be out lending 
now except they are afraid to because of the regulatory environment, we 
would begin to create jobs for the first time in a long time.
  With 9 percent unemployment, it is time for us to cure the problems 
of the economy, to quit spending on wasteful programs, and to give this 
country a leg up on prosperity. That is the thing we are missing right 
now.
  The hope of prosperity for the middle class is gone, and it is 
because of programs like this soaking the taxpayer and giving money to 
people who probably could do something different. It is not fixing up 
any neighborhood. I don't see the reports in any magazine or newspaper 
telling us of the flock of people moving to these rehabilitated 
neighborhoods.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I rise to express support for H.R. 861.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The gentleman from California says he is not singling out Chicanos 
Por la Causa, that there are other private organizations, but he never 
mentions them. And he says, well, they are not a government entity. 
That is right. We don't think it all has to go through the government. 
We think places like Habitat for Humanity and others have a role to 
play.
  I yield 3 minutes to the former mayor of the city of Somerville, 
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the most legitimate argument I have heard is we have a 
deficit and we have to deal with it. That is a fair and reasonable 
point to make. However, it is not a fair and reasonable approach 
towards the problem to begin with programs like this. We can't even 
talk about what we are spending on the Iraq war. We can't talk about 
any money in the Defense Department or anyplace else. The first 
programs we start with are these types of programs.
  Let me be clear about what this program is. I am a former mayor in a 
strong mayor form of government.

                              {time}  1430

  We get a fair amount of Federal and State money, and we use some of 
our own money on occasion to buy and rehabilitate property. Sometimes 
it meant knocking it down, sometimes it meant making a recreational 
area, sometimes it meant building a school, whatever it might be, to 
improve a neighborhood. And to say this money is not improving 
neighborhoods is just to be blind. There are stories all over the 
country where improvements are being made.
  I'm not going to argue that every single penny of this program or any 
other program has been perfectly well spent. That would be crazy. I 
have no problem at all looking at this program or any program to come 
up with things we don't like; to change the rules as to who might be 
eligible tomorrow. And on and on and on. Those are fine and fair things 
to say. I'm not going to defend one group or any formula. Those are 
legitimate things to argue about. But to say that the program doesn't 
work and this is where we should start addressing our deficit, I think, 
is to be shortsighted.
  It also says to me, if you don't like the program, that's fine. Then 
I would strongly suggest that anybody who

[[Page H1865]]

doesn't like the program pick up the phone to their mayor, to their 
county administrator, to their Governor, and say, Send the money back. 
Every State in the country has gotten money. California has gotten over 
$886 million. If you don't want it, send it back. Massachusetts only 
got $106 million. Now, we think it's doing pretty well, so we're going 
to keep it. But if you don't want it, send it back. Nevada, a much 
smaller State than Massachusetts, got almost as much money because they 
got hit harder than we did in this economy.
  To argue that a few problems that you have--and I'm not even going to 
suggest that I agree or don't agree. The points are well made. If you 
don't want one entity, any entity to get $137 million, fine. Let's talk 
about it. Let's say they don't do it. That's not a problem. If you want 
to say that we have to change about how this money is being used, fine. 
Let's limit it. No problem.
  But to pretend that a neighborhood, any neighborhood, is well served 
by ignoring boarded-up properties, by saying, Walk away from your home, 
walk away from your business, and the neighborhood will recover without 
you, is shortsighted and wrong. And to pretend that somehow because 
we're giving this money away, that that is an inherent evil in and of 
itself, ignores all the grants that this government gives away, that 
other governments give away, not just in housing, but in research, in 
any number of fields. Again, if you want to cut out all grants, fine. 
That is a reasonable and consistent argument. But you also then have to 
cut out tax credits, because we give out billions of dollars in Federal 
tax credit dollars that do the same thing in housing.
  All I'm saying is if you want to fix the program, fix it. If you want 
to turn your back on neighborhoods, go ahead and do that. But not with 
my help.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my good 
friend admitting that we're giving the money away, because we are. I 
struck a nerve for some reason when everybody keeps bringing up 
Chicanos Por La Causa for $137 million. The reason I think it's 
egregious is we gave $1.3 billion away to nongovernment entities. And 
this one entity got 10 percent of all the nongovernment funding that 
went out. Nobody has mentioned that I mentioned other groups that got 
$50 million, $70 million, $60 million, $50 million each. I mentioned 
those groups. But what did HUD say about the money? When I quizzed 
Mercedes Marquez of HUD, her quote was ``The money is going to 
homeowners and to American citizens.''
  The problem I have with this, how do you feel about the people who 
lost the home? You've got a family, they put money into the home. The 
last couple of years have been tough. They couldn't repair the 
plumbing, they couldn't replace the appliances, they couldn't afford to 
replace the broken window, they couldn't paint the house because their 
house was in foreclosure. They lost that house. Now, we're spending $7 
billion, and we have not helped one person in this country remain a 
homeowner.
  If your house is going into foreclosure, you're going to lose it. And 
these dollars are going to be spent to rehab your house and sell it to 
somebody else.
  Wake up, America.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, it's amazing to me that we're here at this 
time when we've seen 4 million foreclosures across America, perhaps 7 
million. We've seen neighborhoods devastated. And instead of the 
majority conference offering solutions to this foreclosure crisis, 
instead of them coming forth and saying, You know what, here's what we 
think we need to do for the American people to stay in their homes, all 
they want to do is destroy what Democrats have done. It's amazing. It's 
really something that I hope the American people pay very close 
attention to.
  The gentleman on the other end says that, Look, somebody's going to 
buy the house that you lost in foreclosure. If we can be successful 
with programs like the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, we will 
create an environment where people will not lose their homes because 
the value of their homes will not plummet. They will not end up 
underwater. And people will have somewhere that they can live and a 
neighborhood that they can be proud of.
  But because the Republican conference is making itself abundantly 
clear, I think it needs to be clear to the American people whose side 
we're on. The Democrats are on the side of the American people staying 
in their homes. The Republican conference is on the side of throwing 
people out and foreclosing on Americans. And it's a sad, sad day in our 
Congress. We are in the middle of an enormous debate on the proper role 
of government. We believe the proper role of government is to have fair 
rules, to have real enforcement of our financial regulations, to have 
real consumer protection, and to intervene when people's neighborhoods 
are being destroyed by foreclosure.
  The Republicans say, You're on your own. The market has all the 
answers. The market answers every question. Well, it doesn't answer 
every question, especially when the market doesn't have any cops on the 
beat, and when you let the people engage in all sorts of nefarious 
practices that caused the economic conditions that we're in today.
  The Republican conference was in power when the regulations that led 
to this destruction were in place--and they did nothing. When the 
Democrats got in charge, we solved it. And now they're trying to 
disassemble it.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address two things that the 
minority has raised. One is they've talked about fairness. And I will 
tell you that there's nothing fair about this program. In fact, it's an 
unfair program. It's unfair for most Americans. The second thing 
they've talked about is foreclosures. This program causes foreclosures. 
This program encourages foreclosures. This program promotes 
foreclosures.
  Now let's talk about the foreclosures first and then we'll talk about 
fair. What does this program do? Does it prevent foreclosures? No. It 
encourages foreclosures. It allows nonprofits, community organizations, 
and cities and counties to buy foreclosed properties. In other words, 
to create a market for foreclosed properties. The minority supplied us 
with pictures of two of these properties. This is the one in Baltimore, 
Maryland. This was one of two. I think the other one was in Los 
Angeles, as I recall. This is the property.
  Now, just like all these properties, it's not owned by a homeowner. 
There's no homeowner there. It's owned by a bank or a real estate 
speculator. It might have been somebody that put someone in this house 
with what we call an exploding loan. Put someone in that house that 
couldn't afford it.
  So, what do we do? We construct a program that says to this bank that 
owns this property, that's paying taxes to the government on this 
property--we don't say to tear this down, or we don't say we're going 
to condemn it and convert it, and we're going to get it with no charge. 
No. We buy it. Now, is that right?
  You said the banks caused this, the lenders. We ought to penalize 
those that are at fault. Well, how does penalizing a lender who made a 
loan on this property, how is writing them a check fair? No, it's not. 
This is a bailout for lenders and speculators. Now, is it fair? Well, 
is it fair to our grandchildren and our children, $4 billion every day 
that goes out of our Treasury, more than we bring in. Four billion 
dollars a day. In fact, the deficit for February was 230-something 
billion dollars.
  Now, every day they talk about fairness, and I have quoted this with 
every one of these failed programs. I have quoted Mike Mullen, chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who says our debt is the biggest threat 
to our national security, the existence of our country. Well, let's 
just talk about one thing we do every day. We owe China 9\1/2\ percent 
of our debt; 9 to 9\1/2\ percent is owed to China. Every day we write a 
check to China because we won't face up to this exploding spending of 
$120 million a day.

[[Page H1866]]

                              {time}  1440

  They could buy a Joint Strike Force Fighter every day and still put 
$20 million in their pocket. Every day. They could build an Air Force 
bigger than our Air Force in 5 years on money they earn from us and 
that our taxpayers pay because we won't confront programs like this. 
Because ``fair'' to us is saying yes to everyone except the taxpayers.
  And, oh, there are 4 million foreclosures in this country this year. 
That's a terrible figure. But I tell you, this program will do nothing 
but increase that number. And to think that it's fair to our children 
and grandchildren to devise a program but not have the money to pay it 
and stick it on our children and grandchildren, it ought to infuriate 
any of us who are grandparents. It does me.
  It's time now to end this foolishness which threatens the very 
existence of our country.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 minutes to say I am 
struck by the incongruity of Members who have voted for the war in 
Iraq, a trillion-dollar huge mistake, ongoing, who vote to continue 
what seems to me a futile effort now in Afghanistan.
  The gentleman from Alabama, and we've talked about this before, he 
said that because the Obama administration told him he had to, he voted 
to send $150 million a year last year, next year, for the next 2 years 
to the cotton farmers of Brazil. The gentleman opposed a $250,000 limit 
on subsidies to any individual farmer. In the budget, the gentleman 
voted, as did most on his side, to send $1.2 billion to beef up Iraqi 
security forces. What about American security forces? What about giving 
some money to the cities so when they have to deal with abandoned 
property, they don't have to take that out of the hides of their police 
departments and fire departments?
  Yes, we should reduce the deficit. But to be for the enormous waste 
in the Pentagon--and, by the way, Members cite Mike Mullen. I wish, in 
addition to citing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they 
would make a simple commitment not to vote for the Pentagon money he 
doesn't want. Because Members on that side cite his warning about the 
defense budget, about the deficit, and then force money on him that he 
thinks is useless.
  So let's talk about the disparity between people who vote enormous 
amounts of money; $400 million goes to Afghan infrastructure, we're 
told. Well, let's have it be done efficiently. I cannot think that in 
any program in America we are going to be spending the money less 
efficiently than the $400 million my friends over there have voted to 
send to Afghanistan.
  So let's look at this in a reasonable way. And we also believe that 
this billion dollars, in fact, helps our cities. And there's one 
fundamental error they make: the assumption is that for every piece of 
property--by the way, it is not simply foreclosed property; it is 
abandoned property--for every piece of property that's out there, there 
is a responsible financial institution whom you can sue and get the 
money from. That simply isn't true.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 30 more seconds.
  For many of these pieces of property, the cities are left with no 
recourse. There is no one to do it. One of the Members said the other 
day in committee, Well, they can send out their bulldozer. Yeah, they 
can pull a firefighter off and hire a bulldozer operator.
  The fact is that it is not simply for foreclosed property. It's for 
foreclosed and abandoned property, and the notion that there are no 
buildings out there in the cities where there is no responsible 
financial entity is nonsense. And so what we're telling the cities is, 
It's tough. You've had these foreclosure problems. You've had this 
abandonment problem. You could sell it to the private sector, and the 
private sector will buy some, but they won't buy it all.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters).
  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.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional 
minute.
  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?
  Mrs. BIGGERT. May I inquire of the Chair how much time each side has 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois has 9\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. At this time I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. BACHUS. Well, there you go again. Instead of talking about this 
program, you want to talk about the Brazil cotton deal, or you want to 
talk about Afghanistan. And I'll talk about those.
  But before I do, I have a question for you, for my colleagues on the 
Democratic side who talk about investing in this property. I want you 
to get a good look at this.
  Are you willing to put your money up to buy that?

[[Page H1867]]

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, I don't think any private entity 
would--I'm sorry. May I answer the question?
  That's why we want to give money to the cities so they can tear it 
down, because otherwise they'll be stuck with it. I don't think any 
private investor would put money in that. There's no other way to deal 
with it, and the way to deal with it is to give them the money so they 
can tear it down.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. BACHUS. Let's tear it down. I agree with you. And let's make the 
person who owns it tear it down. And this idea that this person can't 
be found, that this person----
  I would ask for order.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. The Chair will remind Members to address their comments to 
the Chair.
  Mr. BACHUS. And I would say to the Chair--and I appreciate that--that 
if any of my colleagues want to buy this property and think it's a good 
investment, they can hire painters and Realtors and put all these 
people to work, but the taxpayers, they're having trouble paying their 
own mortgages. They're having trouble financing their own children's 
education. And whose side are we on?
  Listen, this program has benefited less than 2,000 pieces of 
property--banks--but we've got 12 million American families who are 
underwater on their mortgage. And do you think it's even fair to pay 
off, as y'all proposed, a half a million of those mortgages? How about 
the other 21 out of 22? You know, you can't pay off all 12 million. You 
will break the country. So you say, well, we're going to do the best we 
can. You're going to pick winners and losers.
  Let me tell you something. The taxpayers that are paying their 
mortgages or own their own homes or didn't get into this problem--don't 
you get the message from November? The American people don't want us 
paying--they don't want to pay for someone else's obligations.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BACHUS. Now, let's talk about this Brazilian cotton, and let me 
tell you, if I were you--I'd say to the Chair, if I were the ranking 
member, I would talk about anything but buying this property and fixing 
it up. I'd do anything to avoid that conversation. I'd avoid anything 
to talk about that we're paying the banks with taxpayer money.
  But you mentioned Brazil and you said it was a stupid deal. You said 
it took a Flip Wilson to do this. Well, it was Ron Kirk, trade 
ambassador, that entered into the agreement. And who hired him? 
President Obama. So you ought to take it up with the Democratic 
administration who saddled us with this $150 million obligation.
  I close with Afghanistan. I have a son who's in the U.S. Marines. He 
was in there for 10 years and he's out now, but let me tell you 
something. I will spend money to build up an Afghan force so we can 
bring our young men and women home.

 [From the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Executive 
                        Office of the President]

      U.S., Brazil Agree on Framework Regarding WTO Cotton Dispute

       Washington, DC.--Today Brazil's Ministers reached a 
     decision in support of a Framework regarding the Cotton 
     dispute, which would avert the imposition of countermeasures 
     of more than $800 million this year. This includes more than 
     $560 million in countermeasures against U.S. exports which 
     were scheduled to go into effect on Monday, June 21, 2010, as 
     well as possible countermeasures on intellectual property 
     rights that could have taken effect later. We are pleased 
     with this decision, and look forward to signing the Framework 
     soon.
       The findings in the Cotton dispute concern U.S. cotton 
     support under the marketing loan and countercyclical payment 
     programs, and the GSM-102 Export Credit Guarantee Program. In 
     line with these findings, the Framework has two major 
     elements.
       First, it would provide, as a basis for a discussion toward 
     reaching a mutually agreed solution to the dispute, a limit 
     on trade-distorting cotton subsidies. Second, the Framework 
     would provide benchmarks for changes to certain elements of 
     the current GSM-102 program. In the Framework, the United 
     States and Brazil would agree to meet quarterly to discuss 
     the successor legislation to the 2008 Farm Bill as it relates 
     to trade-distorting cotton subsidies and the operation of 
     GSM-102. The Framework would not serve as a permanent 
     solution to the Cotton dispute. However, it would provide 
     specific interim steps and a process for continued 
     discussions on the programs at issue with a view to reaching 
     a solution to the dispute.
       ``I am pleased that we have been able to negotiate a 
     Framework regarding the WTO Cotton dispute that would avoid 
     the imposition of countermeasures against U.S. trade, 
     including goods and intellectual property,'' said Ambassador 
     Kirk. ``While respecting the role of the United States 
     Congress in developing the next Farm Bill, this Framework 
     would now allow us to continue to work toward a final 
     resolution of the Cotton dispute. I believe this Framework 
     will go a long way in alleviating the uncertainty in our 
     business communities and enhance the ability of the United 
     States and Brazil to build upon our dynamic trading 
     relationship.''
       ``This framework agreement provides a way forward as we 
     work with Congress toward a new farm bill in 2012,'' said 
     Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. ``Although it is not a 
     permanent solution, I am pleased that it allows us to 
     maintain our programs while considering adjustments and 
     avoiding the immediate imposition of countermeasures against 
     U.S. exports as a result of the WTO cotton decision.''
     Background
       The Cotton dispute is a long-running dispute brought by 
     Brazil against the United States. In 2005 and again in 2008, 
     the World Trade Organization (WTO) found that certain U.S. 
     agricultural support payments and guarantees are inconsistent 
     with WTO commitments: (1) payments to cotton producers under 
     the marketing loan and countercyclical programs; and (2) 
     export credit guarantees under the GSM-102 program, a USDA 
     program used to provide guarantees for credit extended by 
     U.S. banks or exporters to approved foreign banks for 
     purchases of U.S. agricultural exports.
       On August 31, 2009, WTO arbitrators issued arbitration 
     awards in this dispute. These awards provided the level of 
     countermeasures that Brazil could impose against U.S. trade. 
     The annual amount of countermeasures has two parts: 1) a 
     fixed amount of $147.3 million for the cotton payments and 2) 
     an amount for the GSM-102 program that varies based upon 
     program usage. Using the data that we have given Brazil (in 
     accordance with the arbitrators' award), the current total of 
     authorized countermeasures is more than $800 million.
       The arbitrators also provided that Brazil could impose 
     cross-sectoral countermeasures (i.e. countermeasures in 
     sectors outside of trade in goods, specifically intellectual 
     property and services). It may impose cross-sectoral 
     countermeasures to the extent that it applies total 
     countermeasures in excess of a threshold. The threshold 
     varies annually, but is currently approximately $560 million. 
     Therefore, of the approximately $820 million in 
     countermeasures Brazil could impose now, about $260 million 
     of that could be cross-sectoral.
       On March 8, 2010 Brazil announced a final list of products 
     that would face higher tariffs beginning on April 7, 2010. 
     Goods on the list include autos, pharmaceuticals, medical 
     equipment, electronics, textiles, wheat, fruit and nuts, and 
     cotton. Brazil had not made a final decision on which U.S. 
     intellectual property rights might be affected by cross-
     sectoral countermeasures, but it had begun the process to 
     make this determination.
       On April 1, Deputy USTR Miriam Sapiro and USDA 
     Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Jim 
     Miller met with Ambassador Antonio Patriota, Secretary 
     General of Brazil's Ministry of External Relations to discuss 
     possible resolution of the dispute. As a result of that 
     dialogue, the Government of Brazil agreed not to impose any 
     countermeasures on U.S. trade at that time. In exchange, the. 
     United States agreed to work with Brazil to establish a fund 
     of approximately $147.3 million per year on a pro rata basis 
     to provide technical assistance and capacity building to the 
     cotton sector in Brazil, and for international cooperation 
     related to the same sector in certain other countries. Under 
     the Memorandum of Understanding that the United States and 
     Brazil signed on April 20, 2010, the fund would continue 
     until passage of the next Farm Bill or a mutually agreed 
     solution to the Cotton dispute is reached, whichever is 
     sooner. The fund is subject to transparency and auditing 
     requirements.
       The United States also agreed to make certain near term 
     modifications to the operation of the GSM-102 Export Credit 
     Guarantee Program, and to engage with the Government of 
     Brazil in technical discussions regarding further operation 
     of the program. In addition, the United States published a 
     proposed rule on April 16, 2010, to recognize the State of 
     Santa Catarina as free of foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, 
     classical swine fever, African swine fever, and swine 
     vesicular disease, based on World Organization for Animal 
     Health Guidelines, and to complete a risk evaluation and 
     identify appropriate risk mitigation measures to determine 
     whether fresh beef can be imported from Brazil while 
     preventing the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease in the 
     United States.
       The parties further agreed on April 1 that they would work 
     to develop a Framework regarding the Cotton dispute by June 
     21, which

