The HAMP Termination Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this bill, but I do so with mixed feelings because I have been one of the critics of the HAMP program.

The members of the majority have pointed out correctly that this program has been widely criticized for more than 2 years. It has been criticized by the congressional oversight panel, by the SIGTARP (Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program), by La Raza, by Elizabeth Warren, and, yes, by me. But I have not criticized it for the reasons that the gentleman from Alabama gave. If this bill is keeping a promise, it is not a promise made in open to the American people, it is keeping a promise made in secret to the banks, because the costs of this program are not going to come out of the pockets of the American people. This comes out of the TARP program. That legislation said that any money not recovered by 2013 has to be recovered from the financial industry, and whoever's present in 2013 has to propose to Congress exactly how it is we're going to get that money back.

They can afford it. Thirty percent of all corporate profits are in the financial sector. They can more than afford it.

The gentleman from Alabama frequently says that he hates visiting debt on his grandchildren, and I believe him when he says it, but I have good news for him. Unless his grandchildren take a job on Wall Street in the next 2 years, they are not going to have to pay this debt. This debt, if Congress does keep its promise to the American people, will not come from the American people. It will come from Wall Street. It will come from the people who created the mess that we are now trying to clean up.

But I have criticized this program because it is not as effective as it should be. It has gone on for 2 years. It is not what we need. The problem, however, has not been what government has made banks do. This program has been run by the banks. It has not been run by the government. It has been run by the banks. Every horror story about a homeowner's being abused is being abused by a bank, the bank handling the mortgage, not by the Department of the Treasury, not by the Federal Government.

So, of course, when they come to see a Republican Member of Congress, the Republican Member of Congress says, ``Oh, isn't it terrible what the Federal Government made that poor bank do to you.'' No, the Federal Government didn't make the banks do that.

My criticism of this program and my criticism of the Obama administration in how they have run this program is not that they've made banks do what they've done, but they have let banks do what they've done. This program can work if there are some tough rules that are really enforced, tough on the banks.

The gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned earlier the bankruptcy proposal 3 years ago. I introduced that bill. I have been trying to put rules, requirements, on the banks that they let people out, that they try to begin to let people out in a very orderly, logical, fair way, through judges, through a judicial process, to begin to get control of the collapse of the housing market.

Something has got to happen to stop the continuing fall of housing values. Something has got to happen to end the cycle of foreclosures and diminished home values and more foreclosures. Republicans have offered nothing to do that. We know something can work. We know that we can design a program that will work, because it has been done before.

In the New Deal, one of the most successful programs in the New Deal was the Home Owners' Loan Corporation which bought mortgages, modified them, worked with homeowners, tailored the mortgages to something the homeowner could buy for those homeowners who really could afford a house, the house that they were in but not the mortgage that they had, and most historians say that program saved the housing market in the Great Depression and saved the middle class.

We have got to make something work. There are rules on the horizon. There is now a pending settlement negotiation for the violations of law by the banks in how they've managed mortgages. It is with States attorneys general and it is with the Federal regulatory agencies. Some on the Republican side have publicly pressured the Federal agencies to lay off the banks. I really cannot tell much difference between what they are doing in the pressure they are putting on banks and the regulatory agents in an enforcement matter and what happened a generation ago with the Keating Five. But they're doing it. They're saying, ``Lay off our buddies the banks. Don't come down too hard on them.'' But there is a real possibility the result of that settlement will be some tough rules, and there is now rule-making authority. There is now a cop on the block. The CFPB has the authority to develop rules for banks in how they manage mortgages.

But something has to work. This has not been working. It can be fixed. It has to be fixed. Something has to work.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, it is with great regret but with clear intent that I rise in opposition to continuing the Federal Home Affordable Modification Program, known as HAMP, without significant changes.

HAMP was designed to help millions of homeowners who had fallen victim to the financial crisis of 2008 and to the collapse of the housing market; but regrettably, at this time, it is not working under its current structure.

On behalf of struggling homeowners in my congressional district trying to avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes, I have gone to great lengths to encourage the Obama administration to recognize the serious shortcomings of the HAMP program, shortcomings that have been well documented by numerous independent and authoritative sources.

But the administration has been unable to successfully respond to the legitimate criticisms of HAMP and as a result the administration faces opposition to its program today on the floor of the House not only from those who oppose everything this administration does for purely partisan reasons but also from representatives like me who have genuinely sought to work with the administration to improve this program.

I hope that my vote today is understood clearly by the administration as one more effort on my part, on behalf of my desperate constituents, to get the administration to recognize the urgency of the housing crisis and respond to it accordingly. I appreciate that much hard work has already been done. I know that many people are involved in this effort and many hours have been dedicated to the problem. But in the case of ongoing foreclosures nationwide and the abuses homeowners face from banks and mortgage servicers, all the hard work and effort has not been sufficient and more must be done.

Homeowners in my community and across the country are being lied to, chewed up, and abused by banks and servicers in an arbitrary and capricious system that has stripped them of their homes and their livelihoods. In my district, people who are in need of substantial help in their fights against the big banks are simply not getting it. Hard as I try with my staff, and hard as my colleagues try with their staff, we cannot do enough on our own.

Make no mistake--Republicans in Washington are not on the side of homeowners in this fight. They're using the problems with HAMP as an excuse to once again oppose the Obama administration, just as they have opposed the Obama administration on every step it has taken to rescue the economy, for purely partisan reasons. Regrettably, the Republican approach to the housing crisis is to cut and run, to starve the economy of the investments it needs to create jobs and get the economy--and the housing market--back on its feet. Their bill today does nothing to help the housing crisis and it would deprive the administration of funds that could be used to help homeowners. But their bill does one thing that I do support--it sends a message that homeowners are not getting the help they need from HAMP and that HAMP must be significantly improved or replaced in order to offer the kind of help distressed homeowners need.

So far, such improvements have not taken place. And I see no sign that they will. And left with no choice but to register one more complaint by voting to end HAMP.

I hope today's vote is understood clearly as a wake-up call to the administration that HAMP is not good enough today to earn my support and that it must be strengthened immediately or replaced by a program that does work. I hope my vote sends the message that banks and servicers are responsible for the abuse that is taking place in today's housing market and that we intend to hold them accountable for their behavior, and that we are committed to helping struggling homeowners survive and recover from this crisis.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source