NSP Termination Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my remaining time.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source