Volume 158, No. 65 covering the 2nd Session of the 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S3043-S3046 on May 9, 2012.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 3047. A bill to encourage responsible homeowners to refinance mortgages, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act of 2012.
This bill will allow homeowners who are struggling to stay in their homes to refinance their loans at today's historically low mortgage rates.
The administration's current refinancing programs are designed to help homeowners whose loans are guaranteed by Federal housing agencies. The problem is, those programs do nothing to help homeowners whose loans are owned by banks and mortgage trusts.
This bill would create a fund in the Federal Housing Administration that would allow underwater homeowners whose loans are not guaranteed by the GSEs or FHA to refinance into today's low mortgage rates. The FHA would be able to insure these loans, greatly reducing the interest rates charged by lenders.
Currently, these homeowners are completely locked out of refinancing and are not being served by the private markets.
A homeowner paying 7 percent interest on their mortgage could reduce their interest rate by 2.5 percent or more through this program.
The average American homeowner could save up to three thousand dollars a year in lower interest payments.
The Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act of 2012 is modeled after a proposal President Obama outlined in his State of the Union address in February.
Eligibility requirements for this new program are very straightforward.
Homeowners must be current on their mortgage. They must meet a minimum credit score. Their loan must be under the FHA conforming loan limit. They must be living in a single-family, owner-occupied home that is their principal residence.
Additionally, the program requires that loans not be higher than 140 percent of a home's value. Housing data shows that homeowners with loan-to-value ratios under 140 percent are significantly less likely to default than those with higher ratios.
An added benefit of the 140 percent loan-to-value limit is that it could encourage lenders to write down the principal amount owed on the mortgage to allow homeowners to qualify for participation. This would be tremendously helpful for homeowners whose home values have fallen dramatically after the collapse of the housing bubble.
Some will criticize this proposal, suggesting the government must get out of the housing market for it to recover.
I believe the government can play a vital role in making sure that home values don't continue their steep declines. Robert Shiller, the noted housing bear and respected housing economist who publishes the closely watched Case-Shiller housing index, believes that home prices have reached normal levels.
To those who would oppose this bill, I ask: how much further would you have home values decline?
While many economic indicators are increasing, falling home prices and foreclosures continue to burden the economy. Here is a quick inventory of the state of America's homeowners:
Case-Shiller found home prices in February rising for the first time in 10 months, although that gain was a nominal 0.2 percent.
Nationally, more than 11 million homeowners, or 23 percent, are upside down on their mortgage, meaning they owe more than the value of their home. Almost 30 percent of homes in California are underwater.
Median home prices are at levels not seen since the late 1990s, with the gains in the intervening years completely wiped out. Home values on average have dropped by more than 30%, with $7 trillion in household wealth lost.
And Core Logic found that home prices increased 0.6 percent last month, but are still down 0.6 percent from a year ago.
Many housing economists believe the market is at its bottom, but that doesn't mean we are out of the woods. Further increases in foreclosures would undoubtedly put further downward pressure on home prices, which could further threaten underwater homeowners and feed into a vicious negative cycle.
This is also a matter of fairness.
When homeowners take on a mortgage, they have no control over whether their bank will slice-and-dice that loan, selling it to third-party investors. If that happens, chances of refinancing into lower interest rates plummet.
I have worked closely with the administration to make sure this added responsibility does not increase the financial risk to the FHA.
The Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act would create a new insurance fund at the FHA, totally separate from the existing mortgage insurance fund that is currently under-capitalized.
The new fund would receive its own appropriation and would be audited separately from the existing mortgage insurance fund. Furthermore, I have worked to put safeguards in place to reduce FHA's risk. Most notably, homeowners must be current on their mortgages in order to participate.
Finally, the cost of the new program would be completely offset by a 0.1 percent increase in guarantee fees for loans backed by Fannie and Freddie in 2022.
The benefits of this proposal are clear: Refinancing into lower interest rates could save the average homeowner upwards of $3,000 a year.
Recent statistics show that the expanded refinancing program the administration announced in November is seeing tangible results. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, refinance applications have jumped by as much as 70 percent in some of the hardest-hit States.
Clearly, efforts to expand refinancing opportunities are working. Similar benefits should be afforded to those homeowners whose loans--
through no fault of their own--are not insured by the Federal Government.
Beyond providing relief to American families, savings on mortgage payments would have a broader benefit for the economy.
Since the beginning of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has maintained an extremely low interest rate policy to encourage the availability of affordable credit.
There is no question that these measures have had an effect.
The stock market is climbing again after falling off a cliff in late 2008.
Mortgage rates have fallen to near-historic lows, recently dipping below 4 percent.
Consumers are spending less of their income paying down debt, from a high of 9.1 percent in 2007 to 5.8 percent today.
As a result, consumers are saving more and spending more on purchases that have been put off for years. This is a boost to the economy. For proof, look no further than the rebound in vehicle sales that has fueled the resurgence of American auto manufacturers.