[[Page H1868]]

     would provide a path forward for a negotiated solution to the 
     Cotton dispute and allow both countries to avoid the impact 
     of countermeasures. Negotiators from Brazil and the United 
     States have been engaged intensively over the past several 
     months, and successfully concluded this Framework.
       Brazil is the United States' 10th largest trading partner 
     with a total two-way goods trade of approximately $60 billion 
     in 2009.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  First of all, the gentleman says why are you talking about other 
programs, why don't you just talk about this program, but he talks 
about hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit, and this is a billion 
dollar program. So he hardly, Mr. Chairman, follows his own rules. He 
talks about hundreds of billions of dollars about a billion dollar 
program. I am joining him in saying, yes, we have a large deficit, of 
which this program is an infinitesimal part.
  Secondly, I am puzzled that my Republican friends, who generally tell 
us that the President is not very good at his job, hide behind him when 
it's politically convenient. Yes, this is an Obama deal. The President 
was wrong. And unlike the gentleman from Alabama, if I think the 
President has made a foolish decision, I'm going to vote against it, 
not to send the money to Brazil. It wasn't the President who told you 
to vote not to limit the subsidies to $250,000 per person.
  And as to bringing people home from Afghanistan, we will have a 
chance tomorrow to bring people home from Afghanistan. I will vote for 
that. Sending $400 million for corrupt infrastructure expenditures 
isn't bringing anybody home. So let's bring them home. The gentleman 
will have a chance to do that tomorrow.
  But then I want to go back to his thing about do you want to invest? 
No. He just ignored the facts. This is not just about foreclosed 
properties. It's about abandoned properties. He says do I want to 
invest? He said do I want to buy it? Does he know who owns that? Could 
he give me the address? And what the gentleman said, he said of course 
you can find out who owns it; it's not hard.
  We believe that there are properties where you can't find the owner. 
Now, the gentleman got the picture. He must know about the property.
  Would you give us the address and the name of the responsible owner 
so we can tell the city not to use public money?
  I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Well, let me ask you this----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No. I will yield for the purpose of 
asking the gentleman a question.
  He said it's possible to find the address and the owner. I am asking 
him to live up to what he said. Can he tell us who the owner is? He's 
got the picture of the property. He says, no, you don't have to spend 
public money to tear it down. Go after the responsible owner.
  I ask the gentleman, can he tell us who is the responsible owner?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BACHUS. It was the person that you wrote the check to. You have 
to buy it, and you wrote the check out. So you know who the owner is.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman is wrong.
  I reclaim my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. You wrote the check to somebody.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Please instruct the gentleman as to the 
rules. He is blatantly wrong. It is not simply purchasing property. 
This gives the city money, and maybe that's why they are so wrong on 
this. They don't understand the program. It includes giving the city 
money to go in----
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself another minute, because 
these people take a lot of work to get them to explain it.
  The fact is that it isn't simply to buy it from a responsible owner. 
It includes money, as we have tried to explain to them, to demolish 
property. In fact, in the cities of Detroit and Cleveland, they 
specifically asked us--the gentlewoman from Los Angeles amended it--you 
can use city money to demolish property when there is no owner. So, no, 
there is no--you don't write a check to someone who has abandoned the 
property.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BACHUS. Well, let me ask you this: The IG said they couldn't 
trace some of this money, and I think we've all figured that out. If we 
don't know whom we're paying----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reclaim my time to point out the 
evasion.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself another 30 seconds.
  The gentleman made a big point of saying, buy the property from this 
person. He doesn't know who owns the property. No one knows who owns 
the property because no one owns the property. They walked away from 
it.
  And what we're saying is part of this is not to pay off the bank. And 
I will say, last point, and as you know, the taxpayers shouldn't do it. 
In the bill that passed the conference committee which authorized this 
billion dollars, we said that the money should come not from the 
taxpayers but from large financial institutions that have more than $50 
billion in assets and hedge funds with more than $10 billion. 
Republican opposition killed it. I'm going to refile that bill today.
  So I invite my Republican colleagues to join me and we will sponsor 
this bill, and it's in the committee that the gentleman chairs. Let's 
pass a bill that says the money that will go to cities to knock down 
property where they can't find the owner will get it from the large 
banks and from the large hedge funds. And if the gentleman will agree 
with that, then this whole argument about the deficit will disappear.
  But I will predict, Mr. Chairman, that they will find that that's not 
so persuasive, and they will put up with the deficit when it means 
saving money for the large banks.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Gary G. Miller).
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Well, my good friend Mr. Frank 
knows you can go to any land title company and they'll tell you who 
owns the property: either the person lost it to a bank that had a loan 
on it or the bank owns it now; and if they didn't have a loan on it, 
they still own the property. And if the property's been abandoned, 
under rules of public safety, the city can go and demolish a property 
for public safety measures.
  But the difference is--I'm glad that Mr. Frank said he disagrees with 
the Obama administration because I think they're wrong, too, but in 
this case I think you're wrong.
  This proposal does not make any sense. We believe we're on the side 
of the people who are paying taxes in this country. Many are going 
through foreclosure. Many are out of work. We've taken your tax dollars 
and we've decided to give it to somebody else to buy property from the 
very banks that they take and say are so awful.
  Now, there's been a lot of predatory loans made in this country. 
Lenders should not have made loans to people. They took advantage of 
people, no doubt. But then they foreclosed on those very people and we 
give private groups and government entities the ability to go buy the 
property from those banks, take and refurbish it, and sell it to 
people.

                              {time}  1500

  Now I will state again, in California, you can earn over $68,000 and 
buy one of these homes. You can earn between $73,000 and $80,000 and 
live in Hawaii, Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Utah, Alaska, 
Colorado, New Hampshire, and qualify to pick up a very good deal. 
Sometimes it might be based on who you know that has the house 
currently. Are you affiliated with somebody at the city at a good level 
or the county? Or do you know one of these people at the nongovernment 
agencies on the board of directors, and you say, Hey, my cousin would 
like to buy one of these houses. And by the way, he'd like a good deal. 
There is nothing in the bill that precludes that. The bill says clearly 
that you have to sell it for less than you paid and reinvested in it. 
It does not say how much less you have to sell it for or how much you 
sell it for.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  First of all, this program has been going on for some time. If there 
were any of the horror stories to match those hypotheticals, we would 
have

[[Page H1869]]

heard from them. But I will say this to the gentleman from California. 
He admits under public safety, the city might have to go in and tear it 
down with no recompense. Here is my proposal, and I invite my 
Republican colleagues again to do this. Come back with us to when we 
had a bill that said, This program will be paid for not by the 
taxpayers but by an assessment on financial institutions with more than 
$50 billion in assets and hedge funds with more than $10 billion in 
assets. I will introduce this bill tomorrow. They can give us a hearing 
on it, mark it up, and it won't cost the taxpayers a cent. And it will 
save the cities money.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez).
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  As the ranking member stated before, this is not only about 
foreclosed properties, this is about abandoned properties. The 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program will help rehabilitate over 600 
properties in New York City alone, but this is not just an issue for 
New York. This is a national problem. It was created by a decade of 
overheated mortgage lending and excess on Wall Street. It makes sense 
that our cities should have a national response. But contrary to common 
sense, the bill we consider today would abandon our cities and towns 
and force them to deal with this issue on their own.
  The foreclosure crisis has a ripple effect on our whole economy. 
Foreclosed and abandoned homes consume limited city resources. At the 
same time, these homes lower property values for everyone in the 
neighborhood. Assistance from the NSP can not only rehabilitate empty 
homes, it can also reverse the downward spiral in property values. This 
bill eliminates the only housing mitigation program committed to 
stemming these ripple effects. Foreclosures are costly to everyone. 
Without the NSP, Main Street will bear the costs of the problem created 
on Wall Street.
  Nationwide, nearly 100,000 projects will be undertaken with NSP 
funds. Property values will be restored in these neighborhoods, and 
working families will once again have access to affordable housing. Yet 
if this legislation is enacted, 200 projects in New York City will go 
unfinished. Withdrawing support for the NSP at this stage will slow the 
budding recovery in our housing sector not just for New York City but 
also for cities and towns across America. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' 
vote on this ill-conceived and, I have to say, mean-spirited 
legislation.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority 
leader.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Chairman from day one, the majority of this Congress promised the 
American people that we would focus like a laser on producing results. 
And over the past 2 months, we have already begun to deliver on that 
promise by upending the culture of spending that prevailed in 
Washington and replace it with a culture of savings. The most important 
thing government can do right now is to create an environment that 
fosters opportunity for people. But if you talk to the small businesses 
and entrepreneurs who create jobs, they will tell you that the 
explosion of government debt is threatening their ability to innovate 
and compete. Unless we move swiftly to change course, our economy will 
be consumed by fears of future tax increases, inflation, and higher 
borrowing costs. That's why our majority is dedicated to our cut-and-
grow agenda, cutting spending and job-destroying regulations and 
growing private sector jobs in the economy.
  Yesterday we took another significant step toward returning spending 
to 2008 levels. Today we offer Members a chance through the YouCut 
program to cut an additional $1 billion in waste. This legislation, 
endorsed by millions of voters in the YouCut program, would terminate 
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, a pot of money, as the other 
side will tell you, that enables State and local governments to buy and 
rehabilitate foreclosed homes. Instead of benefiting at-risk homeowners 
facing foreclosure, however, this program may instead create perverse 
incentives for banks and other lenders to foreclose on troubled 
borrowers. The people's House is drawing a firm line in the sand 
against wasteful spending and inefficient government programs, and I 
urge my colleague the to support this legislation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time remains on both sides, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4 minutes remaining. 
The gentlewoman from Illinois has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. My good friend Mr. Frank brought up 
a good point. He said, Well, show me where any of these egregious 
things and illegal things have occurred where somebody has cut somebody 
a deal. Well, I can't show you any because there are no requirements. 
You could take one of these nonprofit, nongovernment entities out here 
that bought a house. They have $180,000 in the house. One of the board 
members' cousins could buy that house for $100,000, and it does not 
violate the requirements within the bill because it says you have to 
sell that house for less than the acquisition and rehabilitation 
prices. It does not say how much less. It says that you must not exceed 
an amount.
  So my good friend is absolutely correct. I cannot show you an 
egregious act because there is no egregious act defined within the 
legislation. And that's the problem with the bill. I believe we are 
trying to say that the Republicans are on the side of the taxpayers. We 
believe that we need to do everything we can in this country to create 
jobs. And if we leave $7 billion in the economy based on the basic 
money multiplier of 10 percent, it creates $70 billion worth of economy 
and generation. We believe in that. We do believe in fair rules. And we 
believe that if a person has to watch their home go into foreclosure, 
and they live in California, and they watch a county, a city, or a 
nonprofit group buy that home, that they can sell that home to someone 
for $68,000 and all that person can do that lost their home is wipe the 
tears away.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate the gentleman's acknowledgement. With all of their 
efforts, they are out finding pictures of abandoned houses, they 
couldn't find one example of where that abuse took place. In fact, 
there are a set of rules and restrictions that HUD has that I will 
submit under general leave. But again, let's review some of their 
errors. The fundamental error is the argument that this is a program 
which buys money from banks that have foreclosed and own the property. 
In fact, it is foreclosed and abandoned property. There are also 
entities that foreclose that weren't banks, that are not in existence 
anymore. Yes, it does not deal with all the properties. Where there is 
a responsible bank that you can go after, the cities go after them. But 
the suggestion that in Detroit, in Cleveland, in Boston, in Chicago, in 
all of our cities and in our rural areas there are no abandoned 
properties that lack someone you can sue is unreality. This is a 
triumph of ideological reflex over empirical observation. What this 
says to cities is, where you cannot find a responsible owner to go 
after, and the property is festering, if it's too far gone, you can 
tear it down. If it's not too far gone, you can take it and resell it 
for an affordable unit. Yes, it's got to be a limited income situation.

                              {time}  1510

  So that just disputes the whole notion that there's always somebody 
else you can get. But I still believe it's true that we shouldn't let 
this come from the taxpayer.
  But I want to reiterate, and I'll make this offer. In the conference 
committee on Financial Reform, when this bill was passed--that's true 
also, by the way, of the emergency homeowners' relief--we said, let's 
not have it come from the taxpayer. Let's have it come from financial 
institutions with $50 billion or more in assets, except for hedge 
funds, where it's $10 billion or more in assets.
  If that had passed, it would have cost the taxpayers, the general 
revenue nothing. It would not have added to the deficit. And to the 
extent that some financial institutions were benefiting,

[[Page H1870]]

they would have had to contribute. In fact, it would have had the 
larger financial institutions help the smaller financial institutions.
  The Republicans killed that before, but I believe in repentance, Mr. 
Chairman. I believe in second chances for miscreants. I'm going to 
give, Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues a second chance. So for 
all their rhetoric about the deficit, here's the response. Here are the 
choices:
  You can tell Detroit and Cleveland and other cities, you tear down 
that property when there's nobody else to go to and you pay for it and 
lay off some teachers and cops and firefighters, or you leave the 
property up there to fester. Or you do it our way. You join in 
assessing the large financial institutions. And I don't mean to 
demonize Citicorp or Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Blackstone. These 
are decent people. They are trying to make a profit. I don't always 
agree with them. Why don't we let them pay the billion dollars?
  So if there is a genuine concern about the deficit--I'm skeptical 
when people want to send the money to Afghanistan and Iraq and to 
Brazilian cotton farmers. Obama made them do that. Whenever they have a 
tough political decision, Mr. Chairman, Obama did it. Why can't they 
solve the problems of Fannie and Freddie? Well, Obama won't tell them 
how to do it. So they always hide behind the President when it's 
convenient.
  But here's the deal. It is undeniable. Let's go back to the gentleman 
from Alabama. He found a building that was so decrepit he had a 
picture, and he said to us, You can go to the owner of that building 
and get the money. Well, he could find the building to take a picture, 
but he couldn't find the owner. Because I asked him, If that's the 
case, if we can go to the owner, tell me who the owner is and let's try 
and go after him. And he left the floor because he doesn't know who the 
owner is because in some cases nobody knows who the owner is because 
the property has been abandoned or it was foreclosed upon by an entity 
that's no longer in existence.
  So join with us, make the large financial institutions and the hedge 
funds pay for this, and save the cities money that they do not have.
                                                    March 3, 2011.

     Oppose Bills That Shut Out Homeowners and Abandon Communities

     House Financial Services Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The following civil rights and 
     consumer organizations are writing to urge you to vote 
     AGAINST the four bills coming before the House Financial 
     Services Committee tomorrow that would eliminate the primary 
     foreclosure prevention lifelines available to homeowners and 
     communities struggling to make it out of our economic 
     recession. For the reasons stated below, now is precisely the 
     wrong time to end these programs.
       It is in the nation's interest to prevent foreclosures. 
     Everyone benefits when we can help families stay in their 
     homes. Preventable foreclosures cripple the overall economy 
     by adding vacant houses to the already flooded housing 
     market, further depressing housing prices and adding harmful 
     uncertainty to this critical market sector. An estimated 
     11.57 million borrowers--1 in 5--are currently in danger of 
     losing their homes. And unemployment and foreclosure now go 
     hand-in-hand. Despite the average length of unemployment now 
     at eight months, so many families who have lost their jobs or 
     seen a drop in income as a result of the recession are now 
     also losing their homes. We need to do more, not less, to 
     help these families and stabilize the economy.
       It is in the nation's interest to bring communities back. 
     When families fail, communities fail. Families who have 
     suffered foreclosure will feel the impact of foreclosure for 
     years to come. Among many destabilizing consequences, they 
     must confront their lives' disruption, the loss of their 
     credit standing, and the higher cost and limited availability 
     of future credit. But the impact of the foreclosure crisis is 
     being felt far beyond the immediate home and neighborhood. 
     This crisis has devastated entire communities, which suffer 
     from a loss of community members, the disruption of community 
     institutions, a decline in property values, and an increase 
     in vacant and abandoned properties. Virtually every community 
     across the country is feeling the fallout in the form of 
     falling tax revenues and growing budget crises. Now is not 
     the time to cut the programs created to prevent the 
     foreclosures that fuel these broader problems.
       Foreclosures continue to proceed at record levels, with 
     disproportionately heavy impacts on communities and families 
     of color, who are facing foreclosure at twice the rate of 
     other families because of discrimination. Foreclosure 
     prevention is a civil rights issue, and communities of color 
     are suffering a disproportionate loss of wealth. Several 
     studies have documented pervasive racial discrimination in 
     the distribution of subprime loans. One such study found that 
     borrowers of color are more than 30 percent more likely to 
     receive a higher-rate loan than white borrowers even after 
     accounting for differences in creditworthiness.\1\ Another 
     study found that high-income African Americans in 
     predominantly Black neighborhoods were three times more 
     likely to receive a subprime purchase loan than low-income 
     white borrowers.\2\ An analysis of loan, credit, and census 
     data has shown that even after controlling for percent 
     minority, low credit scores, poverty, and median home value, 
     ``racial segregation is clearly linked with the proportion of 
     subprime loans originated at the metropolitan level.'' \3\ 
     This research supports the conclusion that racial segregation 
     is itself an important determinant of subprime lending. The 
     resulting flood of high cost loans in communities of color 
     has artificially elevated the costs of homeownership for 
     residents of those neighborhoods.\4\
       Homeowners need more help, not less, and the mortgage and 
     servicing industry has proven to be particularly ill-equipped 
     in providing it. A massive body of recent evidence exists 
     which shows pervasive lender foreclosure processing problems 
     and problems with mortgage transfers and assignments within 
     the securitization process. These shortcomings show a deep 
     disregard for legal requirements among lenders and servicers, 
     and also demonstrate that they are badly understaffed, 
     perform poorly, and lack accountability. Problems uncovered 
     in the foreclosure process mirror the problems that 
     homeowners seeking loan modifications have experienced: 
     borrowers frequently report an inability to reach bank staff, 
     loss of paperwork that they have sent in, and little 
     oversight or enforcement.
       We cannot leave the important job of foreclosure mitigation 
     solely to an industry that has repeatedly refused to do the 
     job correctly. Just two days ago, HSBC suspended all 
     foreclosures after an investigation by federal regulators 
     uncovered ``problems in the company's processing, 
     preparation, and signing off of affidavits and other 
     documents supporting foreclosures, and in HSBC's management 
     of third-party law firms retained to carry out 
     foreclosures.'' \5\ Rather than eliminating the only 
     lifelines that help people from losing their homes, we should 
     be increasing that help. It is irresponsible to eliminate 
     these programs at a time when our nation needs them most.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
       AFL-CIO,
       Americans for Financial Reform,
       Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law,
       Center for NYC Neighborhoods,
       Center for Responsible Lending,
       Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina,
       Consumer Action,
       Consumer Federation of America,
       Empire Justice Center,
       Family Equality Council,
       HomeFree-USA,
       The Leadership Conference,
       NAACP,
       National Association of Consumer Advocates,
       National Community Reinvestment Coalition,
       National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income 
     clients),
       National Fair Housing Alliance,
       National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund,
       National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty,
       National Urban League,
       Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project,
       PICO National Network,
       SEIU,
       Woodstock Institute.


                               END NOTES

       \1\ See Bocian, D., K. Ernst, and W. Li, Unfair Lending: 
     The Effect of Race and Ethnicity on the Price of Subprime 
     Mortgages, Center for Responsible Lending, May 2006, p. 3. 
     Available at www.responsiblelending.org.
       \2\ Center for Responsible Lending's Fact Sheet on 
     Predatory Mortgage Lending, op. cit. See also HUD, Unequal 
     Burden: Income and Racial Disparities in Subprime Lending in 
     America (Washington, D.C.: HUD, 2000), and The Impending Rate 
     Shock.
       \3\ Squires, Gregory D., Derek S. Hyra, Robert N. Renner, 
     ``Segregation and the Subprime Lending Crisis,'' Paper 
     presented at the 2009 Federal Reserve System Community 
     Affairs Research Conference, Washington, DC (April 16, 2009) 
     p.l.
       \4\ For a comprehensive analysis of the relationship 
     between race and access to prime, near prime, and subprime 
     loans in a representative metropolitan area, see Institute on 
     Race and Poverty, Communities in Crisis: Race and Mortgage 
     Lending in the Twin Cities (February 2009). Available online 
     at http://www.irpumn.org/uls/resources/proiects/
IRP_mortgage_study_Feb._11th.pdf
       \5\ Bay, Carrie. ``HSBC Suspends All U.S. Foreclosures,'' 
     DSNews.com, March 1, 2011. http://www.dsnews.com/articles/
hsbc-suspends-all-us-foreclosures-2011-03-01
____

 March 7, 2011.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     Chairman, Financial Services Committee, House of 
         Representatives, 2129 Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bachus: I am writing to express my strong 
     opposition to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization 
     Program (NSP)

[[Page H1871]]

     Termination Act. NSP has helped cities across the country 
     address and mitigate the deleterious effects that vacant and 
     blighted properties have on neighborhoods and property 
     values. As a result of the foreclosure crisis, communities 
     throughout the country, including Los Angeles, face 
     significant challenges as foreclosed homes create a vicious 
     cycle of blight, neighborhood decay, and lower property 
     values. NSP has been instrumental in helping to stem this 
     downward spiral by addressing the negative effects of 
     abandoned and foreclosed properties.
       In the City of Los Angeles, where, over the past four 
     years, we have an estimated 39,000 foreclosed properties, NSP 
     has played a critical role stabilizing our fragile housing 
     market and helping to construct and rehabilitate a total of 
     1,200 housing units. Furthermore, at a time when unemployment 
     in our construction industry is at an all-time high, NSP has 
     created more than 900 jobs spurring Los Angeles' economic 
     recovery.
       Given the economic challenges facing cities today, I urge 
     the committee to continue funding for the Neighborhood 
     Stabilization Program.
           Very truly yours,
                                          Antonio R. Villaraigosa,
     Mayor.
                                  ____

         New York City Department of Housing Preservation & 
           Development,
                                     New York City, March 9, 2011.
     Rep. Spencer Backus, Chairman,
     Rep. Barney Frank, Ranking Member,
     House Financial Services Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Re H.R. 839--``The HAMP Termination Act of 2011;'' H.R. 861--
         ``NSP Termination Act''
       Dear Representatives: I am writing this letter to express 
     the City of New York's opposition to the above-referenced 
     bills coming before the House Financial Services Committee. 
     These measures would eliminate crucial foreclosure prevention 
     and neighborhood stabilization support available to 
     homeowners and communities grappling with the devastating 
     effects of the foreclosure crisis here in New York City.
       The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has been an 
     invaluable tool for homeowners throughout the city who have 
     unsustainable mortgages.
       Data shows us that permanent HAMP modifications have on 
     average saved homeowners almost $400 more in monthly payments 
     than the savings achieved by non-HAMP modifications ($1200 
     vs. $828).
       Of the permanent modifications reported by the Center for 
     New York City Neighborhood's extensive network of service 
     providers, 46% are HAMP modifications (479 out of 1036), 
     which is on par with the national average of 41%, as reported 
     by the OCC (http://tinyurl.com/4qajkkt).
       HAMP has had a tremendous impact in New York. In the NYC 
     MSA, there have been 41,785 HAMP modifications (32,785 
     permanent and 9,000 active trials), which represents 6% of 
     all HAMP activity nationwide.
       Without HAMP foreclosure prevention efforts would be 
     greatly diminished. HAMP has been critically important in 
     moving the mortgage industry to make more affordable, 
     sustainable modifications for homeowners who have the ability 
     to stay in their homes. We know from counselors on the ground 
     that the banks' own proprietary modifications have become 
     more affordable and ``HAMP-like'' since the full roll-out of 
     the program, further illustrating HAMP's impact. However, 
     HAMP must be preserved because even as the quality of non-
     HAMP modifications improves, they are not nearly as 
     beneficial as HAMP modifications.
       The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) provides 
     states and municipalities with much-needed funds to stabilize 
     neighborhoods hardest-hit by the foreclosure crisis. In NYC, 
     we have used NSP funds to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed 
     homes for resale as affordable housing.
       NSP funds are reducing the city's stock of vacant, 
     foreclosed homes that are a blight on communities. To date, 
     we have acquired 65 homes that are in various stages of 
     rehab, and on track to buy and restore 25 more. We are poised 
     to launch a program that will offer NSP funds as downpayment 
     assistance to encourage homeowners to buy foreclosed homes. 
     These programs accomplish dual goals of incentivizing 
     homeownership while also improving the housing stock in 
     neighborhoods devastated by foreclosure.
       NSP funding has also been used to assist multifamily, 
     rental buildings in distress, providing long-term 
     affordability for income-eligible families. As a result of 
     the economic downturn, New York City is witnessing an 
     increase in the number of rental buildings with deteriorating 
     physical conditions, with many of these buildings in default 
     on their mortgages. Addressing the needs of these properties 
     is putting a strain on our typical funding sources, making 
     NSP a particularly valuable tool. We have expended over $3M 
     of NSP funds on the acquisition of foreclosed multi-family 
     buildings, creating over 200 affordable rental units in The 
     Bronx and Brooklyn. At least $10 million in future NSP funds 
     will be targeted towards stabilizing some of the most 
     distressed multi-family rental housing in the City.
       As outlined here, the aforementioned programs offer 
     critical assistance to New York City families and 
     neighborhoods suffering from the harmful effects of the 
     foreclosure crisis. These programs' positive impacts are 
     extensive and they are compelling. To eliminate them now 
     would be unwise. For these reasons, The City of New York 
     opposes their termination.
           Sincerely,
                                                Rafael E. Cestero,
                                                     Commissioner.

