U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–596 PDF 2004

BROKEN DREAMS IN THE POCONOS:

THE RESPONSE OF THE SECONDARY

MARKETS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

CAPITAL MARKETS, INSURANCE AND 

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTEREPRISES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 14, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 108–92

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

DOUG OSE, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

KEN LUCAS, Kentucky 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

CHRIS BELL, Texas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

Robert U. Foster, III, Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITAL MARKETS, INSURANCE AND GOVERNMENT SPONSORED

ENTERPRISES

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana, Chairman

DOUG OSE, California, Vice Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

SUE W. KELLY, New York 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York, 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

KEN LUCAS, Kentucky 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

June 14, 2004 .................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

June 14, 2004 .................................................................................................... 47

WITNESSES 

MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2004

Bisenius, Donald J., Senior Vice President, Credit Policy and Portfolio Management, Freddie Mac ......................................................................................... 21

Goldstein, Ira, Director, Public Policy and Program Assessment, The Reinvestment Fund ..................................................................................................... 5

Hay, Robert, Broker and Owner, BobHay.com Realtors ...................................... 10

McGrath, Maureen, homeowner ............................................................................. 12

Oppenheimer, Zach, Senior Vice President, Single-Family Mortgage Business, 

Fannie Mae ........................................................................................................... 24

Peterson, Richard J., Executive Director, Pocono Builders Association .............. 15

Taylor, Gary P., President, Appraisal Institute .................................................... 26

Wilson, Almus, Founder and CEO, Pocono Homeowners Defense Association .. 18

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E. ................................................................................... 48

Bisenius, Donald J. ........................................................................................... 50

Goldstein, Ira .................................................................................................... 68

Hay, Robert ....................................................................................................... 96

McGrath, Maureen ........................................................................................... 124

Oppenheimer, Zach .......................................................................................... 164

Peterson, Richard J. ......................................................................................... 170

Taylor, Gary P. ................................................................................................. 199

Wilson, Almus ................................................................................................... 212

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E.: 

‘‘Aggrieved homeowner becomes do-it yourself lawyer’’, Pocono Record, 

May 9, 2004 ................................................................................................... 218

Anders & Masington, L.L.C. letter, June 11, 2004 ........................................ 223

Fisher and Fisher Appraisals letter, June 10, 2004 ...................................... 235

(1)

BROKEN DREAMS IN THE POCONOS: 

THE RESPONSE OF THE SECONDARY 

MARKETS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR 

FEDERAL LEGISLATION 

Monday, June 14, 2004

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITAL MARKETS, INSURANCE, 

AND GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in the 

Keystone Room at East Stroudsburg University in East 

Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, Hon. Richard Baker [Chairman of the 

Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representative Kanjorski. 

Chairman BAKER. Good morning and welcome. I would like to 

call the meeting of the Capital Markets Subcommittee of Financial 

Institutions of the House of Representatives to order, and welcome 

all of our panelists and guests here this morning. 

The Committee is engaged in a continuing overview of market 

function in the financial services arena with specific interest in the 

area of home ownership. Over the past several years, securitization 

by the secondary market has made it easier for all consumers, particularly those borrowers with less than perfect credit ratings, to 

obtain mortgage financing. Translation: this means that when you 

go into your local lending institution and fill out the papers, and 

they approve you for a loan, that loan may then be subsequently 

sold off to someone else, so that the originating lender does not 

hold that debt in their own portfolio. This enables credit to be extended to more people in a more efficient manner, and has resulted 

in an expansion of home ownership to the segment of the population for whom it might otherwise not have been available. 

Mortgage securitization involves the transpiration of mortgage 

loans into securities that are issued and subsequently traded in the 

capital markets. As the availability of mortgage financing has increased, so do concerns about less than scrupulous individuals who 

might take advantage of unsophisticated consumers. Known commonly as predatory lending, the practice of targeting individuals, 

often minorities or the elderly, with high interest mortgages, with 

little to no consideration of their ability to repay, is a matter of increasing concern from all those involved with oversight of the regulatory market. 

2

Predatory lending may also encompass the placement of individuals in overvalued homes, using deceptive sales practices or inflated appraisals. Because such lending deliberately stretches borrowers beyond the amount they can pay, placing them into an overvalued home, it results in higher than acceptable levels of foreclosures. Many States are now enacting predatory lending statutes 

to halt abusive practices in the lending industry. The consequences 

of these state actions is now quite unclear, and if liabilities for the 

origination of the loan now extend into the secondary market, there 

is a potential for a chilling effect. For example, in the—recently in 

the case of the State of Georgia where participants in the secondary market simply refused to acquire loans, this works obviously to the direct adverse interest of consumers. So this is one 

area in which the Committee will continue to make examination. 