However, there is also no doubt that the effects of the Fed's low interest rate policies have been dampened by problems in the housing market. The Fed has noted that home foreclosures are one of the biggest drags on the economic recovery.
Allowing all homeowners to lower their mortgage payments through refinancing is one way to help stop this downward spiral.
We cannot have a robust economic recovery while the housing market languishes. Just as a dilapidated foreclosure erodes the value of every home on the block, a sputtering housing market affects all aspects of the economy.
The sooner we reverse declines in the housing market, the sooner we can foster a robust economic recovery. We owe that to every American, and I encourage my colleagues to support The Expanding Refinancing Opportunities Act of 2012.
______
By Mr. BEGICH (for himself and Mr. Boozman):
S. 3049. A bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to expand the definition of homeless veteran for purposes of benefits under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Boozman, to introduce a bill that will help veterans who have been forced out of their homes because of domestic violence. This bill will expand the definition of homeless veteran to include domestic violence.
Due to an oversight in the law, the legal definition of ``homeless veterans'' differs significantly from the existing definition of homelessness. Existing law recognizes individuals who have been forced from their homes by domestic violence as ``homeless'' but for the purposes of special ``homeless veteran'' benefits, this situation is overlooked. The small wording change in our bill will allow those veterans who are in a domestic violence situation access to the same benefits available to other homeless veterans. In order to qualify for benefits offered to homeless veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs, must meet the definition of homeless in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. That is all we are changing.
One out of four women will experience domestic violence sometime in her lifetime, including veterans who have served honorably for this country. They should qualify for the benefits they deserve and need to protect them.
This bill simply updates the legal definition of ``homeless veteran'' to bring it to the same standard as the rest of the law--correcting a grievous oversight that could deny those who served our country the support and benefits they earned a thousand times over with their patriotism and courage.
In closing, it is an honor for me to serve as a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. I feel very privileged to work on behalf of our veterans. I appreciate the work of my distinguished colleagues on the committee and ask them and all senators to join me in supporting this small but very important expanded definition of homeless veterans.
______
By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Risch, Mr. DeMint,
Mr. Wicker, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin,
Mr. Paul, Mr. Moran, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs.
Hutchison, Mr. Toomey, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Barrasso,
Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Thune, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Vitter):
S. 3053. A bill to require Regional Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in an attempt to refresh our memory on what happened with the overreach of the EPA, we might remember that it was from this podium, I guess, 2 weeks ago--it was on a Friday that we found out and we had access to a tape that we released to the public. It has been on the TV and everyone has seen it now. It is a tape of the region 6 administrator of the EPA, Mr. Armendariz. At that time, when talking to the regulators who were under his jurisdiction and along with the public at a public meeting that was taking place in Texas, he said:
But as I said, oil and gas is an enforcement priority. . .
. I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I'll go ahead and tell you what I said. It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them.
And let them die on a cross. Everyone would look at that. Then he said:
And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. . . . So, that's our general philosophy.
This is the EPA we are talking about, and this is 1 of 10 of the regulators. This happens to be the region 6 administrator. This regional administrator recently resigned when not only his statement received attention but also following public awareness about the manner in which he initiated the enforcement actions in region 6.
We know about--and I have already mentioned in my previous remarks--
the company down in Texas. This company was cited by Armendariz. They are accused of groundwater contamination. They are accused of perhaps misusing hydraulic fracturing. All these were just accusations. But then they sent a letter to them and said we are going to fine you
$33,000 a day--$33,000 a day. If we read those letters carefully, we will find out that decision isn't already made, it is not going to start, but to the person who is reading the letter, who receives the letter, they will think, I can stay in business for 30 more days and that is it.
One has to ask the question: How many companies are out there that have received a letter such as this from the EPA and assumed they are going to have to start paying this fine, so they folded up their tent and they quit? This is what they want. They want to put people out of business.
I told the story from this podium about a company in my State of Oklahoma. This was back probably 10 years ago. I received a letter--we had a lumber company in Oklahoma and the president of the lumber company said: I don't know what to do. The EPA has just put us out of business.
I said: What did you do wrong?
He said: I don't think I did anything wrong. He said: I have been selling our used crankcase oil to the same licensed operation for the last 10 years and some of that--this contractor was licensed by the State of Oklahoma and the Federal Government in the County of Tulsa. He said: We have been selling it to the same group, this organization, for 10 years. He said: Some of that has been traced to a site where they have said this came from our used crankcase oil, and they said for that reason you have violated the law and we are going to fine you $5,000 a day.
Now, $5,000 a day, this is to a relatively middle-sized lumber company, Mill Creek Lumber, it is called--and they are still in business today--and that would have put them out of business. I said: Send the letter to me and let me read it. I read it and I told him they are just threatening you and trying to run you out of business.
