4:21 PM EDT

Keith Ellison, D-MN 5th

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.

4:21 PM EDT

Loretta Sanchez, D-CA 47th

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The Congress finds that, if the amounts that are rescinded and canceled under section 2 of this Act were instead made available under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program authorized under the provisions of law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.

4:21 PM EDT

Loretta Sanchez, D-CA 47th

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.

4:25 PM EDT

Gary G. Miller, R-CA 42nd

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.

4:27 PM EDT

Loretta Sanchez, D-CA 47th

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.

4:28 PM EDT

Gary G. Miller, R-CA 42nd

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: 16:30]

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).