The second and more local and pertinent issue for the Hearing 

this morning to many of you who have attended is the tactic used 

in the Poconos which relied upon inflated appraisals that established unjustifiable and unrealistically high real estate values. The 

typical function of the appraiser is to independently verify to the 

buyer and to the lender the true value of a particular piece of real 

estate. Investigations providing information to the Committee have 

revealed that some appraisers ignored normal codes of conduct set 

by the industry because the rules were not strictly enforced. 

One common problem is that real estate mortgage creditors, 

lenders, and realtors often attempt to influence appraisers to make 

the value on properties being appraised. Appraisers in the Poconos 

allegedly colluded with interested parties to over-estimate the 

value of many homes, in some cases by tens of thousands of dollars. 

The problem came to light when homeowners would later attempt 

to sell the mortgage on the open market and their property would 

appraise at a price significantly lower than the purchase price. 

Many cash-poor homeowners were unable to recoup their investment, resulting in unacceptably high levels of bankruptcy. In 1990, 

there were 120 foreclosures in Monroe County, by 2002, 925. 

The Hearing will focus on the issues related to the purchase of 

mortgage-backed securities in the secondary market, and the role 

that purchasers of those securities can play in curbing abusive 

lending practices. 

We have a delicate task with which to resolve. On the one hand, 

we do not want liability issues to constrain those engaged in the 

secondary market from buying mortgages in the first place. But, at 

the same time, we cannot turn a blind eye to practices which result 

in predatory lending being the common practice for abused homeowners. 

To that extent, Mr. Kanjorski and I have worked over many 

years toward resolution of these problems. And, at this request, the 

Committee is here today to hear firsthand the observations of professionals from the field who may have recommendations as to potential reforms and the direction the Committee might consider on 

returning its work to Washington, D.C. 

With that, I yield such time as the gentleman may consume for 

his opening statement. Mr. Kanjorski? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Mr. 

Chairman, welcome to East Stroudsburg University. You may not 

3

be aware of it, but it is the future alma mater of A.J. Soprano. I 

had the occasion to remind Dr. Dillman of that, and he assured me 

that all standards will be used in the determination of qualifications for that particular student. 

Chairman BAKER. Just be very careful with that determination. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I know you are a good 

old Louisiana boy and you like NASCAR. We just completed the 

Pocono 500 yesterday, and we had hoped that you would be the one 

who said, ‘‘Gentlemen, start your engines.’’ Unfortunately, I know 

because of other conditions, you were unable to make that event. 

We intend, however, to hold another race in your honor as soon as 

you can accommodate us. 

Chairman BAKER. I think the Chairman of Delta Airlines was 

unable to say start their engines, and so as a consequence, I was 

a little detained yesterday, but I appreciate the courtesies extended 

by your and your fine office. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you. Welcome, anyway, to the Pocono 

mountains of northeastern Pennsylvania, Mr. Chairman. We have 

recognized, over a number of years, and I have discussed this with 

you a number of times, a unique problem here in the Poconos. At 

least we think it is unique in the Poconos, but we recognize a commonality with certain problems that exist throughout the country, 

particularly in sub-prime lending, or as often referred to on the 

negative side, predatory lending. 

What we hope to do today is to hear what the particular problems are here in the Poconos and then relate them to legislative 

activity that we are undertaking and the bill that we are preparing. We want to see if we can establish a national standard and 

what protections should be put into play to encourage state enforcement and regulation of a higher order than has yet attended 

here in Pennsylvania. I wanted to particularly pay thanks to the 

new Secretary of Banking in Pennsylvania, who has commissioned 

a study, of which we will get a report first on, that which attends 

to investigate and establish the data necessary for a more comprehensive understanding of what the problem particularly is here 

in the Poconos, and that I think probably will lend itself to be applicable to other areas of the country. 

Our problem is an interesting one here. It also speaks well of the 

private press, because the ‘‘Pocono Record’’, which is the major 

newspaper of Monroe County, has been particularly attentive to 

bringing out the problem of mortgages, foreclosures, and other 

things that have happened here, so that it has gained a public recognition, which is most important, and ultimately the attention of 

the United States Congress that we reflect here today. 