We have to wonder as to how many companies out there are closed now or out of business because of actions such as this. How many of these companies received a letter such as the operation did down in Texas saying we are going to impose $33,000 a day and, finally, they just fold up their tent and quit? We don't know that. There is no way of knowing. We have invited people from this podium to call and we have received calls from people who have been out of business. This is an intentional effort we are dealing with and have been dealing with for quite some time.
So we introduced today, just a few minutes ago, S. 3053. I have a whole bunch of cosponsors--it looks like about 20 cosponsors--on the bill. What we do is a very simple thing. I have found in my experience in both the House and the Senate that the shorter and simpler we make something, the easier it is to understand. This is a little, small, two-page bill, and all it does is say that anyone who is going to be appointed--or nominated, I should say--as a regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would have to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. We have a list in our laws as to what has to have Senate confirmation. The Administrator of the EPA has to--and she went through that process and that person is Lisa Jackson--but not these 10 regional directors. So we are saying they should be subjected to the same advice and consent of this Senate, and we wouldn't have these kinds of problems. I suspect the Administrator of the EPA did not know what was going on in region 6 with Mr. Armendariz. I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't. In fact, she was very critical of him once we stood here and exposed what was going on.
This will solve the problem. I am going to invite people to join in. We have already introduced it. It is S. 3053. It is one that would force the administrators to be subjected to confirmation by this Senate. Keep in mind that these administrators, these regional administrators, have the power of life and death over many companies in America.
I believe this will solve that problem, and I look forward to passing this bill and having it become law.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr.
Grassley, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 3054. A bill to provide strategic workload to Army arsenals in their function as a critical component of the organic defense industrial base; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3054
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 ``Army Arsenal Strategic Workload Enhancement Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE USE OF ARSENALS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 143 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 2425. Department of Defense use of arsenals
``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop and promulgate measurable and enforceable guidelines for the Department of Defense, defense agencies, and the military services to have supplies, components, end items, parts, assemblies, and sub-assemblies made in factories or arsenals owned by the United States, to the extent those factories or arsenals can make those supplies, components, end items, parts, assemblies, and sub-assemblies on an economical basis while preserving the ability to provide an effective and timely response to mobilizations, national defense contingency situations, and other emergency requirements.
``(b) Determination of Economical Basis.--For purposes of determining whether supplies, components, end items, parts, assemblies, and sub-assemblies can be made on an `economical basis' under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall analyze the direct costs associated with the manufacture of such supplies, components, end items, parts, assemblies, and sub-assemblies. If an analysis is not performed, the Secretary of Defense or the relevant defense agency or military service shall promptly report to the congressional defense committees the justification for not performing an analysis.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``2425. Department of Defense use of arsenals.''.
SEC. 3. ASSIGNMENT OF WORKLOAD AT ARMY FACTORIES AND
ARSENALS.
(a) In General.--Section 4532 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 4532. Assignment of workload at Army factories and arsenals
``(a) Assignment of Workload.--(1) The Secretary of the Army shall assign Government-owned and Government-operated Department of the Army factories and arsenals sufficient workload to ensure cost efficiency and technical competence in peacetime, while preserving the ability to provide an effective and timely response to mobilizations, national defense contingency situations, and other emergency requirements.
``(2) At a minimum, workload may be derived from manufacturing of supplies, components, parts, systems, subsystems, and foreign military sales.
``(3) The Secretary of the Army shall develop and promulgate guidelines to make the arsenals available to the Department of Defense, defense agencies, and military services for procurement of supplies, components, parts, systems, and subsystems.
``(b) Waiver Authority.--(1) The Secretary of the Army may waive the requirement under subsection (a)(1) if such a waiver is necessary for the national defense.
``(2) A waiver under paragraph (1) shall not take effect until 30 days after the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees a notification of the determination, together with the justification for the determination.
``(3) The authority to grant a waiver under paragraph (1) may not be delegated.
``(c) Annual Arsenal Report.--In 2013 and each year thereafter, not later than 60 days after the date on which the budget of the President for a fiscal year is submitted to Congress, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report for the Army identifying, for the relevant fiscal year, each of the following:
``(1) The core arsenal manufacturing capability.
``(2) The workload required to cost-effectively support the arsenals and the manufacturing capability inherent in these installations.
``(3) The Secretary of the Army's performance in maintaining the Department of the Army's factories and arsenals with sufficient workload to ensure affordability and technical competence in peacetime.
``(4) The capital investments required to be made in order to ensure compliance and operational capacity.
``(d) Comptroller General Review.--The Comptroller General shall review each report required under subsection (c) for completeness and compliance and provide findings and recommendations to the congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after the report is submitted to Congress.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 433 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 4532 and inserting the following new item:
``4532. Assignment of workload at Army factories and arsenals.''.
f (c) Initial Workload Plan Report.--The first report required under subsection (c) of section 4532 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), shall be submitted not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up