  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The gentleman might be interested to know that there was a HOPE VI 
bill that was an amendment to that, to H.R. 3524, made by 
Representative Sessions. The amendment sought to maintain HUD's 
authority to issue demolition only grants, and that failed by a 
recorded vote of 186-221. Voting ``no'' on that was the gentleman, Mr. 
Frank and Ms. Waters, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Velazquez.
  I have been listening to all of this, and I think that everybody 
knows, we all want to get the housing market back on track. We all want 
to be able to help those that are in trouble.
  But many of my colleagues on the other side have said that if you end 
these programs there will be nothing, and that's just not true. Of the 
4.1 million mortgage modifications that were completed, 3.5 million 
were done by the private sector with no government program and not a 
dime from the taxpayers. So there is a market out there.
  There is also the Home Affordable Refinance Program, HARP, for 
homeowners. And don't forget the Hardest Hit Fund, which President 
Obama established. And in 2008, $300 million in guarantees were 
committed for homeowners, a voluntary FHA program. $475 million had 
been appropriated to Neighbor Works for foreclosure counseling. And 
finally, there are countless local, State and private sector 
initiatives.
  So let us not forget that this is being taken care of. And rather 
than have a program that really doesn't affect those that have been 
foreclosed on, it really is a program for counties, not-for-profits, 
for States, and it can cause incentives for banks and other lenders to 
foreclose on troubled borrowers, worsening and prolonging the housing 
credit crisis.
  So let's get back to what this bill really does, and it doesn't help 
taxpayers.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no 
on H.R. 861 the ``Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act''. 
Mr. Chair, the termination of a program designed and dedicated to the 
stabilization of neighborhoods suffering through the foreclosure crisis 
is simply the wrong approach.
  NSP was created to help stabilize communities that have suffered from 
foreclosures and abandonment. The program will continue to work towards 
accomplishing these goals by purchasing and redeveloping foreclosed and 
abandoned homes in communities that were distressed by the economic 
downturn. NSP grants provide much needed assistance to state and local 
governments to acquire, demolish and rehabilitate blighted properties.
  NSP funds also help to redevelop hard-hit communities, create jobs 
and grow local economies. HUD estimates that NSP alone will support 
93,000 jobs nationwide once fully implemented. Mr. Chair, with 
unemployment at 9 percent and many communities still seriously 
suffering from slow job growth, it is imperative that we support 
programs like NSP that create jobs.
  Mr. Chair, vacant and blighted properties have a serious effect on 
neighborhoods and property values. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and 
the National Community Development Association and many others have 
spoke out in favor of NSP. I urge this body to listen to the voices 
from the people on the ground in these communities. H.R. 861 does not 
address the urgent needs of these distressed communities. I urge a no 
vote on H.R. 861.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 861, the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act. The depth of our 
foreclosure crisis is astounding. According to Realty Trac we witnessed 
over one million foreclosures last year and they predict we are on 
track to break that unfortunate record once again this year.
  Furthermore, the same group found that foreclosure proceedings were 
initiated against 2.9 million of our nation's households in 2010. They 
predict this number to increase by 20 percent this year.
  With no apparent slowing of this trend, the Miami Valley region of 
Ohio has averaged roughly 7,000 foreclosures each of the last three 
years; there were more than 1100 foreclosures in just the first two 
months of this year. This is a three-fold increase from a decade ago.
  This crisis hurts individuals, families, neighborhoods, and 
communities. In my area of

[[Page H1872]]

Ohio, the foreclosures were not due to an irresponsible home buying 
``boom and bust'' cycle with dramatic increases and falling home 
values--but rather due to high unemployment caused by the deep 
recession; sharp declines in population, along with families who were 
victimized by predatory lenders and the lack of loan modification 
standards.
  The result has been an almost doubling of the vacancy rate made up 
mostly of abandon foreclosed properties. The City of Dayton currently 
has 15,000 vacant excess units with some neighborhoods seeing half of 
their units vacant.
  Foreclosed properties sit vacant for long periods of time, and not 
only become an eyesore, but a threat to public health and safety. In 
response, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program was created to help 
address this crisis with which our communities struggle.
  The resources that this program has brought to bear are continuing to 
make a considerable difference. Not only have hundreds of vacant units 
have been demolished, but the structures with value were rehabilitated 
and sold. In addition, the program has allowed localities to partner 
with local builders, trade schools for at-risk youth, universities and 
non-profits, to further leverage these funds.
  I have stood on this floor and voted time and again to cut wasteful 
spending and terminate ineffective government programs, but I cannot 
vote to end the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. In Southeast Ohio 
NSP has proven its value and demonstrated its effectiveness at 
addressing one of the biggest problems to confront my communities.
  In Southeast Ohio this program has removed long standing blight. It 
is positively affecting real estate values, training at risk youth and 
also creating jobs. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting against H.R. 861, The Neighborhood Stabilization 
Program Termination Act.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose this spurious 
legislation to eliminate a program that has helped our towns and cities 
recover from the horrible housing crisis that has taken hold of these 
communities.
  The intent of this program which I voted for was to stabilize 
neighborhoods. The legislation allowed hard-working American families 
in danger of losing their homes to refinance into lower-cost 
government-insured mortgages they can afford to repay.
  I was able to hold foreclosure workshops in cities and towns 
throughout my district to help these families at risk of losing their 
homes. With my community's help, many families were able to stay in 
their homes, keeping neighborhoods intact.
  I believe that more money should be used to keep people in their 
homes. To the administration's credit, they attempted to create other 
programs that would do that. The Republican majority has spent the last 
weeks attempting to eliminate those programs also.
  The intent of the NSP legislation, begun more than three years ago, 
was to quickly and efficiently distribute funds to neighborhoods and 
communities that have a large number of foreclosed, vacant, or bank-
owned properties. The local government's goal should be to utilize the 
funds to secure communities and neighborhoods that have unique needs as 
a result of the foreclosure crisis.
  The use of non-governmental agencies in the NSP program was 
innovative. HUD could have further been innovative and used rent to own 
to keep people in their homes.
  NSP also seeks to prevent future foreclosures by requiring housing 
counseling for families receiving homebuyer assistance. HUD seeks to 
protect future homebuyers by requiring States and local grantees to 
ensure that new homebuyers under NSP receive homeownership counseling 
and obtain a mortgage loan from a lender who agrees to comply with 
sound lending practices.
  Defeat this legislation and vote to keep people in their homes and 
our communities living and vibrant.
  I would like to submit this article from the Florida Times-Union into 
the Record about the amount of Jacksonville homes underwater.

             [From the Florida Times-Union, March 8, 2011]

  Nearly Half of Jacksonville Home Mortgages Underwater at End of 2010

                           (By Kevin Turner)

       March 8.--Nearly half of mortgages residences in 
     Jacksonville were underwater at the end of 2010--47 percent--
     primarily because their values have sunk below the amount 
     their owners owe on their mortgages.
       The phenomenon is also known as ``negative equity.'' 
     According to real estate data aggregator CoreLogic, another 
     4.8 percent of all mortgaged Jacksonville mortgages were in 
     ``near negative equity'' status, or owed the same or nearly 
     the same as much as their homes were worth.
       Combined, 51.8 percent of Jacksonville homes are underwater 
     or nearly so, according to a report released today by real 
     estate data aggregator CoreLogic.
       Although sinking values are thought to be the chief cause, 
     increases in mortgage debt are also a factor, CoreLogic 
     noted.
       The local combined underwater percentage is significantly 
     higher than the national average of 27.9 percent of mortgaged 
     homes nationwide that are underwater or near underwater. Some 
     23.1 percent were fully underwater.
       The difference in the statistic locally and nationally 
     underscores the lingering effects of bursting of the real 
     estate value bubble in hardest-hit Florida, Nevada, Arizona 
     and California.
       The Associated Press also reported:
       Nationally, the number of Americans who owe more on their 
     mortgages than their homes are worth rose at the end of last 
     year, preventing many people from selling their homes in an 
     already weak housing market.
       The percentage of homes underwater at the end of the fourth 
     quarter, at 23.1 percent, was up from 22.5 percent, or 10.8 
     million households, in the third quarter.
       The number of underwater mortgages nationally had fallen in 
     the previous three quarters, mostly because more homes had 
     fallen into foreclosure.
       Underwater mortgages typically rise when home prices fall. 
     Home prices in December hit their lowest point since the 
     housing bust in 11 of 20 major U.S. metro areas. In a healthy 
     housing market, about 5 percent of homeowners are underwater.
       About 2.4 million people have only 5 percent equity or less 
     in their homes, putting them near the tipping point if prices 
     in their area fall.
       Roughly two-thirds of homeowners in Nevada with a mortgage 
     had negative home equity, the worst in the country. Arizona, 
     Florida, Michigan and California were next, with nearly 50 
     percent of homeowners with mortgages in those states 
     underwater.
       Oklahoma had the smallest percentage of underwater 
     homeowners in the October-December quarter, at 5.8 percent. 
     Only nine states recorded percentages less than 10 percent.
       When a mortgage is underwater, the homeowner often can't 
     qualify for mortgage refinancing and has little recourse but 
     to continue making payments in hopes the property eventually 
     regains its value.
       The slide in home prices began stabilizing last year. But 
     prices are expected to continue falling in many markets due 
     to still-high levels of foreclosure and unemployment.
       That means homes purchased at the height of the real estate 
     boom are unlikely to recover lost value for years.
       Underwater mortgages also dampen home sales. Homeowners who 
     might otherwise sell their home refuse to take a loss or 
     can't get the bank to agree to a short sale--when a lender 
     lets a borrower sell their property for less than the amount 
     owed on the mortgage.
       Home sales have been weaker in areas where there are a 
     large number of homeowners with negative equity.
       The total amount of negative equity increased to $751 
     billion nationwide, up from $744 billion in the previous 
     quarter.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Termination Act, or H.R. 861, a bill to 
eliminate the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). I would like to 
shed light on the positive impact the Neighborhood Stabilization 
Program has had on neighborhoods and communities across the country and 
particularly in Chicago, Illinois, as well as dispel myths my 
Republican colleagues have been passing off as the truth.
  The Neighborhood Stabilization Program is one of several programs 
targeted for elimination by House Republicans. These are programs that 
are helping middle-class and working-class Americans avoid losing their 
homes through the calamity of foreclosure. While imperfect, these 
programs are literally keeping a roof over people's heads, keeping 
families together, and preserving the fabric of American neighborhoods.
  Let's not forget, Congress bailed out financial institutions when 
they hit rock bottom and Congress acted to shore up the economy when it 
was on the brink of a deeper crisis.
  But now Republicans are saying we can't afford programs that lend a 
hand to American homeowners in their hour of greatest need? That's not 
the America I know, that's not the America that families need, and that 
is not the America we were sent to Washington to protect. Let's help 
our neighbors and our neighborhoods and not leave them to fend for 
themselves during these tough times.
  Recently, several worthy and notable organizations, such as Chicanos 
Por la Causa (CPLC), have been specifically targeted by my Republican 
colleagues for the funds they've received under the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program. Let me make this clear, Chicanos Por La Causa is 
the lead applicant for a national consortium of non-profit affordable 
housing developers that have received federal funding to revitalize 
neighborhoods in eight states and the District of Colombia that have 
been negatively impacted by foreclosures and abandoned properties. 
CPLC, which was awarded $137 million to address foreclosed and vacant 
properties, submitted one of the highest scoring grants. The grant to 
CPLC increased the equitable allocation of NSP funds by providing the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with important

[[Page H1873]]

tools to help American communities. Specifically, it provided HUD with 
a method for investing through 13 consortium members in a mix of urban 
and rural communities that have been hardest hit by the foreclosure 
crisis, and in predominately Latino communities through organizations 
that provide culturally and linguistically competent services.
  Currently, there are approximately 1.3 million Latinos who are in the 
process of foreclosure or have already lost their homes. There is no 
doubt the Latino community has been disproportionately affected by the 
foreclosure crisis. For this reason, Chicanos Por La Causa, together 
with the National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders, have 
helped blighted communities repair the devastation and distress that 
comes with abandoned properties. The Resurrection Project is one of the 
organizations under this consortium that is in my own backyard in 
Chicago. The Resurrection Project has served the Back of the Yards 
community in my district by investing $12 million in NSP funds to help 
stabilize the community. Back of the Yards is one the poorest and most 
blighted communities in my district and one of the hardest hit by the 
foreclosure crisis. These funds will certainly assist with the recovery 
efforts and revitalize this historic neighborhood in the city of 
Chicago.
  Mr. Chair, our nation is facing extraordinarily dire economic times. 
American homeowners, our neighborhoods, and our communities do not 
deserve to have Congress turn our backs on them in the hour of greatest 
need. I believe the Neighborhood Stabilization Program is vital to our 
states, to our cities, and to our communities that have been hardest 
hit by the largest housing crisis of our generation. This is why I am 
opposing the Neighborhood Stabilization Termination Act. Two weeks ago 
I submitted a letter for the record during the Insurance, Housing and 
Community Opportunity Subcommittee hearing on foreclosure mitigation 
programs targeted for elimination. The letter was submitted on behalf 
of the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, 
U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Community Development Association, 
National Association for County Community and Economic Development, 
Council of State Community Development Agencies, and the Enterprise 
Community Partners, Inc., all of whom support this very valuable 
neighborhood revitalization program. I ask my colleagues to stand with 
our neighborhoods and our communities and vote no on this bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition 
to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act.
  The Neighborhood Stabilization Program was established in 2008 to 
help stabilize communities across American that has suffered from 
foreclosures and abandonment.
  Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds give states and local 
governments the tools needed to purchase and redevelop foreclosed and 
abandoned homes.
  Without this funding whole neighborhoods suffer sliding real estate 
values, increases in crime, and decreases in the overall morale of its 
citizens.
  From the total Neighborhood Stabilization Program appropriations of 
$7 billion, HUD estimates that 100,000 properties in the hardest- hit 
areas will be impacted.
  In my district, Dallas, Texas, a little over 7.9 million dollars was 
awarded through Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding.
  At the beginning of the foreclosure crisis Dallas' housing market 
suffered from an average of 300 foreclosures a month.
  The City of Dallas has identified 13 areas in the city that can 
benefit from this funding.
  Without programs like the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, 
neighborhoods in my area would have nowhere else to turn.
  Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds help to redevelop hard-hit 
communities, creates jobs, and grows local economies.
  With nearly 14 million Americans out of a job, Americans need a 
Republican Congress that works to create jobs and strengthen the 
economy.
  In the last 11 weeks, the House Republicans have passed reckless 
spending proposals estimated to destroy 700,000 jobs and stall our 
economic growth.
  I encourage my colleague to stand by struggling neighborhoods and 
vote no on this measure.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 861, the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Termination Act. This bill 
stops in its tracks the successful efforts to rebuild neighborhoods 
hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. The Neighborhood Stabilization 
Program has provided resources to allow cities and states to 
rehabilitate foreclosed and abandoned homes that are driving down home 
prices and destabilizing neighborhoods.
  In Rhode Island, we were hit early and hard by the housing crisis. We 
currently have the fourth highest unemployment rate, and Rhode 
Islanders are struggling with mortgage payments due to the loss of jobs 
through no fault of their own. This program has provided the state with 
much needed resources to stabilize our housing market and create new 
low-income housing. Rhode Island housing agencies have warned me that 
ending this program would be detrimental to their efforts to build 
homes, save buildings, stabilize blighted neighborhoods, and most 
importantly, put Rhode Islanders to work.
  In my district, $800,000 out of Rhode Island's NSP funds went to 
creating a new building that houses 12 homeless veterans, a police 
station, and commercial space. This funding also helped create two 
additional apartments for homeless veterans in a nearby building that 
also includes a social services office for the residents. This 
legislation would stop projects that are already planned to create jobs 
that would support 90 affordable homes and apartments in the most at-
risk neighborhoods.
  Mr. Chair, without the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Rhode 
Island would not have been able to undertake this remarkable 
partnership, as well as numerous other successful examples around the 
State that have brought together Federal, State, business and community 
organization efforts.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 861, which will 
terminate an important Federal response to the mortgage crisis that 
continues to threaten American economic growth.
  Last week, House Republicans voted to terminate the Federal Housing 
Administration (FHA) Refinance Program, a promising foreclosure 
prevention program directed toward responsible homeowners. Today, we 
are considering terminating a program that helps stabilize communities 
rocked by massive foreclosure and home abandonment. With about 13.7 
million Americans struggling with unemployment, I urge the Republican 
leadership to focus on creating jobs, not on terminating programs. It 
is time to be constructive, not destructive.
  Mr. Speaker, I am starkly opposed to H.R. 861, which would terminate 
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). This important program 
provides grants to State and local governments and eligible entities to 
buy and restore abandoned and foreclosed properties. This funding 
allows the hardest hit communities, like those in my home state of 
Michigan, to start tearing down dilapidated properties with an eye 
toward shrinking struggling cities and rehabilitating healthy 
neighborhoods. This funding helps increase nearby property values and 
decrease the risk of foreclosure for remaining residents. It also 
enables communities to cut down on havens for criminal activity, 
reducing law enforcement costs. Several communities in my Congressional 
District, like Dearborn, Taylor, and Inkster have benefited from this 
program, and its continued funding is crucial for local governments to 
respond to the mortgage crisis. If my Republican colleagues refuse to 
believe NSP is a wise public investment, I extend an invitation for 
them to visit my home state and witness the critical impact this 
program has on hard-hit communities.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 861

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``NSP Termination Act''.

     SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF $1 BILLION FUNDING FOR 3RD ROUND OF 
                   NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM.

       Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, there 
     are rescinded and permanently canceled all unobligated 
     balances remaining available as of such date of enactment of 
     the amounts made available by section 1497(a) of the Dodd-
     Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public 
     Law 111-203; 124 Stat. 2209; 42 U.S.C. 5301 note).

     SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Sections 2301 through 2303 of the Housing and 
     Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-289; 122 Stat. 
     2850; 42 U.S.C. 5301 note) are hereby repealed.
       (b) Treatment of Remaining Funds.--
       (1) Savings clause.--Notwithstanding the repeal under 
     subsection (a), any amounts made available under the 
     provisions specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection 
     shall continue to be governed by any provisions of

[[Page H1874]]

     law applicable to such amounts as in effect immediately 
     before such repeal.
       (2) Remaining funds.--The provisions specified in this 
     paragraph are as follows:
       (A) Section 2301(a) of the Housing and Economic Recovery 
     Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-289; 122 Stat. 2850; 42 U.S.C. 
     5301 note).
       (B) The second undesignated paragraph under the heading 
     ``Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community 
     Planning and Development, Community Development Fund'' in 
     title XII of division A of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5, 123 Stat. 217).
       (c) Termination.--Upon the obligation of all amounts made 
     available under the provisions specified in subsection 
     (b)(2), and outlays to liquidate all such amounts, the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall terminate 
     the Neighborhood Stabilization Program authorized under the 
     provisions specified in subsections (a) and (b)(2).

     SEC. 4. PUBLICATION OF MEMBER AVAILABILITY FOR ASSISTANCE.

       Not later than 5 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall publish to its Website on the World Wide Web in a 
     prominent location, large point font, and boldface type the 
     following statement: ``The Neighborhood Stabilization Program 
     (NSP) has been terminated. If you are concerned about the 
     impact of foreclosed properties on your community, please 
     contact your Member of Congress, State, county, and local 
     officials for assistance in mitigating the impacts of 
     foreclosed properties on your community.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order except 
those printed in part B of House Report 112-34. Each such amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report (except that 
amendment No. 9 and amendment No. 10 may be offered only en bloc), may 
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


                             Motion to Rise

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential motion at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Mr. ELLISON moves that the Committee do now rise and report the bill 
to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes 
in support of his motion.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I rise to make this motion today because I'm 
opposed to the underlying bill, the NSP Termination Act.
  Mr. Chair, in the course of this debate on the termination of 
foreclosure mitigation programs, including this bill, we've been 
enmeshed in a huge debate around what the proper role of government is.
  The Republican Caucus clearly thinks that government has no role, 
that citizens are on their own, and that no matter how much devastation 
a particular phenomenon like the foreclosure crisis has caused, that 
citizens just have no help in the government. The government can't be 
there for them.
  And, on the other hand, the Democratic Caucus, we believe that, in 
the proper circumstances, the government has an important role and does 
need to be there for the American people, and when we see property 
values dropping, whole neighborhoods destroyed, that we should do 
something about it.
  This motion to strike the enacting clause, according to Rule XVIII, 
clause 9, ``if carried in the House, shall constitute a rejection of 
the bill.''
  And, Mr. Chair, I urge that we do reject this bill. This bill is an 
affront and an insult at a time when Americans have seen over 4 million 
foreclosures across this Nation, devastating whole communities, 
devastating communities and wiping out city and municipal budgets, so 
that cities, when they have abandoned properties in their 
neighborhoods, are left with tearing them down and demolishing them on 
the nickel of the taxpayer in that city when, in fact, this is a 
community-wide problem.
  There's no money in many cities to do the demolition. So what will 
happen is that an old, burned-out hulk will sit there and sit there as 
neighbors look on and see the property values in their homes plummet. 
And what we'll see, Mr. Chair, is people leaving dogs there. Perhaps 
the house will be an attractive nuisance. Perhaps some crime will be 
committed there, drug dealing there, dead animals left there, and 
neighborhoods will fall deeper and deeper in despair.
  I grew up in the city of Detroit. I'm honored to represent the Fifth 
District of Minneapolis today, but I grew up in the city of Detroit, 
and I saw how the foreclosures in that city ripped that town apart. And 
the good people of that city had to sit by and watch folks burn houses. 
They would put them on fire, and years later, no money to demolish them 
that the city had, and it just helped folks say that, You know what? 
I'm going to leave this city because I can't stand to live here with 
that big hulk right next to my home. Who's going to help out?
  Well, according to the Republican Caucus, that's not the proper role 
of government. And this is really what this is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I've heard our friends in the Republican Caucus talk 
about jobs, yet they haven't introduced one single jobs bill, and we've 
been here for 11 weeks.
  They talk about the deficit and go on and on ad nauseam about putting 
debt on our children and grandchildren. And yet, when they had the 
chance to raise revenue so that we could, in fact, pay the bills of 
this country, they were absolutely and adamantly opposed to it.
  But now, when we see Americans have their neighborhoods slipping into 
oblivion, slipping into a situation where people can't live in their 
neighborhood and people can't sell their homes so they're just 
suffering, the Republican Caucus said, There's nothing we can do for 
you either.

                              {time}  1520

  They don't really demonstrate a commitment to jobs. They don't really 
demonstrate a commitment to even dealing with the deficit, at least not 
through revenue raising. They have a commitment to set Americans 
adrift, on their own.
  I make this motion to correct the record on this Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program. This isn't a broken or ineffective program that 
should be eliminated. It is a vitally important program for local and 
State governments that need all the resources they can get to address 
neighborhoods that are overrun by foreclosures.
  According to HUD, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has 
supported close to 100,000 jobs nationwide. They will be eliminated if 
we pass this bill. That's right. The Republicans, again, are cutting 
another 100,000 jobs for working Americans.
  So, Mr. Chair, what does the Neighborhood Stabilization Program do?
  It helps local and State governments renovate abandoned and 
foreclosed properties. It helps local governments revitalize 
communities instead of watching these neighborhoods deteriorate. It 
gives communities the ability to get back on their feet as quickly as 
possible.
  In my district, the city of Minneapolis has put NSP funding to good 
use. Thomas Streitz is the director of Housing and Policy Development 
for the city of Minneapolis, and he explains: ``The Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program has enabled the city of Minneapolis to stabilize 
neighborhoods throughout the city affected by foreclosure. Funding to 
date has impacted more than 530 properties, and with the additional 
funding sought, 56 more properties could be rehabilitated, bringing 
even more homeowners back into neighborhoods.''
  I believe the NSP is a good investment.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The question is on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 240, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 182]

                               AYES--183

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn

[[Page H1875]]


     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Berman
     Burton (IN)
     Cohen
     Garrett
     Giffords
     Labrador
     Nadler
     Perlmutter
     Smith (NJ)

                              {time}  1549

  Messrs. BENISHEK, MANZULLO, ALTMIRE, HELLER and TERRY and Ms. HERRERA 
BEUTLER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GENE GREEN of Texas and RUPPERSBERGER and Ms. LEE changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ellison

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-34.
  Mr. ELLISON. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, line 4, before ``Effective'' insert ``(a) 
     Rescission.--''.
       Page 5, after line 10, insert the following new subsection:
       (b) Identification of Amounts Subject to Possible 
     Rescission.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development has allocated funding to the States, including 
     city, county, and municipal governments, under the 3rd round 
     of funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, as set 
     forth in paragraph (2). Amounts from the allocations set 
     forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection will be subject to 
     possible rescission and cancellation, to the extent provided 
     in subsection (a).
       (2) Allocation.--The allocations set forth in this 
     paragraph for the following States are the following amounts:
       (A) Alaska: $5,000,000.
       (B) Alabama: $7,576,151.
       (C) Arizona: $45,377,073.
       (D) Arkansas: $5,000,000.
       (E) California: $149,308,651.
       (F) Colorado: $17,349,270.
       (G) Connecticut: $9,322,756.
       (H) District of Columbia: $5,000,000.
       (I) Delaware: $5,000,000.
       (J) Florida: $208,437,144.
       (K) Georgia: $50,421,988.
       (L) Hawaii: $5,000,000.
       (M) Iowa: $5,000,000.
       (N) Idaho: $5,000,000.
       (O) Illinois: $30,143,105.
       (P) Indiana: $31,509,101.
       (Q) Kansas: $6,137,796.
       (R) Kentucky: $5,000,000.
       (S) Louisiana: $5,000,000.
       (T) Massachusetts: $7,387,994.
       (U) Maryland: $6,802,242.
       (V) Maine: $5,000,000.
       (W) Michigan: $57,524,473.
       (X) Minnesota: $12,427,113.
       (Y) Missouri: $13,110,604.
       (Z) Mississippi: $5,000,000.
       (AA) Montana: $5,000,000.
       (BB) North Carolina: $5,000,000.
       (CC) North Dakota: $5,000,000.
       (DD) Nebraska: $6,183,085.
       (EE) New Hampshire: $5,000,000.
       (FF) New Jersey: $11,641,549.
       (GG) New Mexico: $5,000,000.
       (HH) Nevada: $43,314,669.
       (II) New York: $19,834,940.
       (JJ) Ohio: $51,789,035.
       (KK) Oklahoma: $5,000,000.
       (LL) Oregon: $5,000,000.
       (MM) Pennsylvania: $5,000,000.
       (NN) Puerto Rico: $5,000,000.
       (OO) Rhode Island: $6,309,231.
       (PP) South Carolina: $5,615,020.
       (QQ) South Dakota: $5,000,000.
       (RR) Tennessee: $10,195,848.
       (SS) Texas: $18,038,242.
       (TT) Utah: $5,000,000.
       (UU) Virginia: $6,254,970.
       (VV) Vermont: $5,000,000;
       (WW) Washington: $5,000,000.
       (XX) Wisconsin: $7,687,949.
       (YY) West Virginia: $5,000,000.
       (ZZ) Wyoming: $5,000,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The middle class is shrinking and deficits are rising because the 
Republicans are giving a pass to special interests who cheated 
homeowners and wrecked our economy. Instead of working to keep middle 
class families in their homes, the Republican plan is to foreclose on 
the American middle class. The American people sent us here to protect 
the American Dream, not to perpetuate a Wall Street nightmare. 
Democrats are standing with the American people to create good-paying 
American jobs and to keep them in their homes. Democrats are working to 
ensure that every American who wants a good job, can find one, and that 
middle class Americans can afford to buy a home and live the American 
Dream.
  The legislation on the floor today proposes cutting funding for the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Republicans want to foreclose on 
the middle class, and my amendment forces Members to look at how this 
legislation will impact their State. So far, for each Member, if you 
read my amendment, you will see how much funding may be

[[Page H1876]]

cut from your State. My feeling is that before Republicans vote to cut 
funding for a successful housing program and a foreclosure mitigation 
program, they should know how much funding is at risk for their State 
and what the people back home are going to think about their vote.
  This legislation to cut housing funding makes it clear that the 
majority is not focused on creating jobs. The Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program helps local communities redevelop abandoned and 
foreclosed properties, and that funding helps to create jobs. It takes 
workers to demolish an abandoned building.
  Overall, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has created about 
93,000 jobs. This legislation to cut NSP funding is just another bill 
offered up by the majority that will actually cut jobs. The 
unemployment rate is currently 8.9 percent. This rate is far too high. 
It is wasting human capital. People's skills and talents are sitting on 
the sidelines instead of being put to good use and earning a good 
paycheck. Unemployed Americans are ready to get back to work, and we 
must use every tool at our disposal to create new jobs.
  Instead of creating jobs, the Republican majority is launching an 
attack on American workers and foreclosing on the American Dream. The 
Republican plan to cut funding and cut jobs won't help our economy. 
It's going to do the opposite. It's going to hold back our economic 
recovery. The continuing resolution passed last month by the majority 
would cut $60 billion from programs and agencies that help the middle 
class and working families.
  Economist Mark Zandi has estimated these cuts would result in the 
loss of 700,000 jobs. We can't afford to add to the already 
unacceptably high level of unemployment in this country. Republicans in 
Congress are pushing a reckless and irresponsible plan that protects 
tax breaks for millionaires and giveaways for corporate special 
interests at the expense of the middle class.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to vote against the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I'm not opposed to this amendment. 
This amendment only deals with stage three of a project that should 
have only been one phase. Now, I wish they would have talked about 
phase two because I wish you would study where the money went on phase 
two. Because in phase two alone, we give away $1.3 billion to 
nongovernment entities, incorporated businesses that are nonprofit.
  But you have to say we did not stop a foreclosure. We just gave away 
in NSP2 $1.3 billion. Of that, Neighborhood Lending Partners received 
$50 million. They do not have to pay it back. Now, they can take that 
$50 million--I'm sure they're a very reputable company. I'm not 
accusing anybody of anything. But they can sell those houses for any 
amount to whomever they want as long as it's below the price they have 
invested in business.
  Community Builders, Inc., $78.6 million; Los Angeles Neighborhood 
Housing, Services, Inc., $60 million; Neighborhood Lending Partners of 
West Florida, Inc., $50 million; Chicanos Por la Causa, Inc., $137 
million.
  I wish we would have taken the time to review those and say how was 
the money spent, but HUD did some work for us. So let's see what HUD 
did.
  HUG and OIG audited the State of Kansas Neighborhood Stabilization 
Program, NSP1, and found that the State improperly obligated more than 
$12 million of its NSP1 funds. HUD and OIG audited the Sacramento 
Housing Redevelopment Agency of Sacramento, California, and found the 
agency did not administer its NSP funds in accordance with HUD rules 
and regulations. Specifically, it allowed ineligible properties to be 
rehabilitated; did not adequately monitor projects, which resulted in 
ineligible costs; permitted the developer to make unnecessary upgrades 
and overinflated construction budgets; did not ensure that it met the 
reporting requirements; and lacked management controls. I wish we would 
have audited this one in this amendment, too.
  HUD and OIG audited the city and county of Denver, Colorado, NSP1, 
and found that the city improperly obligated more than $1.5 of its NSP 
funds by recording its funds as obligated. HUD and OIG reviewed the 
city of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and found that the city generally 
administered its program, however sometimes inconsistent with 
identifying obligations and was not always accurate on reporting to 
HUD. On Louisville, Kentucky, again, very similar to the previous.
  Augusta, Georgia. Did not have internal controls in place to perform 
continuous and routine monitoring of its obligation process to ensure 
its obligations were processed as intended. HUD and OIG reviewed Clark 
County, Nevada NSP and found that Clark County needs to revise its 
written procedures and developer agreements to ensure that properties 
to be sold to eligible home buyers will be sold at a price permitted by 
NSP requirements, which means they probably were selling it at too much 
money.
  So although I do support the amendment at hand, I wish it would have 
reviewed phase one and two.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Two particular points, Mr. Chair. One is that, first of all, there's 
never been a program from any State, Federal, or local program that did 
not need review. I can tell you that in the city of Minneapolis, and in 
many other places, this program has been high quality and has been 
well, well run.
  Now, the question is interesting because if the gentleman wanted to 
talk about inefficiencies in a program, we could talk about fixing 
those programs. We're not talking about fixing the NSP program. We're 
talking about eliminating it. So I think if this was a sincerely made 
point, that we would be talking about how we can improve the program. 
We should mend it, not end it.
  Secondly, this amendment that I'm offering tries to inform Members as 
to the losses that their communities will endure by cutting the 
program. This program elimination will be felt across America in local 
communities where foreclosures are happening, and in those particular 
communities Members should know what is going to happen: that 
expenditures for demolishing and rehabilitating abandoned homes are not 
going to be there any more. And I think it's important the Members 
should know. And I think it's important that the people who live in the 
Members' communities should know.
  And so I ask that the amendment be adopted.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I disagree. It's not time to amend and pretend. It's time to end.
  The problem with this program is I highlighted you a few violations, 
but it's really hard to violate the program requirements because there 
are so few requirements. It says, We're going to give you money. You 
can buy property, you can demolish houses. You can buy property, you 
can rehabilitate those properties. You have vast guidelines on how you 
rehabilitate them. In fact, an organization is not even required to 
have competitive bids. I can say I need some framing done, I can lend a 
sole source contract. Only one person applied--that's the person I 
asked to apply--and I can pay them the moneys I deem appropriate.
  It says you have to sell the house for less than you have in it. It 
doesn't say you should attempt to try to sell at fair market value, 
although I have given you a list previously of how much you can make, 
which is quite a bit of money, and buy these houses. It just says you 
cannot sell them for more. It does not restrict them on who you sell 
them to; it does not restrict on whose affiliation you have that might 
be buying them. In fact, it's almost impossible to have a conflict of 
interest because there's conflict designed within the bill.
  So we can say let's amend and pretend, but let's just end.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page H1877]]

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  1600


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hurt

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-34.
  Mr. HURT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order 
under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, line 10, after the period add the following: ``All 
     such unobligated balances so rescinded and permanently 
     canceled should be retained in the General Fund of the 
     Treasury for reducing the budget deficit of the Federal 
     Government.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Hurt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. HURT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Miller, Chairman 
Bachus and Chairman Biggert, for their leadership on this very 
important issue.
  The Neighborhood Stabilization Program is another misdirected, 
multibillion-dollar bailout that hurts struggling homeowners by 
incentivizing lenders to foreclose properties rather than continue to 
work with those who are facing tough economic challenges.
  At a time when our Nation faces over $14 trillion in debt, $1.6 
trillion in deficit spending, and we are borrowing over 40 cents on 
every dollar we spend, we cannot continue to have taxpayers foot the 
bill for these unaccountable government programs that do nothing to 
solve the problems for which they were originally intended and harm our 
economic recovery. That is why I am offering an amendment to H.R. 861 
which would direct all unobligated funds to be returned to the Treasury 
to reduce the deficit of the Federal Government once the program is 
terminated.
  The people of Virginia's Fifth District called for serious and bold 
change last November. By working to reduce the size and scope of the 
Federal Government, save taxpayer dollars and rein in out-of-control 
spending, we are listening to the people and taking the first steps to 
change the culture in our Nation's Capitol so that we can grow the 
economy and create jobs for all central and southside Virginians and 
all Americans.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying 
bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's 
anybody exactly in opposition to the amendment because it doesn't do 
anything, but there is some opposition to the rhetoric; so I will claim 
the time in opposition to the gentleman's speech.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In the first place, there is a consistent 
misunderstanding on the Republican side manifested by their talking 
about this as a program that there was foreclosed property. That, of 
course, allows them conveniently to pretend that, for every piece of 
property that a city is stuck with, there is an entity that stood 
behind it that foreclosed and can be sued. But that's not true.
  This is not only about foreclosed property. It is about foreclosed 
and abandoned property, and there is property that has been abandoned. 
It has been abandoned by the owner who's walked away. It has been 
abandoned by some financial institutions that did not have the 
substance of banks. There is demonstrably property in the cities which 
cannot be traced.
  The chairman of the committee displayed a picture before of a beat-up 
piece of property and said, Look at this piece of property. It's so far 
gone, who would want to buy it?
  We said, No one would. It should be demolished. Tell us who owns it.
  He said, You can always find out who owns it--except for that piece 
of property.
  So it's not just about foreclosed property. Somebody has to demolish 
property where there is no owner. Somebody has to demolish property 
where there is no responsible party standing behind it. I just left the 
Chamber to meet with three firefighters from the city of Fall River in 
my district. They were appalled at the notion that they would be left 
in the city of Fall River to deal with abandoned property, which is a 
set of fire traps, and not have any help. So for that reason, I believe 
that we ought to be clear that this is not about only foreclosed 
property. And some property, by the way, has been foreclosed upon by 
entities that are bankrupt, by entities that have no funds.
  The other point I would make, though, is this. I do agree with my 
colleagues that we should do something about the deficit. Now, I wish 
that they listened to that when we subsidized agriculture or when we 
sent money to Afghanistan and Iraq for their social purposes. But I 
have an alternative. I will repeat again, and they'll ignore it all 
day, I know. In the bill that originally authorized this billion 
dollars, we required that it be funded not by the general revenues but 
by a special assessment on financial institutions that have $50 billion 
or more in assets and hedge funds at $10 billion.
  Now let's be clear, Mr. Chairman. Members on the other side know this 
bill is unlikely to become law. Indeed, some have even said they 
understand the money will be spent before it can move. So the billion 
dollars is almost certainly going to be spent. My colleagues now have a 
choice. They can allow it to be spent by the taxpayers, or they can 
reconsider their opposition to our proposal of last summer and assess 
this on the large financial institutions and hedge funds. By the way, 
some of it, it is true, was caused by banks and some of it will go to 
banks.
  But here's the answer. Instead of complaining that some of this will 
go to banks, join us and have it all come from banks and from hedge 
funds. But please, Mr. Chairman, let's not perpetuate the myth that, 
for every piece of property with which our poorer cities and rural 
areas are burdened, there is somebody they can go and sue and get it 
down. In fact, the gentleman from California himself has said, well, 
they can get a bulldozer and tear it down. Those bulldozers cost money. 
The people driving the bulldozers cost money.
  So we believe that the approach should be to take money from the 
large financial institutions and from the hedge funds and take the 
billion dollars from them and provide it to municipalities and groups 
like Habitat for Humanity and others who will use it either to tear 
down the property, in some cases, or rehabilitate the property and make 
it affordable housing.
  That, Mr. Chairman, is the choice between us. Again, I want to 
stress, this notion that it is only foreclosed property is a 
misstatement with a purpose, because it means that you ignore the fact 
that much of the property existing in the cities is abandoned and will 
only be dealt with by the city spending its own money or, by our 
preferred mode, having the large financial institutions and the hedge 
funds join us.
  So I hope at some point today, one member of the majority will tell 
us whether or not they agree, Mr. Chairman, that if this program 
survives, we should get it not from the taxpayer and not from the 
property taxpayers of our cities or rural areas but from the large 
financial institutions. That's what I hope will happen.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HURT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Thank you for yielding.
  I totally support the gentleman from Virginia's amendment. This is 
doing the right thing. It is saying, we're going to take a billion 
dollars back of your money, the taxpayers, and we're going to pay off 
the deficit that we've created for you.
  It's about time we start paying down the debt. We cannot continue to 
spend dollars we don't have. Forty percent of every dollar we spend 
today is financed through the Treasury because we don't have the money. 
We're spending deficit dollars and it has to stop.
  But I want to return to the argument that my good friend makes. And I 
respect my good friend. He knows that.