Too often, faulty appraisals, questionable lending practices, and 

fraudulent transactions in some cases have led to broken dreams. 

What we have to do today is see why an astonishing 27 percent of 

Monroe County’s foreclosure to sales rate—it was so high compared 

to 1 percent nationwide. Certainly, this cries for some attention. On 

the other hand, I would like the Chair, the Committee, and the 

people of Monroe County to know that your problem and your strife 

has not gone on without a very positive response on the national 

level. We have witnesses today from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 

the Appraisal Institute, the real estate industry, the home building 

4

industry, all individuals that have participated with several other 

groups in a task force that I convened in Washington almost 3 

years ago, that have been most helpful, and in some instances, 

have literally persuaded some of the institutions that held the 

mortgages of problem here in Monroe County to refinance and restructure some of those. Unfortunately, it has not been as uniform 

because there are many problems that are attentive to the particular problem of Monroe County, and secondly, it has been so 

wide and diverse that not everybody has received probably the 

same attention. 

But corralling those entities on the federal level that are most involved with the real estate transactions, building and financing, 

have been most attentive to this problem, and I want to pay particular thanks to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, who, I think, are 

quite largely represented here today and have witnesses before us. 

What we ultimately can do for Monroe County is yet a question. 

What we can do in terms of sub-prime lending in the country is 

open to question. But clearly, we have the jurisdiction to act. 

Mr. Chairman, as you have cited the State of Georgia problem, 

sometimes in the solution of a problem, you can create a greater 

problem and a great disadvantage to people who would normally 

exercise their influence in the sub-prime market. Wanting to hold 

with the objective of home ownership for more Americans in a fair 

and safe and efficient manner is clearly the objective of this Committee and the Federal Government and the State Government of 

Pennsylvania, and it is just a question of how we can arrive at that 

objective. 

Too often, issues like this are—lend themselves to demagoguery. 

What I have to say is that at least I am aware of the fact that one 

of the presenters—the first presenter today, Mr. Goldstein from the 

Reinvestment Fund, has been commissioned by the Pennsylvania 

Department of Banking to particularly investigate the problems 

here of—in the Pocono Mountains of this particular problem. I 

want to personally thank Secretary Schenck for allowing him, even 

prior to the release of his final report, to give us some of the substantive facts, information and data in his report, and give us the 

basis, or predicate, if you will, for this hearing. So I want to extend 

the thanks to Mr. Goldstein and to the Secretary. 

What we do in the future, of course, to a large extent, not only 

depends on the facts gained in this hearing, but all the information 

that we have been gathering over the last several years. And I am 

optimistic that something can happen that we will all be proud of. 

As we proceed in today and the weeks ahead, it is moreover important that we find solutions to obstacles faced by honest, hardworking people who want to achieve the American Dream of owning a home. Hopefully today’s hearing will also further our bipartisan efforts in Washington to develop legislation to increase homebuyer and homeowner protections. As you know, Mr. Chairman, 

the Financial Services Committee in recent months has been a—

has begun to examine abuses in mortgage lending and the need to 

update federal laws to protect home ownership against such practices. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I welcome you to Pennsylvania, to northeastern Pennsylvania, particularly to Monroe County. We know 

5

that this will be a fruitful hearing today, and anything that we can 

do to accommodate your visit here, we certainly offer those assistances. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski can be found 

on page 48 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank the gentleman for his gracious statement. And for those here in attendance, let me assure you that the 

Capital Market Subcommittee membership generally will have access to all statements and information provided here at the hearing 

today. The Subcommittee is a very large one. The Subcommittee 

has 47 members. There being only 435 members of the Congress, 

more than 10 percent of the Congress serves on the Subcommittee. 

Almost 20 percent of the Congress serves on Financial Institutions—Full Committee Financial Services, and to those who are expressing concerns about actions that occurred here in the community, the Committee will take a very thorough and studied view of 

the issues presented. But our rule is as to national policy, not as 

to criminal inquiries. Those responsibilities will be left to those at 

the State and local level who may find the facts worthy of further 

resolution. 

We want to get today a complete and full understanding of what 

has happened here, and pledged Mr. Kanjorski our continued cooperation. We have worked, I believe, very well together over our 

years on the Committee, and where possible, we will reach agreement and take all appropriate action. For those witnesses here 

today, our general and customary practice is for each witness to be 

recognized. Your full statement will be incorporated into the record. 

We request that you attempt to keep your remarks to 5 minutes 

to allow us to engage in discussions with you. But by prior agreement with Mr. Kanjorski, our first witness here today is going to 

make an overall report and presentation completed by the Reinvestment Fund. 

It is my pleasure to welcome Mr. Ira Goldstein, Director of Public 

Policy and Program Assessment, the Reinvestment Fund, and, by 

agreement, we will give you such time as you may consume, sir, 

to make your presentation, which I understand may be 15 minutes 

or so. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF IRA GOLDSTEIN, PUBLIC POLICY AND 

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT, THE REINVESTMENT FUND 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Baker, Mr. Kanjorski, for the opportunity to come here and present this material 

to you. 

Chairman BAKER. Maybe take that mic at the end of the table 

there. Walk it around. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you. Good morning. Is this on? 

Chairman BAKER. Yes. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. The Reinvestment Fund was contracted with by 

the Department of Banking in January of 2004 to help the Department of Banking devise a set of facts upon which the Department 

of Banking could design a set of action-steps to address the issues 

that have been taking place in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, for 

the last, at least, 4, 5 years. 

6

The data sources that we have used to be able to help the Department of Banking in this way is to take a very careful and detailed look at all the filings from the Prothonotary of Monroe County, the Prothonotary being the Clerk of Courts of Monroe County; 

some very specific property sale and mortgage and data, so for each 

of those properties that went into foreclosure, to look at the sale 

and mortgage history on those properties; to look at the records 

that are gathered through the State’s Homeowner’s Emergency 

Mortgage Assistance Program, or HEMAP Program, which is a program, I think, that is probably unique to the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, has been around since the ’70s, and was designed 

initially to help people who are facing foreclosure and might, under 

the proper circumstance, be able to hold that off with assistance 

from the State; and, of course, a full complement of census population and housing information. 

The study status is that it will be released some time in July of 

2004. We are not entirely certain about the final release date, but 

it certainly will be within July. And when it is released, it will not 

only be a study of the facts, but it will be a full complement of action-steps that Secretary Schenck will be proposing to address the 

issue in Monroe County. 

Our findings: first off, Monroe County is, in fact, a very fastgrowing county. In fact, it is the second fastest growing county in 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania being actually a 

relatively slow-growth state. Monroe County grew, between 1990 

and 2000, by about 45 percent, and then since 2000, has grown by 

about another—over 10, 12 percent, so it has been growing very 

rapidly in a State that has barely increased 5 or 6 percent over 

that time-period. 

The housing units as well, and this is the crux of where we get 

to the issue—the housing units stock, as well, has grown by almost 

25 percent between 1990 and 2000, and by another 5 percent since 

2000, up through 2002. Foreclosures across the Commonwealth 

have grown up almost unabatedly from the latter part of the 1970s 

on up through the latter part of 2002, 2003. And in fact, if you look 

at it, with very few exceptions, this number has tracked up. And 

compared to other States, Pennsylvania is one of the higher States 

in the overall foreclosure rate. As well, it is one of the highest 

States in terms of foreclosures as reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association in its percentage of loans that are in foreclosure 

that initially were sub-prime loans. 

In Monroe County, over the period 1995 through 2003, the number of foreclosures rose from about 300, 400 a year up through over 

900 a year. Cumulatively, since 1995, more than 6,100 households 

were subject to foreclosure, and more than 2,700 of those were subject to foreclosure since the year 2000. This data comes from the 

State’s HEMAP, or Homeowner’s Emergency Mortgage Assistance 

Program, and they suggest that over the last 4 years, but for that 

program, about another 320 or so homes would have also been subject to foreclosure. This program kicks in and provides assistance 

before the actual filing of the foreclosure action. 

Now, Mr. Kanjorski himself raised this question to us when we 

met a few months back. Given that the population and housing 

unit change in Monroe County has been so dramatic over the last 

7

year—the last few years, the question is, is what has happened to 

foreclosure merely a reflection of the fact that there are so many 

new people and so many foreclosure—so many more housing units 

in that time-period. And we struggled with trying to get an answer 

to that question. But in fact, what we were able to do was to essentially create the equivalence of a crime rate for foreclosures and say 

what is the number of foreclosures per housing unit. And in fact, 

we were able to do this in a, I think, a pretty comprehensive way 

because of the ability to obtain updated housing unit information 

from the Census. 