[[Page H1878]]

Somebody owned a home sometime, someplace, somewhere. Now, the 
individual who owned it, because it wasn't created by a miracle. 
Somebody built the house, somebody sold it to somebody, the individual 
might have gotten a loan on it from the bank. If the individual 
defaulted on the loan, the bank might have taken the house back. But 
the Federal Government and the local agencies look at taxes. We look at 
income taxes. The local governments, the city, the county, looks at 
property taxes. Somebody, some institution, is listed on the property 
tax bill.
  Now, at some point in time, they're going to continue to notice the 
owner, whoever it might be. If it's an heir, you're going to get a 
notice, and it's going to say you did not pay your property taxes. At 
some point in time, that piece of property, home, vacated, abandoned, 
whatever it may be, is going up for a sale for property taxes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. What if it is abandoned and it is of not 
much value and has to be torn down, so people buy it and tear it down?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I reclaim the balance of my time.
  If it's a public safety issue, a local government has a right to 
demolish property based on public safety. That assessment could be 
placed against the tax bill. At some point in time, the local 
government, if they so choose, if nobody wants to pay a dollar for that 
property, can buy it based on the tax basis for a dollar. The problem 
with that is, once the government entity buys the property, it's taken 
off the tax rolls.
  Some of my colleagues have talked about police and fire and the 
benefit to them. The worst thing you can do is eliminate funding 
through taxation to police and fire.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I would be happy to.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We were told, for instance, by Detroit 
and Cleveland, they have abandoned property. There is no owner they can 
find. Who's going to pay to knock it down?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I reclaim the balance of my time.
  If you go to any title company, it will list who the owner of record 
is. Regardless, if you can find that entity or individual, it will list 
it. Regardless of who it is, at some point in time, it goes to a tax 
sale.

                              {time}  1610

  At that point in time, the local government or an investor can buy it 
at a much reduced price for just the tax lien against it, and if it's 
abandoned and demolished and not worth anything, the tax bill is going 
to be very low. So somebody can pick up a very good deal on a piece of 
property by waiting for a tax sale. But if they choose not to and they 
want to go out and just buy it as a city or a county, they can do that 
and get a very good deal on it. So to assume that because nobody can 
find an owner out there, somebody is listed, and the government has a 
right to foreclose based on taxes.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ellison

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the voice vote by which amendment No. 1 was rejected be vacated to 
the end that the Chair put the question de novo.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The earlier voice vote is vacated.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ellison

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-34.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, after line 25, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has assisted 
     local governments across the United States in alleviating 
     many of the impacts of abandoned and foreclosed properties, 
     including the increased code enforcement, maintenance, and 
     demolition costs resulting from abandoned and/or foreclosed 
     properties;
       (2) the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has assisted 
     local governments across the United States in alleviating 
     many of the impacts of abandoned and foreclosed properties, 
     including the decreased property tax revenues due to unpaid 
     property taxes on abandoned and/or foreclosed properties;
       (3) the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has supported 
     93,000 jobs nationwide and impacted over 100,000 properties 
     across the country;
       (4) the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, including the 
     third round of funding made available by section 1497(a) of 
     the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
     Act, provides funding for State and local governments to 
     redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes; and
       (5) by voting to terminate the Neighborhood Stabilization 
     Program under this Act without a suggested replacement, the 
     Congress is eliminating an effective program that has been 
     used to provide affordable housing, create jobs, leverage 
     private investment, and improve communities.
       Page 5, line 1, strike ``SEC. 2.'' and insert ``SEC. 3.''.
       Page 5, line 11, strike ``SEC. 3.'' and insert ``SEC. 4.''.
       Page 6, line 17, ``SEC. 3.'' and insert ``SEC. 5.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, the middle class is shrinking and deficits are rising 
because the Republicans are giving a pass to special interests who 
cheated some homeowners and wrecked our economy. Instead of working to 
keep the middle class families in their homes, the Republican plan is 
to foreclose on the American middle class.
  The amendment I have right here in front of you describes findings 
which talk about the positive benefits of the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program. This program is a good program, and no matter 
what may happen here today, the record should reflect the benefits of 
this program. This program was good, and the amendment offers language 
which sets forth findings, and the findings state the positive impacts 
of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, including assisting local 
governments, supporting jobs, and impacting approximately 100,000 
properties.
  The highlights of this amendment about the Neighborhood Stabilization 
Program talk about the positive benefits to the communities that the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program benefited--it helped local 
governments, and the fact is, Mr. Chair, local governments really did 
benefit from this program, and the record should reflect and the bill 
should report language that talks about those benefits.
  I'd like to just say this as well, Mr. Chair. The fact is that it is 
true that once an abandoned property is sitting there on the tax rolls 
after a certain amount of time somebody may at some point buy it, as 
the gentleman on the other side says. But what happens in the meantime? 
In the meantime, the grass grows, dead cats and dogs get left there. In 
the meantime, the windows are broken. In the meantime, people's 
property values plummet. In the meantime, we have an attractive 
nuisance where young people might be pulled in and taken advantage of. 
Horrible stories have happened, Mr. Chair.
  So the gentleman has been right in his argument that sometime in the 
future maybe somebody will buy this rundown, abandoned, stripped-out 
property with no copper left in it, with neighbors who have just been 
decimated in the value of their homes, but that would be a far cry from 
what we could do. And if we're going to terminate this program, which 
has helped so many local governments, we should at least put language 
and findings in the record which reflect the positive aspects of this 
program, including the 93,000 jobs that we're getting rid of and

[[Page H1879]]

the 100,000 properties that we've already helped, and the more that we 
could help.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. If you want to talk about 
attractive nuisances, let's talk about next April when people have to 
pay their taxes. You're going to find out that government has become an 
incredible attractive nuisance to most people.
  We're talking about middle class is shrinking, yeah, we're taxing 
them to death, and we're not only taxing them to death, but we're 
spending money on programs like this that is not an investment but is 
just a giveaway of tax dollars. Now we say we can't find the data to 
support that we bought 100,000 properties, but let's say we bought 
100,000 properties. Somebody has the money, the $6 billion going on $7 
billion, that we've given them. That's about 20,000 homes per State. 
Now you break that down to high-impact counties, compared to the 
millions of homes out there that are in foreclosure, these 100,000 
homes have already been abandoned or foreclosed. I will say abandoned 
because the other side of the aisle wants to talk about abandoned 
homes, but they're homes that somebody does not live in anymore, and 
the people who lost them, yes, they lost them.
  And how many jobs were created? Nobody can definitively give me a 
number because nobody knows for sure how much money was spent on jobs. 
Now, we can say we spent $6 billion, but understand clearly, we bought 
properties with the bulk of that money. Now, how much money did we 
spend after the local groups, the nonprofits took 17 percent off the 
top for overhead and expenses, how much did we spend for jobs? Now, if 
we had taken that $6 billion, going on $7 billion, and invested it in 
residential construction, just $1 billion, as I said, in residential 
construction creates $5.5 million in wages. It creates $1.98 billion in 
spending on goods and services as a result of the new earnings and 
profits that were created through that.
  Now, those goods and services, those companies employ workers. The 
wages are paid to workers. So you can definitively come up with a 
number based on a $1 billion investment that we would generate in the 
economy. Now, we spent $6 billion, and if we were able to create what 
$1 billion would have created in private residential construction, 
we're probably lucky, but the problem with that is investing in 
residential construction is different than giving $6 billion away of 
the taxpayers' money.
  Now, the people listening to this debate understand, when you write 
your check to the Federal Government next month, we just gave away $6 
billion of it, we're going to give away another billion. Now, that 
infuriates me. I would assume it infuriates you. You tell me, middle 
class America, what this does to help you? I told you the amounts 
earlier of how much you can earn to buy a house or how little you might 
have to pay for the house, depending on whoever bought the house what 
they want to charge and who they want to sell it to.
  So the basis I would argue here is the amendment does nothing. I 
oppose it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. May I inquire as to the remaining time?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me only add this: that this language, 
which should be put in the bill and this amendment calls for, sets 
forth in the record the positive impacts of the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program, which should be memorialized in the bill, things 
like job creation, saving the neighborhood, saving local governments 
exorbitant costs. The Republican caucus has not created a single job, 
and now they're even eliminating jobs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. The facts speak for themselves. 
When you can say $1.3 billion was given away to nongovernmental 
agencies--and I have listed the groups, and I have told you how many 
millions of your dollars were given to these groups that they get to 
keep--they are not coming back to us right now. These people are going 
to keep these moneys, and there is a wide array of things they can use 
them for. This was a bad investment. In fact, it was not an investment. 
It was a bad giveaway.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota will be 
postponed.


      Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-34.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment 
at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, after line 25, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that, if the amounts that are rescinded 
     and canceled under section 2 of this Act were instead made 
     available under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 
     authorized under the provisions of law specified in 
     subsections (a) and (b)(2) of section 3 of this Act, the 
     Congress could have helped to rebuild neighborhoods 
     throughout the United States where foreclosures on home 
     mortgage loans are common.
       Page 5, line 1, strike ``SEC. 2.'' and insert ``SEC. 3.''.
       Page 5, line 11, strike ``SEC. 3.'' and insert ``SEC. 4.''.
       Page 6, line 17, ``SEC. 3.'' and insert ``SEC. 5.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
my amendment.
  My amendment would state simply that the Congress acknowledges that 
we could have helped to rebuild neighborhoods where foreclosures are 
common through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, or as we know 
it, NSP.
  You see, my Republican colleagues are offering today a bill that 
would terminate NSP. This program, I believe, has been particularly 
successful in helping to rebuild neighborhoods in my district and 
throughout Orange County, California. The city of Anaheim, which I 
represent, acquired and rehabilitated 17 single-family homes and sold 
them to low- to moderate-income families.
  It also acquired and rehabilitated a four-unit multifamily complex 
for lease to persons with developmental disabilities. This project was 
crucial because it is very difficult to find properties for people who 
have developmental disabilities.
  In Anaheim, one in 303 homes is in foreclosure. Not only does this 
have an emotional impact, as you can imagine, when you lose your home--
it is the instability, especially for your kids; parents are worried, 
and children can see that--but it also has economic impacts on our 
neighborhoods. With the help of this program, the city of Anaheim 
improved neighborhoods and provided the families with homes.
  And I know that my colleague on the Republican side also represents 
Anaheim. And if he would have spoken to some of the staff from Anaheim, 
he would have realized that they really believe that this program was 
important to keep blight from happening in neighborhoods and to attempt 
to keep the prices of the homes level for those families that were 
struggling to make their payments and to stay in their homes and to 
keep up their neighborhoods.
  The city of Garden Grove, where one in 348 homes is in foreclosure, 
also acquired and rehabilitated property. They acquired and 
rehabilitated five

[[Page H1880]]

homes and sold them to first-time home buyers. And, of course, the city 
of Santa Ana, where one in 252 homes is in foreclosure, they acquired 
and rehabilitated 13 single-family homes and 27 condos, and they sold 
them to first-time home buyers. They acquired and renovated a 13-unit 
multifamily complex and have leased them now to low-income families. 
They assisted five families with down payment assistance, and they are 
also in the process of acquiring 16 single-family homes that will be 
sold to first-time home buyers.
  Now, I know that my colleague on the other side mentioned that some 
of this money went to nongovernmental agencies, to private companies; 
but I would like him to really take a look at the fact that cities 
really stepped up to work very hard to keep families in their homes, to 
keep neighborhoods afloat as we work through this very difficult time 
of the financial meltdown and the housing crisis.
  In Orange County, the Neighborhood Housing Services, with the 
assistance of what we call NSP Round One moneys, acquired and 
rehabilitated a total of 11 single-family homes and condos. And with 
Round Two moneys, the Neighborhood Housing Services acquired and 
rehabilitated 17 single-family homes/condos and sold them to first-time 
home buyers.
  This program has helped to rebuild our neighborhoods, to stabilize 
our neighborhoods, and have given families the opportunity to become 
homeowners. So it is my hope that my colleagues on the other side 
reconsider eliminating what I believe has been a successful program in 
Orange County, California, one that has benefited not just those who 
got to buy their first home but those neighborhoods and those cities 
that so desperately needed to keep up the neighborhood and get people 
in their homes.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My good friend, she mentioned the Neighborhood Housing Services of 
Orange County. They got $7.5 million for 17 houses. Orange County, 
overall in the whole county, got $4.3 million for the whole county. You 
have to say, is that a good investment? We have spent $6 billion on 
this program, and we're saying, let's not spend the last billion. And 
Congress could have rebuilt neighborhoods. There is only $1 billion 
left.
  Now I don't see that the U.S. neighborhoods have been rebuilt for $6 
billion. I see $6 billion that has been given away of taxpayers' 
moneys. And Orange County itself, which is a huge area, irrespective of 
the few examples that were given by my good friend, only got $4.3 
million. That's not equitable.
  San Bernardino County, one of the hardest hit counties in this 
country, got a mere $33.2 million. One of the hardest hit. That's the 
county. That had to go to all these cities that did not receive any 
distribution in NSP1 or NSP2, nothing. And they're having to take--and 
in Orange County, with $4.3 million--take that and distribute it to all 
these cities that did not receive a dime. That's not fair.
  And to say that we spent $6 billion--and all the counties and cities 
haven't been rehabilitated, it's obvious--and to say we're going to 
spend $1 billion more, and that's going to solve the problem? No, it's 
not. It's just going to take it and put us another $1 billion in debt 
that our children and our grandchildren are going to have to pay for.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I would remind the 
gentleman from California that some cities, it's true, did not receive 
moneys and did not go through the process of buying up homes, et 
cetera, and trying to get neighborhoods back. One of the reasons they 
did not is it's really a competitive situation. You have to want to do 
it, and some cities simply did not have the need or did not want to do 
it. I mean, I would assume that in some places in Orange County, you 
could probably do as the gentleman said, and that is to sell at a fire 
sale some of those homes on Newport Beach or other places.
  But with respect to the central portion of Orange County where you 
really have households that are working families, this program was 
very, very important; and the city stepped up. The city of Anaheim, the 
city of Garden Grove, the city of Santa Ana stepped up to do the right 
thing to work through and to ensure that their neighborhoods again were 
stabilized and to get new people into those homes. Again, I do believe 
that it worked for those cities, and I would encourage a ``yes'' vote 
on this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The problem I have with the program--I have just mentioned San 
Bernardino County; and according to the county, there is no one at the 
county level that would support the current NSP program. And they state 
very specifically the county might have supported the concept of NSP, 
but this is before they fell victim to a complete lack of direction 
from HUD, mixed messages from HUD, and gross misallocations of the 
awards that were released. And the county, in support of my bill, said, 
We believe it is a means for Congress to get its financial house in 
order, just like the challenges we are facing at the local government 
level.

                              {time}  1630

  And not only is government facing challenges, the American people are 
facing challenges. They're working hard. They're trying to support 
their families. They're trying to make their house payments. Nothing in 
this last billion dollars will stop one foreclosure from occurring.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, look, I've been a Member now of this 
august body for 75-some days. And I'm starting to learn much of what we 
do seems to be more based in theater than reality.
  If I read this amendment correctly, what we're trying to do here is 
add language that basically says, well, we could repair neighborhoods 
with the last billion dollars. Of course it didn't happen with the 
previous money.
  But think about it, if we take a step back. What's the money been 
used ultimately for? It's been used to bail out lenders. In many ways 
this is another back-door bailout to the very folks that my 
constituents are furious with, and handing them more government dollars 
in the name that, well, this time we passed the cash to those lenders, 
but this time we did it through local governments.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  The amendment was rejected.


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Richardson

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-34.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, this Act 
     shall take effect on, and any reference in this Act to the 
     date of the enactment of this Act shall be construed to refer 
     to, the earlier of the following dates:
       (1) The date of the expiration of the 5-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) The first date occurring after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act on which both of the following 
     conditions exist:
       (A) The percentage of existing mortgages on 1- to 4-family 
     residential properties located in the United States and under 
     which the outstanding principal balance exceeds the value of 
     the property subject to the mortgage is 10 percent or less.
       (B) In the case of the State that, on such date, has the 
     highest percentage, among all States, of existing mortgages 
     on 1- to 4-family residential properties located in the State 
     and under which the outstanding principal balance exceeds the 
     value of the property subject to the mortgage, such 
     percentage for such State is 15 percent or less.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Richardson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

[[Page H1881]]

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, the Richardson amendment to H.R. 861, 
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act which we've been 
talking about this afternoon, is a vehicle to discuss a program that 
was really urgently needed when it was established, when it was funded 
in the Recovery Act, and why it's still needed today.
  The Richardson amendment is simple, it's straightforward, and it's 
necessary. It takes the politics out of it. It says that the programs 
should be terminated based upon whether they're needed or not, not 
based upon using funny numbers.
  Now, let's talk about this particular bill. I'm suggesting, with the 
Richardson amendment, that we could consider two things: One, that it 
would be based upon a termination of 5 years after the initial date of 
enactment. Two, that the date would be triggered when the national 
average of underwater mortgages would be at a point that it's 10 
percent or less, or in the highest State that happens to have high 
mortgages, that it would be at least 15 percent, and if it didn't meet 
that test then it would be terminated.
  Now, the most current data available in the third quarter of 2010 
reported by CoreLogic, a leading provider of mortgage information, 
indicates that of the Nation's 47.8 million residential mortgages, 
approximately 10.8 million, that's 22.5 percent, are underwater.
  In Nevada the percentage is 67 percent. In Arizona it's 48.6 percent. 
In Florida it's 45.5 percent. And in Mr. Miller's and mine, our great 
State, California, it's 31.6 percent.
  I will insert into the Record a chart indicating the underwater 
mortgage percentages for each State in the Nation.
  Now, clearly the housing crisis is far from over, and anyone who 
thinks that we've stabilized the neighborhoods in this country is not 
really living in the real world; certainly, not with Americans like who 
live in my district.
  So now it's time to not terminate NSP. Instead, it should be phased 
out gradually after it serves the purpose of what it was intended to 
do.
  I offered the Richardson amendment because the NSP grants provide 
critical assistance to State and local governments and nonprofit 
developers that collaborate. How do they collaborate? To demolish or 
rehabilitate blighted properties, to establish financing mechanisms 
such as down payment programs for low to middle-income home buyers, and 
it also helps the grantees with at least 25 percent of the funds to be 
appropriated to house individuals and families whose incomes do not 
exceed 50 percent of the area's median income.
  When I look at this--it's also important: NSP funds and is helping to 
redevelop hard-hit communities and to create jobs. In fact, 9,700 
blighted properties have been demolished or have been cleared.
  HUD estimates that NSP will support 93,000 jobs nationwide. I think 
we need those.
  And then finally, when we look at some of the groups that are 
supporting these programs, it's not about who's on this side of the 
aisle and who's on the other one. It's the National Association of 
Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors. 
That's what the housing officials in my district are talking about--
having a way to be able to solve the problem.
                                                    March 7, 2011.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     Chairman, Financial Services Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bachus: I am writing to express my strong 
     opposition to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization 
     Program (NSP) Termination Act. NSP has helped cities across 
     the country address and mitigate the deleterious effects that 
     vacant and blighted properties have on neighborhoods and 
     property values. As a result of the foreclosure crisis, 
     communities throughout the country, including Los Angeles, 
     face significant challenges as foreclosed homes create a 
     vicious cycle of blight, neighborhood decay, and lower 
     property values. NSP has been instrumental in helping to stem 
     this downward spiral by addressing the negative effects of 
     abandoned and foreclosed properties.
       In the City of Los Angeles, where, over the past four 
     years, we have an estimated 39,000 foreclosed properties, NSP 
     has played a critical role stabilizing our fragile housing 
     market and helping to construct and rehabilitate a total of 
     1,200 housing units. Furthermore, at a time when unemployment 
     in our construction industry is at an all-time high, NSP has 
     created more than 900 jobs spurring Los Angeles' economic 
     recovery.
       Given the economic challenges facing cities today, I urge 
     the committee to continue funding for the Neighborhood 
     Stabilization Program.
           Very truly yours,
                                          Antonio R. Villaraigosa,
                                                            Mayor.

                                                                               TABLE 1: NEGATIVE EQUITY BY STATE*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Properties With a Mortgage Outstanding                                                      $ Outstanding
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              State                             Negative Equity      Equity    Negative Equity   Near** Negative                             Mortgage Debt                             Loan-to-
                                   Mortgages       Mortgages       Mortgages        Share          Equity share    Total Property Value       Outstanding      Net Homeowner Equity  Value Ratio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.........................      340,665             35,610       19,188           10.5%                5.6%        65,482,055,550        43,970,078,384        21,511,977,166          67%
Alaska..........................       87,286              7,801        5,160            8.9%                5.9%        23,773,756,773        15,920,518,570         7,853,238,203          67%
Arizona.........................    1,333,398            648,387       63,304           48.6%                4.7%       263,693,025,194       243,760,655,061        19,932,370,133          92%
Arkansas........................      238,011             27,580       14,360           11.6%                6.0%        37,303,484,103        27,450,225,612         9,853,258,491          74%
California......................    6,870,914          2,172,700      299,067           31.6%                4.4%     2,864,273,476,858     2,008,766,937,342       855,506,539,516          70%
Colorado........................    1,125,434            221,097       91,187           19.6%                8.1%       301,289,945,528       217,120,459,818        84,169,485,710          72%
Connecticut.....................      816,560             97,244       29,957           11.9%                3.7%       294,814,146,661       171,517,175,208       123,296,971,453          58%
Delaware........................      179,322             23,906        8,937           13.3%                5.0%        47,059,588,802        31,949,546,484        15,110,042,318          68%
Florida.........................    4,459,951          2,029,128      182,323           45.5%                4.1%       853,646,775,841       757,212,788,734        96,433,987,107          89%
Georgia.........................    1,605,825            449,971      120,854           28.0%                7.5%       319,934,838,691       255,319,644,351        64,615,194,340          80%
Hawaii..........................      229,600             24,664        8,280           10.7%                3.6%       117,791,198,842        65,339,432,694        52,451,766,148          55%
Idaho...........................      243,589             61,566       12,927           25.3%                5.3%        48,204,517,879        35,737,930,659        12,466,587,220          74%
Illinois........................    2,227,602            431,050      108,239           19.4%                4.9%       534,999,520,161       377,625,407,977       157,374,112,184          71%
Indiana.........................      603,484             68,196       28,936           11.3%                4.8%        91,672,823,585        64,195,877,062        27,476,946,523          70%
Iowa............................      334,689             28,976       14,366            8.7%                4.3%        51,019,867,858        34,150,823,254        16,869,044,604          67%
Kansas..........................      295,839             32,787       16,284           11.1%                5.5%        53,431,665,604        37,737,206,158        15,694,459,446          71%
Kentucky........................      279,187             24,880       14,092            8.9%                5.0%        47,549,597,328        32,335,774,221        15,213,823,107          68%
Louisiana.......................           NA                 NA           NA           NA                     NA                    NA                    NA                    NA           NA
Maine...........................           NA                 NA           NA           NA                     NA                    NA                    NA                    NA           NA
Maryland........................    1,358,672            298,554       67,580           22.0%                5.0%       433,409,001,574       298,109,259,531       135,299,742,043          69%
Massachusetts...................    1,494,099            222,599       51,704           14.9%                3.5%       546,053,917,907       329,062,834,394       216,991,083,513          60%
Michigan........................    1,381,232            519,716       76,403           37.6%                5.5%       198,169,103,537       169,373,043,369        28,796,060,168          85%
Minnesota.......................      554,535             90,090       27,608           16.2%                5.0%       124,901,317,584        81,787,965,185        43,113,352,399          65%
Mississippi.....................           NA                 NA           NA           NA                     NA                    NA                    NA                    NA           NA
Missouri........................      779,328            122,543       44,131           15.7%                5.7%       137,735,363,892        98,445,466,785        39,289,897,107          71%
Montana.........................      112,444              8,650        3,939            7.7%                3.5%        28,244,797,730        16,968,913,610        11,275,884,120          60%
Nebraska........................      221,686             21,388       13,072            9.6%                5.9%        35,462,342,354        25,920,022,837         9,542,319,517          73%
Nevada..........................      586,515            390,192       23,037           66.5%                3.9%       103,720,996,430       123,072,698,809       -19,351,702,379         119%
New Hampshire...................      211,489             37,488       11,351           17.7%                5.4%        51,974,243,397        35,837,313,271        16,136,930,126          69%
New Jersey......................    1,882,603            286,293       78,230           15.2%                4.2%       678,172,085,088       415,710,918,011       262,461,167,077          61%
New Mexico......................      234,004             29,375       10,847           12.6%                4.6%        55,009,963,072        36,551,762,344        18,458,200,728          66%
New York........................    1,838,917            129,633       40,013            7.0%                2.2%       835,125,621,032       415,765,632,474       419,359,988,558          50%
North Carolina..................    1,521,406            160,007      101,945           10.5%                6.7%       317,535,658,347       223,145,876,102        94,389,782,245          70%
North Dakota....................       48,415              3,582        1,478            7.4%                3.1%         8,291,290,055         4,967,349,459         3,323,940,596          60%
Ohio............................    2,204,754            441,379      137,601           20.0%                6.2%       324,006,229,515       242,010,058,915        81,996,170,600          75%
Oklahoma........................      408,155             24,411       14,962            6.0%                3.7%        60,039,397,170        42,451,471,333        17,587,925,837          71%
Oregon..........................      693,304            108,335       38,849           15.6%                5.6%       179,130,635,748       122,988,902,147        56,141,733,601          69%
Pennsylvania....................    1,794,563            132,805       58,312            7.4%                3.2%       401,020,775,572       248,939,681,403       152,081,094,169          62%
Rhode Island....................      227,897             45,511        8,120           20.0%                3.6%        64,414,910,589        39,693,719,643        24,721,190,946          62%
South Carolina..................      598,223             85,226       37,091           14.2%                6.2%       131,254,482,178        92,349,858,129        38,904,624,049          70%
South Dakota....................           NA                 NA           NA           NA                     NA                    NA                    NA                    NA           NA
Tennessee.......................      962,894            133,956       67,386           13.9%                7.0%       166,572,683,790       118,119,771,078        48,452,912,712          71%
Texas...........................    3,286,505            367,954      194,944           11.2%                5.9%       602,239,776,419       418,772,404,728       183,467,371,691          70%
Utah............................      472,867             98,093       30,339           20.7%                6.4%       114,775,697,922        84,499,611,037        30,276,086,885          74%
Vermont.........................           NA                 NA           NA           NA                     NA                    NA                    NA                    NA           NA

[[Page H1882]]

 
Virginia........................    1,252,705            276,910       73,763           22.1%                5.9%       419,006,811,369       295,429,338,477       123,577,472,892          71%
Washington......................    1,407,416            209,577       75,920           14.9%                5.4%       441,789,933,181       292,406,352,738       149,383,580,443          66%
Washington, DC..................      100,340             15,240        4,513           15.2%                4.5%        49,085,895,573        28,782,522,751        20,303,372,822          59%
West Virginia...................           NA                 NA           NA           NA                     NA                    NA                    NA                    NA           NA
Wisconsin.......................      619,792             81,267       30,026           13.1%                4.8%       120,246,415,775        80,769,544,053        39,476,871,722          67%
Wyoming.........................           NA                 NA           NA           NA                     NA                    NA                    NA                    NA           NA
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nation......................   47,871,838         10,780,236    2,376,159           22.5%                5.0%    12,711,358,863,378     8,850,515,659,256     3,860,843,204,122         70%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This data only includes properties with a mortgage. Non-mortgaged properties are by definition not included.
** Defined as properties within 5% of being in a negative equity position.
Source: CoreLogic. The data provided is for use only by the primary recipient or the primary recipient's publication. This data may not be re-sold, republished or licensed to any other source,
  including publications and sources owned by the primary recipient's parent company without prior written permission from CoreLogic. Any Corelogic data used for publication or broadcast, in
  whole or in part, must be sourced as coming from CoreLogic, a real estate data and analytics company. For questions, analysis or interpretation of the data contact Lori Guyton at
  lguyton@cvic.com or Bill Campbell at bill@campbelllewis.com. Data provided may not be modified without the prior written permission of CoreLogic. Do not use the data in any unlawful manner.
  This data is compiled from public records, contributory databases and proprietary analytics, and its accuracy is dependent upon these sources.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I guess the question should be how long do we need to wait? How many 
more billions of dollars needs to be given away? We've already spent $6 
billion. I guess we could spend more if somebody wanted to.
  And when we talk about phasing out a program, it speaks to the 
argument that we need to spend more money on a program and continue the 
program. I think we've already spent too much money.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Miller, the question that was asked is how long 
we should wait. In my amendment that's my exact point. It's not how 
long we should wait; it's whether it's needed or not. So if we find 
that the mortgages are above 10 or 15 percent, then the program should 
exist.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I reclaim my time. On this issue, 
how long we wait is predicated on how much we are going to spend. And 
my colleagues on this side of the aisle believe the American people, 
the taxpayers have given too much of their money away, and they are 
saying we want it stopped, and we want you to be responsible for this 
money.
  If this were our dollars, and we're getting in her purse and my 
wallet and handing the money out, that's a prerogative we have. That's 
not what's occurring, other than we are taxpayers too.
  We've just got our hands in your pocket and your purse and spent your 
money on a giveaway program.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, in regards to the comments that have 
been recently stated, for the largest city that's in our State of 
California, from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, he states that the NSP has 
helped cities across the country to address and mitigate the terrible 
effects of what this crisis has done.
  In closing, what I would also say is that my amendment is really 
building upon what I hope both sides of the aisle would consider, and 
that is, this program should be based upon if there is a need, then it 
should assist. If there is no longer a need, then I would support 
phasing it out.
  And what I would also say is that the key point to keep in mind is, 
when we're looking at this program, this program, people need--it's for 
the counties and the cities to determine to be able to help improve 
their programs. And that's the way the program is intended. And if 
there's unintended consequences or things that can be done to support 
the program, I would work with my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle to fix those changes.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent to reclaim my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I am happy to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for up to 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chairman, on this Richardson amendment, it's 
interesting because I always like amendments that are trying to do 
something technical. But where I'm finding actually sort of a problem 
in the flow of logic is--think about this: We have a neighborhood 
stabilization program down to its last billion dollars, we've already 
spent what, 6 billion? And the concept written in this amendment is 
saying that, well, it's going to keep acquiring one, two, three to four 
units, fourplexes, properties, and it's going to keep acquiring them 
until a certain number of mortgages are--only this percentage are 
underwater, or the mortgage value is greater than the value of the 
house. Does that seem like I'm going in the right direction?
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Fairly.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But here's the classic problem in the design of that. 
If the Neighborhood Stabilization Act does what I think it does, it's 
either a municipality, a nonprofit, this and that, buying a property, 
sometimes rehabbing it, sometimes removing the boarded-up windows, 
sometimes just buying a property and competing with the private 
investors and the first-time home buyers in that neighborhood and then 
turning around and putting it back on the market.
  Well, if one of our problems out there is we have a glut of 
properties on the market, and that's one of the things holding down our 
values, and I'm going to continue to support a program that's going to 
drop another billion dollars buying properties and then putting them 
back on the market. We have a circular logic here where I can't imagine 
the mechanics within this, well meaning as they may be, actually have 
any basis in economics or particularly real estate economics.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The other point that is significant and that needs to be dealt with 
here is the $6 billion that has already been given away. That money 
continues to recycle with those groups. It should. As to the cities, 
the counties, the nonprofits, when they buy a house, refurbish it and 
sell it and when the money comes back at whatever level, they could 
take that money and buy another piece of property.
  Nothing in my bill does anything with the $6 billion that's out 
there. It just says: We're not going to give you another $1 billion. 
We're going to try to give that back to the taxpayers.
  If we could get the $6 billion back and could find a way to do it, I 
believe we'd be trying to attack that vein, too, but that will not 
occur and cannot occur as the money has already been given away. 
They're going to continue to recycle it, hopefully to some benefit--
hopefully somebody will benefit from this--but it's $6 billion given 
away. My colleague was exactly correct in his statements. As for the $1 
billion that we have not given away, we're saying it is time to stop 
giving away taxpayer dollars.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my 
remaining time.

[[Page H1883]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
  Just to summarize again what my amendment is talking about, it is the 
ability of State and local governments to revitalize, to rehab and to 
help the neighborhoods so that those property values can go up and so 
we can improve the economy. I would venture to say it's not giving away 
the money. It's actually helping to revitalize and stimulate our 
economy.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Waters

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 112-34.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 5. NOTIFICATION TO NSP GRANTEES REQUIRED.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall inform each covered entity (as such term is 
     defined in subsection (b)) in writing--
       (1) that the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has been 
     terminated;
       (2) of the name and contact information of such entity's 
     Member of Congress that represents its district; and
       (3) that such entity should contact such Member of Congress 
     directly for assistance in mitigating foreclosed properties.
       (b) Covered Entity Defined.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term ``covered entity'' means any nonprofit, government, 
     or other organization that--
       (1) received or was scheduled to receive funding pursuant 
     to section 2301 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 
     2008 (Public Law 110-289; 122 Stat. 2850) or title XII of 
     division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 218) through the 
     Neighborhood Stabilization Program; and
       (2) as a result of the rescission of funding under section 
     2 and termination of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 
     under section 3, will have funding for the entity made 
     available under the provision of law specified in section 2 
     rescinded and canceled.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, my amendment would simply require the 
Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to send a 
notice to all of the NSP grantees who would have received funding under 
the third round of NSP that the program has been terminated. Further, 
the notice would include the name and contact information for the 
Member of Congress representing that grantee's district, along with a 
notice saying that the grantee can contact that Member directly for 
assistance in mitigating foreclosed properties.
  As you know, we passed such an amendment off the floor when we took 
up the FHA bill, which would have basically allowed the homeowners to 
refinance their properties. So we have one such amendment with the 
elimination of that program.
  The CBO has scored this amendment at zero cost. Since the passage of 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, 
which provided the NSP funds that are now subject to this repeal, my 
office has received many calls from potential grantees about the status 
of the program and what funding they could expect.
  Because this act would rescind those funds nearly 8 months after the 
passage of Dodd-Frank, I think that a simple letter from HUD, sent to 
States, counties and cities, which would simply notify them of this 
change, is in order. Moreover, a note to these States, counties and 
cities saying that their Members of Congress are available to assist 
them in mitigating foreclosed properties can help these grantees find 
alternative solutions.
  I've discovered there are any number of Members starting to do this 
kind of thing. They are getting calls from their constituents who are 
asking for help with loan modifications, and the Members are able to, 
not get involved with the particular problem, but to help guide them 
and send them to the proper servicers to get their loan modifications. 
This is similar to that. Simply, our office has been able to say: Yes, 
the program is no longer in existence, but this is what you can do if 
there is an alternative.
  Now, I would prefer not to rehash the back-and-forth we saw in the 
Financial Services Committee about the termination of this program. 
Members on my side of the aisle showed pictures, talked about the 
problems caused by abandoned properties, and even showcased letters 
from their districts, letters which talked about the good work NSP was 
doing. Yet the debate, it seems, will not sway my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. Instead, I think it's best to focus on my 
amendment.
  I believe this is a commonsense provision that can be accepted by 
both sides of the aisle regardless of whether they agree with the 
underlying bill. Grantees should be made aware of this funding 
recision, and Members of Congress should stand ready to help 
communities mitigate the effects of blighted properties.
  I would ask for the support of my colleagues.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, the Congresswoman's 
amendment does nothing to help at-risk borrowers, and the notification 
the Congresswoman proposes would apply only to community groups, 
leaders and speculators currently participating in the program. It is 
not a serious attempt to address the underlying problem homeowners are 
facing today.
  If we are going to have a notification requirement, it makes more 
sense to have the recipients of these funds to date notify taxpayers 
how much, in what way they have spent taxpayer dollars and what return 
taxpayers can expect from their investments.
  Unfortunately, the answer is: none. Many have questioned HUD's 
ability to properly monitor the use of such extraordinary amounts of 
money being spent at the State level and in various ways. The Inspector 
General of HUD has already identified multiple misuses of NSP money at 
the State level. The GAO has questioned the information system in place 
at HUD, and has questioned its ability to track the NSP funds.
  I wish the amendment had said: Please continue using the $6 billion 
in an appropriate way, and in some way, do everything you can to create 
jobs for the American workers with the $6 billion we've given you.
  It does not say that, and I cannot support the amendment the way it 
is drafted.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have heard so many convoluted arguments 
today about this legislation from the opposite side of the aisle.
  My colleague from California, my friend and someone I highly respect, 
knows that he does not have to wish what an amendment would say. If he 
is interested in an amendment, he can offer it. My colleague from 
California did not offer the amendment that he has just alluded to, and 
he did not suggest when we were in committee that somehow he would like 
to have an alternative. So I find it rather curious that he would come 
to the floor and start wishing what my amendment would say.
  Secondly, I want to straighten out something. My colleague from 
California keeps talking about how this bill does not stop any 
foreclosures. The NSP legislation was not intended to stop 
foreclosures. It was intended to do exactly what the name implies, 
which is to stabilize communities by taking these boarded up and 
abandoned properties, rehabbing them or tearing them down so that they 
discontinue the devaluing of the properties of those homeowners who are 
trying to keep

[[Page H1884]]

their properties up and stay in the community.

                              {time}  1650

  If he, in fact, was concerned about helping homeowners, he would have 
supported the FHA refi programs. That program, he voted against. The 
FHA refi program was basically a program for middle class people who 
paid their bills on time, but who simply knew that their homes were 
underwater. They were not worth what they thought they should be worth 
when they got into the market, and they want to refinance them. He 
voted against that.
  So I am not so sure, when he talks about this NSP program not helping 
anybody stay in their homes, whether or not he really, really wants to 
help people stay in their homes when he is voting against something 
like the FHA refi.
  As for jobs, this bill creates jobs; and I think my colleague knows 
that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Well, I did not introduce an amendment because I introduced the bill. 
I think that bill speaks for itself.
  But I am glad that my good friend admitted that this was not meant to 
mitigate the foreclosure process for people going through. I am glad 
you admitted that, because that is not what your amendment says. It 
says that: such entities should contact such Members of Congress 
directly for assistance in mitigating foreclosed properties. You can't 
mitigate a foreclosure when you don't help anybody with the 
foreclosure.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chair, first, this is one of those few moments 
I get to stand behind the microphone; and I say, having met the good 
woman from California, she has actually been very gentle to me as a 
freshman, so far.
  But one of my concerns here is very, very simple: there is $6 billion 
out there. And I won't call it a slush fund. Back in my days as 
Maricopa County Treasurer, we would call it a revolving fund. There is 
$6 billion out there already that goes out, and if the property is 
sold, comes back; and that I believe operates for 5 years from the 
enactment of the bill.
  Well, a letter like this goes out and says, Oh, well, the last $1 
billion isn't going to be there for you, but please keep using the $6 
billion you already have to go do more good works in the neighborhood.
  My great fear is something like this doesn't really accomplish much 
good.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  As much as I respect my good friend--and she knows--we have worked 
together on a lot of issues, and I don't believe anything between us 
has ever been personal in all the years we have known each other. And 
nothing in this debate is personal. We both are well intended. We both 
really want to help the American people. And I say that from the heart, 
and you know that. And I know your efforts are for the right purposes. 
But good people can disagree in a good way. And on this amendment, I 
have to respectfully disagree, and I would ask for a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Waters

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 112-34.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 5. STUDY ON IMPACTS REQUIRED.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall conduct a study to determine the 
     approximate number of foreclosed and abandoned properties 
     that will not be purchased or rehabilitated with amounts 
     appropriated or otherwise made available under section 2301 
     of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 
     110-289; 122 Stat. 2850; 42 U.S.C. 5301 note) in the district 
     of each Member of Congress as a result of the rescission and 
     termination of funding under sections 2 and 3 of this Act.
       (b) Report.-- Not later than the expiration of the 60-day 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report setting 
     forth the results of the study under subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would direct the Secretary of HUD to conduct a study to 
determine the approximate number of foreclosed and abandoned properties 
that will not be purchased or rehabilitated in the district of each 
Member of Congress as a result of the rescission and termination of 
funding under this act. The Secretary would then report these findings 
to Congress. CBO has scored this amendment at zero cost.
  Now, personally, I do not believe that the Neighborhood Stabilization 
Program should be terminated because NSP creates jobs. So far, about 
72,000 housing units are projected to be impacted by round one of NSP. 
HUD projects that an additional 24,000 housing units are projected to 
be impacted by NSP2.
  Each of these projects requires the work of contractors, such as 
roofers and painters and landscapers and pavers. And through the 
program, other real estate professionals like Realtors and title 
insurance agents have also received employment and contracting 
opportunities. This NSP program really does create jobs, and this is a 
program that creates jobs by doing important work in the community.
  Contrary to what some say, the problem of homes abandoned by banks is 
common, and it is difficult for municipalities to mitigate their 
effects. As GAO has noted in a report from November 2010, servicers 
sometimes charge off properties or fail to formally foreclose on 
borrowers because the costs of maintaining the property post-
foreclosure exceed the costs of just writing the property off. These 
charge-offs typically occur after the foreclosure proceedings were 
initiated. However, borrowers aren't aware that the servicers are 
stopping short of taking their title.
  Because borrowers think that their servicer has finalized the 
foreclosure process, they may move away and become unreachable by the 
municipal agency now dealing with the upkeep of the property.
  Additionally, it may become logistically difficult or cost 
prohibitive to track down thousands of borrowers now responsible for 
property maintenance, taxes, and code violations because of servicers' 
failure to formally foreclose.
  Additionally, NSP provides an alternative to speculative investors 
purchasing foreclosed properties. Unlike homeowners and municipalities, 
some speculative investors often purchase properties for cash and in 
bulk, sometimes sight unseen, buying them up before others have a 
chance to bid. Some of these investors may not resell properties to 
owner-occupants, but let them sit on the market without any 
improvements while the investor waits for housing prices to rebound.
  Alternatively, anecdotal evidence suggests that investor-owners 
sometimes rent properties out to tenants with little or no 
rehabilitation or maintenance of the property.
  We had a field hearing in Minneapolis in January 2010. At that field 
hearing, State Senator Linda Higgins said, ``Homes are being snapped up 
by investors. Some are clueless about how to rehabilitate a building 
and get good tenants. Others think that the laws really aren't meant 
for them. They buy a house for pennies, paint the wall, scrub the 
kitchen appliances, and rent it out. They forget the small details like 
the condemnation order and the requirements for lifting the 
condemnation and getting a new certificate of

[[Page H1885]]

occupancy and the need for a rental license.''
  That is not to say that all private investment is bad, but we must 
recognize that the work NSP is doing is a critical counterweight to 
some of these bad practices. For all of these reasons, I will defend 
the work that NSP is doing across the country. However, we are here now 
because we need to talk about this amendment and what it would do once 
this program is terminated.
  My NSP study amendment would provide critical information to Members 
of Congress. If Members knew the number of abandoned and foreclosed 
properties in their district that will not be mitigated because of this 
rescission of funds, they would be better prepared to help grantees 
access responsible private market sources of funds that can help 
community revitalization. I would ask my colleagues' support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My friend has said that we need to determine the approximate number 
of foreclosed and abandoned properties that will be purchased or 
rehabilitated because of termination of NSP. That is impossible. We 
have no idea how many times the money will be recycled, because the $6 
billion that is out there could be recycled over and over and over. We 
don't know. We don't know how much money is going to be given away to 
somebody who bought the house, how much is going to be taken back in 
the sale. So that is an unknown quantity.
  But my good friend did say that 72,000 units were impacted by NSP 1. 
So, America, for $6 billion you impacted 72,000 units. How do you feel 
about that? Now, I am not sure what we did to impact them, but we 
impacted them. We sure spent a lot of your money impacting them.
  Now, at the same time, we are asking HUD to do a study. That is like 
the fox guarding the hen house. I am really sorry. Because when I asked 
Mercedes Marquez of HUD at our committee hearing to discuss where the 
money went, she finally said, The money is going to homeowners and to 
American citizens. And they strongly support the program and they are 
strongly encouraging the President to veto this bill, should it get to 
him.
  So let's just have the very organization do a study on a program that 
they said they support and love and, if we are successful in getting 
the bill passed, would encourage the administration to veto it.
  That is the biggest conflict of interest I have ever had presented to 
me to vote on, but it is an easy conflict of interest that I say is a 
conflict of interest. I would strongly encourage my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1700


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 112-34.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk which is 
in order under the rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 5. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds have the 
     potential to rehabilitate housing units in all 50 states:
       (A) There are 13369 homes in Alabama that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (B) There are 974 homes in Arkansas that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (C) There are 52511 homes in Arizona that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (D) There are 92186 homes in California that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (E) There are 20671 homes in Colorado that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (F) There are 8501 homes in Connecticut that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (G) There are 224 homes in the District of Columbia that 
     have been vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to 
     receive funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (H) There are 549 homes in Delaware that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (I) There are 203882 homes in Florida that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (J) There are 92950 homes in Georgia that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (K) There are 754 homes in Hawaii that have been vacant 90 
     or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under 
     the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (L) There are 2609 homes in Iowa that have been vacant 90 
     or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under 
     the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (M) There are 375 homes in Idaho that have been vacant 90 
     or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under 
     the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (N) There are 49043 homes in Illinois that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (O) There are 74100 homes in Indiana that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (P) There are 2311 homes in Kansas that have been vacant 90 
     or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under 
     the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (Q) There are 1191 homes in Kentucky that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (R) There are 2439 homes in Louisiana that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (S) There are 7331 homes in Massachusetts that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (T) There are 1878 homes in Maryland that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (U) There are 167 homes in Maine that have been vacant 90 
     or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under 
     the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (V) There are 120365 homes in Michigan that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (W) There are 13937 homes in Minnesota that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (X) There are 20084 homes in Missouri that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (Y) There are 4431 homes in Mississippi that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (Z) There are 172 homes in Montana that have been vacant 90 
     or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under 
     the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (AA) There are 4510 homes in North Carolina that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (BB) There are 7 homes in North Dakota that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (CC) There are 2911 homes in Nebraska that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (DD) There are 155 homes in New Hampshire that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (EE) There are 10859 homes in New Jersey that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (FF) There are 41297 homes in Nevada that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (GG) There are 16422 homes in New York that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.

[[Page H1886]]

       (HH) There are 116325 homes in Ohio that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (II) There are 2961 homes in Oklahoma that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (JJ) There are 32 homes in Oregon that have been vacant 90 
     or more days and could be eligible to receive funding under 
     the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (KK) There are 847 homes in Pennsylvania that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (LL) There are 3142 homes in Rhode Island that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (MM) There are 11172 homes in South Carolina that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (NN) There are 18141 homes in Tennessee that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (OO) There are 33982 homes in Texas that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (PP) There are 85 homes in Utah that have been vacant 90 or 
     more days and could be eligible to receive funding under the 
     Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (QQ) There are 5638 homes in Virginia that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (RR) There are 71 homes in Washington that have been vacant 
     90 or more days and could be eligible to receive funding 
     under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (SS) There are 5413 homes in Wisconsin that have been 
     vacant 90 or more days and could be eligible to receive 
     funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
       (2) Congress finds that by voting to terminate the 
     Neighborhood Stabilization Program these housing units may 
     not be able to be rehabilitated and may remain vacant.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act which will quantify 
the number of vacant homes across the country and add findings to the 
bill listing these numbers in every State so that it will be 
transparent exactly what the impact will be in not continuing this 
program that is needed.
  The Neighborhood Stabilization Program is one of four programs that 
my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting 
to eliminate. All of these programs in one way or another help to 
stabilize neighborhoods and help to provide affordable housing to keep 
people in their homes.
  Economists have testified before our committee and other committees 
that housing is as much as 25 percent of our economy, so it is critical 
that we do what we can to stabilize housing, not just for the benefit 
of the families benefiting from the housing, but also for their 
neighbors, for their localities, for their cities, for their States and 
for the overall economy.
  Foreclosed properties lead to volatile housing prices, blight and the 
deterioration of communities. The mayor of New York cited at a recent 
meeting of the delegation how important the Neighborhood Stabilization 
Program has been to help New York recover from the housing crisis. He 
said that over 500 units were rehabbed and converted into affordable 
rental housing through the three rounds of funding that have come 
forward.
  Now, some of my colleagues say this is not important or should not be 
a priority, but I can tell you it has been a lifesaving program, 
particularly to the families that are living there now and to their 
neighbors and to the housing prices and the neighbors where these 
housing units are located.
  Funding has also been used to assist multifamily buildings in 
distress and has provided long-term affordability for renters. It also 
has provided jobs. The two main priorities of most communities across 
this country are housing and jobs, and this program helps provide both.
  My amendment points out why the program is so desperately needed by 
listing, through findings, the number of vacant homes that could be 
eligible for funding by State. For example, in the home State of my 
good friend and colleague Mr. Miller, California, there are over 92,000 
homes that have been vacant for 90 or more days. In my State of New 
York, there are over 16,000 homes that have been vacant for over 90 
days.
  The amendment clarifies that by terminating the program, vacant homes 
across the country cannot benefit from the Neighborhood Stabilization 
funds that could help acquire, demolish in some cases, rehab in some 
cases and redevelop in other cases.
  We have all seen the pictures on television of bulldozers plowing 
vacant homes under because they are pulling down the prices and are a 
blight in neighborhoods. This is one program that I have received phone 
calls on, not just from the mayor in the city in which I serve, but in 
cities across this country, where they have expressed the importance of 
the program in helping them to stabilize and to recover from this 
financial crisis caused primarily from the subprime mortgages.
  The Neighborhood Stabilization Program accomplishes the dual goals of 
incentivizing homeownership while also improving the housing stock in 
neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures. Vacant, foreclosed properties 
have a very negative effect on the surrounding neighborhoods and on the 
property values of homes in those neighborhoods.
  I believe this is an important amendment to highlight the potential 
housing stock in this country that Neighborhood Stabilization funds 
could be used to help, to rehab, to redevelop, to resell, to preserve 
neighborhood property values in communities across our great country; 
so I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Well, I know my good friend Mrs. Maloney has the best of intentions 
in putting this amendment forward, but you are talking about the number 
of homes in each State that have been vacant 90 days or more and could 
ultimately receive funding under the NSP.
  Well, the homes are not eligible to receive funding. Entities are 
eligible to receive funding. Then those entities, whether they be 
government or private sector, can go buy those homes. The problem is 
they can buy any home they want to. The only restriction on the program 
is that you can only earn up to 120 percent of the median income in an 
area to qualify to buy the house, but it does not restrict the price of 
the home being bought by the agency or the nonprofit. They can buy 
virtually any home they want to, and that is one of the flaws in the 
bill.
  For example, if you have any home that has been vacant 90 days or 
more, well, I have a partner of mine and myself, we had four homes for 
sale in the last year that were on the market more than 90 days. The 
houses were in perfect condition, but yet they remained on the market 
for over 90 days. So based on this encouragement, one of these groups, 
whether it be a city, a county, a private entity that is not affiliated 
with government, could have bought those houses and resold the houses 
for far less than they paid for them. That is the flaw with this 
program here.
  We are saying that what this wants us to do here is congressional 
findings to the bill listing all 50 States and the District of Columbia 
in separate subparagraphs and the number of homes in each State that 
have been vacant 90 days or more and could be eligible to receive 
funding in NSP.
  What you mean is any home vacant for over 90 days would have to be 
listed, because there is not a dollar amount in the bill saying how 
much you can pay for a house. There is only a dollar amount saying how 
much a person can earn to buy the house.
  For example, if you live in Hawaii, you can make up to $73,825.20 a 
year and qualify to buy a home. In California, you can earn $68,416.80 
a year and qualify to buy a home. It might be an $800,000 home, but you 
can still qualify, if they sell it to you cheap enough. In Virginia, 
you could earn $74,382 and buy a home; in New Jersey, $78,367; in 
Massachusetts, $72,384; in

[[Page H1887]]

Utah, $75,044; in Alaska, $76,786; in Colorado, $73,131; and in New 
Hampshire, $79,411.
  So the concept of this program is just helping people at the lower 
rungs who are really struggling. I am not saying people aren't 
struggling in these income brackets. That is not what I mean. But I 
don't want the American people to have the perception we are just 
trying to pick up deals and sell them to the lowest of income levels.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman is listing those numbers. 
Would the gentleman tell us what the maximum number is he thinks people 
should be eligible to get a house through the FHA and Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, I was in the 
building industry from my early twenties, and the most excitement you 
could ever see on a person's face was when they bought a home and they 
were moving into that home and they thought about raising their family.
  I would love a country that every person in this country has the 
ability and the opportunity at some point in their life to buy a home. 
But, in some fashion, lenders have put people in positions to put them 
in homes that they could not afford, and those homes, in many cases the 
individuals lost those homes through foreclosures. And those people, 
who were well-intentioned, moved into homes that they could not afford 
because the lender perhaps did not describe it exactly or they thought 
the way the economy is going, in 3 or 4 or 5 years the house is going 
to be worth 40 percent more than I paid and I am going to make a lot of 
money. The problem is the market went the other way, as it did in 1974-
1975, 1981-1983, 1990-1996, and recently in 2007 to current the market 
slid.

                              {time}  1710

  And then we're saying we're going to go out and we're going to ask to 
do a survey and we're going to list any home throughout the United 
States in separate paragraphs that have been vacant for 90 days or more 
that could be eligible. Well, all of them would be eligible.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. From my recollection, I was struck by the 
gentleman talking about those figures, that they were too high, because 
the last I heard, the gentleman and I were together in trying to 
establish--
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Frank, what 
specifically has been said throughout this debate, as if we're trying 
to help people at the lower rungs, which I have no problem with, but 
I'm saying that there was not a restriction on the amount that could be 
paid for the house and there was not a requirement of how much it 
should be sold for.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mrs. MALONEY. The problem is the other side of the aisle wants to 
abolish four programs that help people stay in their homes, helps 
affordable housing. They have no idea or no program to be helpful. They 
say it will be taxpayers' money. But if they supported the Democratic 
plan, it would have come out of an assessment on the banks.
  I understand the chairman will be introducing a bill, and I would 
like to cosponsor that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just would say that the gentleman from 
California previously had agreed with some of us that you could be able 
to get a house in the FHA for up to $729,000.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Reclaiming my time, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
amendment.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


                     H.R. 861--NSP Termination Act

                 (Rep. Miller, R-CA, and 4 cosponsors)

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



                                          City of Los Angeles,

                                                    March 7, 2011.
     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     Chairman, Financial Services Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bachus: I am writing to express my strong 
     opposition to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization 
     Program (NSP) Termination Act. NSP has helped cities across 
     the country address and mitigate the deleterious effects that 
     vacant and blighted properties have on neighborhoods and 
     property values. As a result of the foreclosure crisis, 
     communities throughout the country, including Los Angeles, 
     face significant challenges as foreclosed homes create a 
     vicious cycle of blight, neighborhood decay, and lower 
     property values. NSP has been instrumental in helping to stem 
     this downward spiral by addressing the negative effects of 
     abandoned and foreclosed properties.
       In the City of Los Angeles, where, over the past four 
     years, we have an estimated 39,000 foreclosed properties, NSP 
     has played a critical role stabilizing our fragile housing 
     market and helping to construct and rehabilitate a total of 
     1,200 housing units. Furthermore, at a time when unemployment 
     in our construction industry is at an all-time high, NSP has 
     created more than 900 jobs spurring Los Angeles' economic 
     recovery.
       Given the economic challenges facing cities today, I urge 
     the committee to continue funding for the Neighborhood 
     Stabilization Program.
           Very truly yours,
                                          Antonio R. Villaraigosa,
     Mayor.
                                  ____

                                              Office of the Mayor,


                                              City of Chicago,

                                                    March 8, 2011.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Ranking Member, House Committee on Financial Services, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member Frank: I understand that the Financial 
     Services committee is marking up two bills on Wednesday, 
     March 9, and marked up two more last week. I am concerned 
     that these bills would eliminate four important programs that 
     help both homeowners facing foreclosure and localities facing 
     increasing numbers of vacant and abandoned properties. I am 
     especially concerned with the NSP Termination Act, which 
     would terminate the Neighborhood Stabilization Program and 
     eliminate a third round of funding, known as NSP 3, crated 
     under the dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform bill.
       Localities, like Chicago, are in desperate need of funding 
     such as NSP 3 to assist neighborhoods that are facing 
     unprecedented numbers of foreclosures. In 2010, for example, 
     there were 23,364 foreclosure filings in Chicago. To put this 
     in perspective, before the housing crisis began in 2007, 
     Chicago saw an average of 8,375 foreclosure filings per year.
       As you are aware, foreclosures are devastating for 
     neighborhoods--vacant and abandoned properties depress home 
     values, weaken the tax base, breed crime, and drive up 
     government costs as municipalities bear the burden of 
     securing and maintaining them. Cities are already stretched 
     thin financially and need as much support as possible from 
     the federal government.
       We have already used funds from previous NSP programs to 
     revitalize neighborhoods and create jobs. To date, the City 
     of Chicago has committed funds from the first two rounds of 
     NSP to assist 579 units in 120 properties in targeted hard-
     hit areas, representing more than $75 million in NSP 
     investment. In addition, our NSP work thus far has created 
     344 construction jobs.
       Using the $15.9 million the City of Chicago expects to 
     receive in NSP 3 funds, we estimate we can acquire and 
     rehabilitate approximately 70 vacant units and demolish 
     approximately 100 vacant, blighted units. These funds will 
     allow us to continue the work we have started in communities 
     across Chicago that have been hardest hit by foreclosure. 
     Every vacant property that is rehabbed moves us closer to 
     stabilizing these neighborhoods.
       Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard M. Daley,
                                                            Mayor.

[[Page H1888]]

     
                                  ____
                                                    March 1, 2011.
     Re Neighborhood Stabilization Program.

     Hon. Judy Biggert,
     Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Luis Gutierrez,
     Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairperson Biggert and Ranking Member Gutierrez: The 
     undersigned organizations representing local elected 
     officials, State and local program practitioners, and 
     community-based organizations write in support of the 
     Neighborhood Stabilization Program--NSP1, NSP2, and NSP3. The 
     collapse of the housing market in 2008 wreaked havoc on 
     neighborhoods across America; foreclosures were rampant and 
     abandoned homes dotted both urban and rural landscapes. This 
     national crisis threatened to bring down local economies. 
     Congress stepped in to provide funding for NSP1--the first 
     round of funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization 
     Program--to abate the crisis. This funding was quickly 
     followed by NSP2 and NSP3 to further aid local neighborhoods. 
     While more funding is needed, the contribution these programs 
     have made have been important to abating the foreclosure 
     crisis and arresting neighborhood decline. NSP3 is needed to 
     continue the reverberating effect of the activities started 
     under NSP1 and NSP2.
       According to the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development (HUD), NSP1 and NSP2, combined, have assisted 
     approximately 100,000 properties. The programs have assisted 
     a wide mix of income levels, from very-low income persons at 
     or below 50% of area median income to middle-income people 
     with incomes up to 120% of area median income.
       NSP funds are efficiently allocated and managed. NSP funds 
     are highly targeted to communities with the most severe 
     neighborhood problems associated with the foreclosure crisis. 
     Grantees are under very tight deadlines to obligate and 
     expend the funds, ensuring that funds are spent quickly. The 
     programs have strict reporting requirements that allows HUD 
     to see that the funds are being spent as directed by statute 
     and regulation and in a timely fashion.
       The programs could not have been implemented in such an 
     efficient and quick manner without the guidance and technical 
     assistance that has been provided by HUD. HUD staff have 
     devoted a lot of time and resources to NSP grantees to ensure 
     they have the capacity and tools to allocate funds quickly 
     and implement program activities to arrest neighborhood 
     decline.
       We urge you and the other Subcommittee members to support 
     these valuable neighborhood revitalization programs.
           Sincerely,
       National Association of Counties, National League of 
     Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Community 
     Development Association, National Association for County 
     Community and Economic Development, Council of State 
     Community Development Agencies, Enterprise Community 
     Partners, Inc.
                                  ____

                                         NYC Department of Housing


                                   Preservation & Development,

                                      New York, NY, March 9, 2011.
     Re H.R. 839--``The HAMP Termination Act of 2011''; H.R. 861--
         ``NSP Termination Act''.

     Hon. Spencer Bachus,
     Chairman,
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Ranking Member, Financial Services Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives: I am writing this letter to express 
     the City of New York's opposition to the above-referenced 
     bills coming before the House Financial Services Committee. 
     These measures would eliminate crucial foreclosure prevention 
     and neighborhood stabilization support available to 
     homeowners and communities grappling with the devastating 
     effects of the foreclosure crisis here in New York City.
       The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has been an 
     invaluable tool for homeowners throughout the city who have 
     unsustainable mortgages.
       Data shows us that permanent HAMP modifications have on 
     average saved homeowners almost $400 more in monthly payments 
     than the savings achieved by non-HAMP modifications ($1200 
     vs. $828).
       Of the permanent modifications reported by the Center for 
     New York City Neighborhood's extensive network of service 
     providers, 46% are HAMP modifications (479 out of 1036), 
     which is on par with the national average of 41%, as reported 
     by the OCC (http://tinyurl.com/4qajkkt).
       HAMP has had a tremendous impact in New York. In the NYC 
     MSA, there have been 41,785 HAMP modifications (32,785 
     permanent and 9,000 active trials), which represents 6% of 
     all HAMP activity nationwide.
       Without HAMP foreclosure prevention efforts would be 
     greatly diminished. HAMP has been critically important in 
     moving the mortgage industry to make more affordable, 
     sustainable modifications for homeowners who have the ability 
     to stay in their homes. We know from counselors on the ground 
     that the banks' own proprietary modifications have become 
     more affordable and ``HAMP-like'' since the full roll-out of 
     the program, further illustrating HAMP's impact. However, 
     HAMP must be preserved because even as the quality of non-
     HAMP modifications improves, they are not nearly as 
     beneficial as HAMP modifications.
       The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) provides 
     states and municipalities with much-needed funds to stabilize 
     neighborhoods hardest-hit by the foreclosure crisis. In NYC, 
     we have used NSP funds to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed 
     homes for resale as affordable housing.
       NSP funds are reducing the city's stock of vacant, 
     foreclosed homes that are a blight on communities. To date, 
     we have acquired 65 homes that are in various stages of 
     rehab, and on track to buy and restore 25 more. We are poised 
     to launch a program that will offer NSP funds as downpayment 
     assistance to encourage homeowners to buy foreclosed homes. 
     These programs accomplish dual goals of incentivizing 
     homeownership while also improving the housing stock in 
     neighborhoods devastated by foreclosure.
       NSP funding has also been used to assist multifamily rental 
     buildings in distress, providing long-term affordability for 
     income-eligible families. As a result of the economic 
     downturn, New York City is witnessing an increase in the 
     number of rental buildings with deteriorating physical 
     conditions, with many of these buildings in default on their 
     mortgages. Addressing the needs of these properties is 
     putting a strain on our typical funding sources, making NSP a 
     particularly valuable tool. We have expended over $3M of NSP 
     funds on the acquisition of foreclosed multi-family 
     buildings, creating over 200 affordable rental units in The 
     Bronx and Brooklyn. At least $10 million in future NSP funds 
     will be targeted towards stabilizing some of the most 
     distressed multi-family rental housing in the City.
       As outlined here, the aforementioned programs offer 
     critical assistance to New York City families and 
     neighborhoods suffering from the harmful effects of the 
     foreclosure crisis. These programs' positive impacts are 
     extensive and they are compelling. To eliminate them now 
     would be unwise. For these reasons, The City of New York 
     oppose their termination.
           Sincerely,
                                                Rafael E. Cestero,
                                                     Commissioner.

          REPORT ON THE NUMBER OF HOMES VACANT 90 DAYS OR MORE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Number of Homes
                        State                          Vacant 90 Days or
                                                              More
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..............................................             13,369
Arkansas.............................................                974
Arizona..............................................             52,511
California...........................................             92,186
Colorado.............................................             20,671
Connecticut..........................................              8,501
Washington, DC.......................................                224
Delaware.............................................                549
Florida..............................................            203,882
Georgia..............................................             92,950
Hawaii...............................................                754
Iowa.................................................              2,609
Idaho................................................                375
Illinois.............................................             49,043
Indiana..............................................             74,100
Kansas...............................................              2,311
Kentucky.............................................              1,191
Louisiana............................................              2,439
Massachusetts........................................              7,331
Maryland.............................................              1,878
Maine................................................                167
Michigan.............................................            120,365
Minnesota............................................             13,937
Missouri.............................................             20,084
Mississippi..........................................              4,431
Montana..............................................                172
North Carolina.......................................              4,510
North Dakota.........................................                  7
Nebraska.............................................              2,911
New Hampshire........................................                155
New Jersey...........................................             10,859
New Mexico...........................................                  0
Nevada...............................................             41,297
New York.............................................             16,422
Ohio.................................................            116,325
Oklahoma.............................................              2,961
Oregon...............................................                 32
Pennsylvania.........................................                847
Puerto Rico..........................................                  0
Rhode Island.........................................              3,142
South Carolina.......................................             11,172
Tennessee............................................             18,141
Texas................................................             33,982
Utah.................................................                 85
Virginia.............................................              5,638
Vermont..............................................                  0
Washington...........................................                 71
Wisconsin............................................              5,413
Wyoming..............................................                  0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mrs. MALONEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
will be postponed.


    EN BLOC AMENDMENTS NO. 9 AND 10 OFFERED BY MS. CASTOR OF FLORIDA

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider en bloc amendments 
No. 9 and 10 printed in part B of House Report 112-34.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Chair, I have en bloc amendments at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the en bloc amendments.
  The text of the en bloc amendments is as follows:

[[Page H1889]]

                            amendment no. 9

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 5. GAO STUDY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ROUND 3 NSP FUNDING.

       The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 
     a study to determine the economic impacts that providing 
     assistance under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, 
     using the funding identified in section 2, would have on 
     States and communities in the United States, if such funding 
     were not rescinded and canceled under such section, but 
     remained available and was used in accordance with the 
     provisions of law applicable to such amounts as in effect 
     immediately before the repeal under section 3(a). Not later 
     than the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 
     shall submit to the Congress a report setting forth the 
     results and conclusions of the study under this section.


                            amendment no. 10

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 5. GAO STUDY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ROUNDS 1 AND 2 NSP 
                   FUNDING.

       The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 
     a study to determine the economic impacts that providing 
     assistance under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has 
     had on States and communities in the United States. The study 
     shall identify such impacts resulting from the funding under 
     the each of the provisions of law specified in subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B) of section 3(b)(2). Not later than the expiration 
     of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the 
     Congress a report setting forth the results and conclusions 
     of the study under this section.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 170, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Chair, my amendments are very simple. 
They say that 90 days after enactment of this bill, we will commence a 
Government Accountability study to determine the impact of Neighborhood 
Stabilization rounds 1, 2, and 3 on communities all across the country.
  Now, I have to tell you, Madam Chair, I do not need a study to tell 
me that in my community Neighborhood Stabilization has provided 
terrific benefits. Neighborhood Stabilization in the Tampa Bay area in 
Florida, a community that was very hard hit by predatory lending, 
subprime mortgage, and the foreclosure crisis, Neighborhood 
Stabilization has given us the tools to create vital housing in the 
midst of this horrendous crisis and it has created jobs.
  Things have been tough in my neck of the woods, and Neighborhood 
Stabilization has given communities in our neighborhoods and our 
nonprofit agencies a little bit of hope. Property values in the Tampa 
Bay area have plummeted by over 40 percent since 2007. Neighborhood 
Stabilization has helped us to stop the bleeding. Neighborhood 
Stabilization has helped us protect our property values. And 
Neighborhood Stabilization has turned some of the worst abandoned and 
foreclosed homes that were causing blight all across our community into 
rehabilitated properties. And here are just a few examples of what 
Neighborhood Stabilization has done in Tampa and in Hillsborough 
County.
  First, with the help of our local nonprofit partners, in East Tampa 
we have taken an abandoned, dilapidated residential property and we are 
turning it into housing for 18 homeless female veterans and their 
families. If you come down to my neck of the woods, unfortunately, you 
will see folks out on the street corner. We have a panhandling problem 
like never before--nothing I have ever seen in my lifetime in my 
hometown--and it's very difficult to deal with. A lot of the homeless 
are veterans, and some of them are female veterans. So we've taken that 
Neighborhood Stabilization money and plugged it into buying an old 
abandoned residential property, and we're now providing housing for 
those homeless veterans. We broke ground last fall, and all of the 
construction workers, the architects, the engineers, they were there to 
thank us because they also needed the work.
  Here's a second example. We also breathed new life into a new 
downtown redevelopment mixed use initiative. Years ago, the Tampa 
community tore down what was the worst public housing project anywhere 
around. It was named Central Park Village. Well, thanks to Neighborhood 
Stabilization, next week we are going to break ground on the first 
residential piece of this new community. The first residential piece 
will provide affordable apartments to seniors. Neighborhood 
Stabilization did that. We did not have the funds and our local 
partners did not have the funds to continue on that mixed use public-
private partnership. And it gets even better, because that big mixed 
use project is going to create 4,000 construction jobs in an area that 
really needs them and 1,000 permanent jobs once the new redevelopment 
is finished.
  Third, through our community, we have targeted those ugly, abandoned, 
dilapidated houses and duplexes on the street or boarded-up apartment 
complexes. We put people to work cleaning them up. We've sold them or 
rerented to a family that met eligibility standards. A renovated home 
can sometimes set off a chain reaction of home improvement throughout 
your neighborhood, and that is what we're seeing.
  The alternative would be letting houses stay vacant, continuing to 
drag down property values in my community even further. We're putting 
families back into these homes. Our local nonprofit partners are 
returning them to the fabric of the neighborhoods rather than just 
having them sit there or seeing them flipped by out-of-town investors.
  In addition to the meaningful tools Neighborhood Stabilization gives 
to local communities like mine and the thousands of jobs it has helped 
create, I would like you to take one step back and consider the modest 
investment Neighborhood Stabilization has provided--overall, $7 billion 
over the past few years. I can't help but compare that to the $700 
billion that was provided to Wall Street through the Wall Street 
bailout that I did not support because that was not directing the big 
banks to provide any help to our local communities. Well, Neighborhood 
Stabilization, this very modest investment--1 percent of the Wall 
Street bailout funds--now is providing greater stabilization throughout 
our communities.
  So I urge my colleagues to support my amendments and oppose H.R. 861.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the 
time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Some of the arguments that the 
gentlelady made are heart-wrenching. You hate to think about homeless 
people. Veterans are suffering in this country, there's no doubt about 
it. Veterans are coming back. Some of them have problems from being on 
the front in combat. In our church every week, our pastor talks about 
that, and we pray for these veterans. You feel sorry for them.
  But we talk about elderly; we talk about veterans; we talk about 
children; we talk about homeless. Nothing in this bill prioritizes them 
in any fashion. There are groups that could be helped as a consequence 
of it, and I understand that, but nothing prioritizes.
  I'm going to accept the gentlelady's amendment because I have no 
problem with trying to determine the economic impact of the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program. I think there's been a huge impact 
on the economy because we've given away, to date, $6 billion of 
taxpayers' money on this program. And I think we could have done a much 
better job at investing that money in another fashion that wouldn't 
have put the taxpayers at risk and perhaps created jobs in doing that.
  But I met with the NAHB, National Association of Home Builders, to 
talk about all the people in the industry out of work. I've talked to 
BIA, talking about all the Building Industry Association members out of 
work, and they're trying to put them to work. This bill does not help 
them.
  We talk about a giveaway to banks. In TARP 1, we lent money to banks, 
yes, and they paid it back with interest. Freddie and Fannie, yes, 
we're lending money to Freddie and Fannie. They're paying 10 percent 
interest on the money. So to create this straw man out there of the 
bank giveaway and Wall Street and Freddie and Fannie is fallacious. 
Freddie and Fannie are paying 10 percent interest on the money.
  We did not just, the people who voted for the first half of TARP, 
vote to give

[[Page H1890]]

banks money and forget it, go home. It was to stop a major run on the 
banks and to stop this economy from plummeting. And Bernanke and 
Paulson and the administration, everybody on both sides of the aisle 
agreed it had to be done. And the money was paid back, and we made 
money on it. Shock.
  This money was given away and we will not be getting it back.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Schweikert).

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chairman, I am pleased that we're actually 
accepting this amendment, because if we get an honest study from it, it 
could be some very interesting numbers. But I hope it's an honest study 
that also looks from top to bottom. Such as in the Neighborhood 
Stabilization Program in the previous $6 billion that has been spent, 
what crowding out has it done? What first-time homebuyers, what 
investors, found themselves competing with government? It would be 
interesting to know.
  Also, we keep hearing the numbers of saying, well, with our 
government money we created this many jobs. How many jobs were being 
created if they were private investors or first-time homebuyers or 
other families that were acquiring the same sort of properties and 
fixing them up? If we're going to get like for like, it will be 
fascinating.
  Then we also have to deal with the reality of it as we saw in the 
previous amendment. In that amendment, it was claiming there were about 
1,061,000, we'll call them vacant units in the country. Okay. If we 
start doing the math with the remaining billion dollars of additional 
money, how much impact does that have? And will the study also step up 
and say, with the $6 billion that's out there that's supposed to be 
acting like a revolving fund, 5 years from the beginning of this 
program, which was what, last summer? How is that money being used? How 
much velocity is it really getting? Or is it now sitting in houses that 
are competing with other neighbors who are trying to sell theirs.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I would be happy to yield to the 
gentlelady. I was not meaning to be rude or forget about you.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank my colleague very much for agreeing to 
accept my amendments.
  My point on comparing neighborhood stabilization to the Wall Street 
bailout was just to point out--and I know both sides of the aisle were 
involved in the Wall Street bailout. It was the Bush administration, 
but a number of Democrats worked to do that, and I'm not here to 
criticize that. It's just to compare the scale. There was $700 billion 
provided to Wall Street banks, just to compare, and 1 percent of that 
to communities under neighborhood stabilization.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I reclaim my time.
  I was going to allow for adequate time on that, but it was not a 
giveaway. It was a loan. You're comparing $350 billion in the first 
half that was lent to lenders to stabilize the economy versus $700 
billion that was a giveaway.
  It's my time, Madam Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me briefly?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Regular order, Madam Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts will allow the 
gentleman from California to continue.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I think we're comparing things that 
have nothing to do with the bill before us. So we can talk about Wall 
Street. We can talk about banks. If anything, this has helped banks 
because it's taken foreclosed properties that they've had and it's 
bought them. So we can add all these straw men to the debate that we 
want to. The thing is, should we give away taxpayer dollars? I say no 
and I ask for an ``aye'' on the gentlelady's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
112-34 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
  Amendment No. 6 by Ms. Waters of California.
  Amendment No. 7 by Ms. Waters of California.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mrs. Maloney of New York.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ellison

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ellison) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 244, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 183]

                               AYES--183

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--244

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna

[[Page H1891]]


     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cohen
     Giffords
     Labrador
     Nadler
     Schwartz

                              {time}  1749

  Messrs. BERG, PENCE, PITTS, and YOUNG of Indiana changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Waters

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 248, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 184]

                               AYES--174

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--248

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bass (CA)
     Cohen
     Franks (AZ)
     Giffords
     Labrador
     Marchant
     Nadler
     Owens
     Schwartz
     Welch


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1757

  Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Waters

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, 
noes 249, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 185]

                               AYES--178

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps

[[Page H1892]]


     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--249

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cohen
     Giffords
     Labrador
     Nadler
     Schwartz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1803

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 246, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 186]

                               AYES--179

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--246

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas

[[Page H1893]]


     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cohen
     Giffords
     Johnson (OH)
     Labrador
     Nadler
     Renacci
     Schwartz


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1809

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Chaffetz) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 861) to 
rescind the third round of funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization 
Program and to terminate the program, and, pursuant to House Resolution 
170, reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Braley of Iowa moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 861, to 
     the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       In section 3(b)(1), before ``shall continue'' insert the 
     following: ``, and all amounts made available for use 
     pursuant to subsection (d),''.
       In section 3(c), before ``, and outlays'' insert ``or under 
     subsection (d)''.
       At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection:
       (d) Continuation of State Program; Priority for Rural 
     Areas.--There is authorized to be appropriated an amount 
     equal to the portion of the unobligated balances described in 
     section 2 that, pursuant to the provision of law specified in 
     section 2, was allocated to States. Any amounts made 
     available pursuant to the authorization under this subsection 
     shall be used for assistance under the same provisions of law 
     applicable to the amounts made available by the provision of 
     law specified in section 2, except that assistance made 
     available pursuant to the authorization under this subsection 
     shall be allocated only to States and any State that receives 
     an allocation from such amounts shall, in distributing such 
     allocated amounts, give priority emphasis and consideration 
     to rural areas (within the meaning given such term for 
     purposes of the provision of law specified in section 2).
       In section 4, after ``(NSP)'' insert the following; ``for 
     assistance for units of general local government''.

  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of 
order against the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, this picture tells the story of why 
this amendment is so important. This isn't Wall Street. You don't see 
any hedge fund managers or investment bankers here. They are doing 
pretty well these days. This isn't the headquarters of BP.
  Most small towns are lucky to have a single convenience store, and 
they are even luckier if that convenience store sells gasoline. This is 
a Main Street in my State of Iowa, and there are far too many of these 
in communities in my State and in my district. And I guarantee you, 
there are far too many of these in rural communities in your States. 
Because while Wall Street and big corporations are doing fine, our 
rural communities and small towns are facing a real crisis, and the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program is making a real difference in rural 
America.
  I want to tell you about a woman from Oelwein, a small town in my 
district. She is 23 years old. She only makes $22,000 a year working at 
a day care. She grew up in Oelwein and she wants to raise her children 
in Oelwein, and the national Neighborhood Stabilization Program is 
helping her become a first-time homeowner.
  Now, our amendment would simply take the money that has already been 
allocated for this program and prioritize it for our rural communities 
so we can change the way that streets like this look, and so we can 
make sure that more moms can raise their kids in the towns where they 
grew up. This amendment doesn't cost any money. It allows a mom to 
raise a child in her home community. And our amendment will not kill 
this bill. It would simply give our rural communities the ability to 
weather the worst crisis they have faced in a generation.
  Now, maybe our small towns or this young mom should incorporate as a 
bank. Maybe then they would get the same kind of attention that we have 
given to Wall Street. Because, folks, Wall Street is getting through 
this crisis; Main Streets are not. And it is time we answer this 
question: Are we going to stand with Wall Street and Big Oil and 
corporate CEOs, or are we going to stand up for small towns all across 
America that need our help now more than ever?
  At this time, I yield to my good friend from the State of Iowa, 
Congressman Boswell.
  Mr. BOSWELL. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this. And, 
again, I want to say this amendment does not kill the bill.
  Republicans have put forth a bill that again forces our middle class 
and our working families to sacrifice, sacrifice, and sacrifice so they 
can continue the giveaways for Big Oil, billionaires, and corporations 
that outsource American jobs.
  As a former professional soldier, I approach our economy with a 
military eye to take the hill and get our economy going again, and we 
need all of our troops behind us. In this case, our troops are our 
workers, the middle class Americans who must be healthy and armed with 
the tools to rebuild the economy. Our camps are the communities that 
must have the resources to do just that. So why are our troops and 
communities in rural America being left behind?
  Rural Main Streets in Iowa have been devastated as Republicans have 
rewarded outsourcing. Manufacturing plants in my district, like 
Maytag--all of you know who Maytag is--in Newton, Iowa, they have 
packed up and

[[Page H1894]]

moved their jobs to Mexico. Many of you have similar situations.
  Rural workers have lost jobs in ethanol, biodiesel, and wind turbine 
plants because we have given tax breaks to Big Oil while cutting 
investments in renewable energy. These communities have weathered farm 
crisis after crisis, as Republicans defend Wall Street speculators 
tinkering with the markets that they depend on.
  I urge my colleagues to say ``yes'' to rural America and the middle 
class by supporting this amendment to H.R. 861. Rural America is not 
blue or red. Rural America is simply hardworking communities that are 
already struggling to keep the American Dream alive for their residents 
who live, work, and believe in them.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, to many people, rural America is a 
policy or a program. To Congressman Boswell and me, it is where we came 
from. That is why I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this motion 
to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I withdraw my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. That was a very nice picture of a 
storefront. It was not a picture of a home. Now, why would you impose a 
terrible program on rural America that you don't want on urban America?
  You have to say we have given away $6 billion of taxpayer monies and 
it will never come back to the Federal Government. We are saying let's 
preserve the last billion dollars.
  There is a huge lack of accountability in this program. The inspector 
general of HUD has already identified multiple misuses of NSP money at 
the State level. The GAO has questioned the information system that 
places HUD at risk using the tracking system.
  How many of you want to use your money to buy this house that 
Chairman Bachus has pointed out? Nobody. But, taxpayers, guess what? We 
are using your money. The biggest problem with this program is unfair 
allocation.
  Now, rural America, you probably got ripped off in this whole process 
like everybody else did because, let's see, where did the money go? In 
the NSP 1, we spent $4 billion. In the NSP 2, $1.93 billion. We are 
saying the last billion dollars, let's at least save that for the 
taxpayers and use it for some beneficial purpose.
  Where did the money go? Let's see if it was fairly distributed. Let's 
look at my area. L.A. County got $26.3 million. San Bernardino County, 
one of the hardest hit, got $33.2 million. Orange County got $4.3 
million. San Diego County, $5.1 million. A total of $68.9 million on 
hard-hit counties.
  Now, let's see. What did nongovernment agency groups get out there 
that are incorporated? Neighborhood Lending Partners, Incorporated got 
$50 million; the Community Builders, Incorporated got $78.6 million; 
Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Service, Incorporated got $60 million; 
Neighborhood Lending Partners of West Florida, Incorporated got $50 
million; and Chicanos por la Causa, Inc. got $137 million.
  Now, all of my counties got $68.9 million; the Community Builders got 
$78.6 million; Chicanos por la Causa got $137 million. Is that 
considered nonequitable qualification? It is nonequitable, period. It 
does not make sense. And we say $1.3 billion went to nongovernment 
agencies.
  Now, somebody said I was racist because I said Chicanos por la Causa 
got $137 million. They got 10 percent of all the funds given to 
nongovernment agencies. If it was Germans for Affordable Housing that 
got $137 million, I would oppose it just like I oppose this one.
  Now, taxpayers understand, clearly, it did not prevent one 
foreclosure in this entire country. Not one person got to keep their 
home because we spent $6 billion. In fact, imagine the family who owned 
the home. Maybe the ma or pa got in trouble with their job. They 
couldn't quite make the payments. For the last 3 years, they have been 
unable to repair the plumbing. They couldn't replace the oven that 
wasn't working. A couple windows were broken out.

                              {time}  1820

  The house needed painting. And they had to sit there and let their 
house go back to the lender, to watch some entity, a nonprofit or 
government agency, buy that home, fix it up, and sell it to somebody 
else. How would you feel when nobody came to your aid when you were 
losing your home, but yet your tax dollars were used to buy that home 
to give it to somebody else?
  Now, understand clearly, the argument they have made is look at all 
the money we gave to bail out the banks. Well, I got an update from 
Treasury today. Ninety-nine percent of the money that we lent to banks 
has been paid back. And, guess what? We made $20 billion on it. But we 
gave $7 billion away to this program. So, yes, we made 20, and we ended 
up with a net 13, by lending the money that you say bailed out the 
banks. It was a loan.
  This program does nothing but say we are going to send you a check, 
and you never send us a dime back. And the sweet part is you can pay 
any amount of money you want for the house. It is almost impossible to 
violate the terms of this deal, because there are no conditions. You 
can pay $800,000 for a house and sell it for $50. The requirement is 
whatever you pay for the house, plus whatever you pay to rehabilitate 
the house, you have to sell it for less.
  And it doesn't say who you have to sell it to. A nonprofit, I am not 
saying they would, could have a cousin who wanted to buy the house that 
they paid $180,000 for and they could sell it legitimately for $20,000, 
and, guess what? You have not violated the terms of NSP 1, 2 or 3, and 
you have not broken the law. And when you sell the house, if you sell 
it, you can take the money and recycle it again. You could even take 
this money and do a private venture with a private group, splitting 
profits, and, falling under the conditions of how you buy the house and 
sell the house, money gets split. There are very few restrictions in 
this bill.
  This is a terrible bill. I would encourage a ``no'' vote on the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153, 
noes 272, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 187]

                               AYES--153

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kind
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maloney
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader

[[Page H1895]]


     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--272

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Weiner
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cohen
     Giffords
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Nadler
     Schwartz
     Wasserman Schultz


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1838

  Messrs. WATT, MARKEY, KUCINICH, Ms. TSONGAS, Ms. RICHARDSON, and Ms. 
BERKLEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 182, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 188]

                               AYES--242

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--182

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

[[Page H1896]]



                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cohen
     Giffords
     Labrador
     Moore
     Nadler
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Wasserman Schultz


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1845

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________