The top line, that green line, represents Monroe County, and 

over the period 2000 through 2002, you can see it is both the highest line, which means it had the highest number of foreclosures per 

100 owner-occupied housing units, and actually rose at a quicker 

rate than any of the other counties that we have—that I detailed 

here. And, in fact, we have detailed counties of Allegheny, Lancaster, Lehigh, Washington, Philadelphia, Chester, and Monroe 

County. Those are places that to date we have been able to get 

comprehensive foreclosure information for, and we see that the rate 

of foreclosure filing, in terms of the per owner-occupied housing 

units, and the steepness of the increase is greater in Monroe County than in the other places that we have been able to detail. 

Where are all the people coming from to Monroe County? We 

have been able to trace through the Census information that vast 

numbers of people have come from New York, as the reports to us 

through interviews and the like have suggested. In fact, the largest 

county feeding population into Monroe County is Kings County, 

New York. Between 1995 and the year 2000, well over 2,000 from 

Kings County, New York, ended up in Monroe County. Another 

very similar number from Queens County, from the Bronx, then 

Northampton in Pennsylvania, and then you see Suffolk, Essex, 

Morris, Bergen, and Middlesex Counties as some of the leading 

places that are a feeding population into the Pocono-Monroe County area. 

How do those people look who are migrating into Monroe County? First of all, we find that about 20 percent of the new migrants 

are from New York, and about 16 percent are from New Jersey, between 1995 and 2000. We find that in relation to the existing Monroe County population, that is the population that existed prior to 

1995, the people who migrated tend to be more likely married, tend 

to be more likely with children, they tend also to have higher incomes. They tend to be residing in newer construction housing, so 

they are moving more likely into new than existing housing stock. 

And they tend to be substantially more likely to be African-American and Hispanic. 

One of the anecdotes in the stories that were reported in the ‘‘Pocono Record’’ and in what we learned through our interviews with 

people is that many people not only came to Monroe County for 

residence, but continued to work back in their counties of origin 

back in New York and New Jersey. And we found, in fact, that 

that—the data does tend to support that, and in fact, some substantial number continue—or substantial percent continue to commute back to Morris County, New Jersey; New York; Warren, New 

8

Jersey; Essex; King; Bergen. So people are making that pretty significant commute back and forth, and in some significant number. 

In terms of what has happened demographically, as I have said, 

the people who are commuting or who have migrated to Monroe 

County are more likely to be African-American and Hispanic, and 

that does reflect in the fact that the African-American population 

and the Hispanic population have risen fairly dramatically in Monroe County since 1990. In fact, what you are seeing is triple-digit 

increases in the size of the African-American and Hispanic population, and other, which is Asian, primarily. Those increases are 

coupled with relatively small percentage increases in the size of the 

white population. But much of that population change has been 

fueled by minority populations. 

In terms of the age, Pennsylvania is one of the oldest States in 

the nation. Depending upon how you estimate the age of Pennsylvanians, either the third or the fourth oldest state in the country. But what you find in Monroe County is that there has been 

substantial growth both in the numbers and the percentages of 

school-aged populations and populations of parents who would have 

school-aged populations, so that would be people in that 25- to 44-

year age range. 

And as I mentioned, both the migrants are ending up more likely 

in newer housing, and Monroe County, in general, in relation to 

Pennsylvania, is much more likely to have a newer housing stock. 

Values have been fairly robust in this community, although, 

quite frankly, it is sometimes difficult to get a sense as to true 

value when what we see is that some large proportion of the sales 

transactions seem to be, or potentially, are tainted. Nevertheless, 

what you are seeing is increases in Monroe County that are roughly equivalent in size and magnitude to that of the Commonwealth. 

The two lower lines represent the size of mortgages in Monroe 

County, and the upper line represents the average of the Pocono 

Mountain Association of Realtors for existing home sale prices. You 

will notice, by the way, that those things tend to stay in relation 

of about an 80 percent or so of value to sale—mortgage. 

In terms of income, as I mentioned, Monroe County, many of the 

population, many of the people who have migrated to Monroe 

County have come with higher incomes, and in fact, Monroe County tends to be slightly higher income than the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania overall. 

Okay. Now, as I mentioned, we got each of those well over 3,000 

foreclosure filings from the Prothonotary of Monroe County. That 

is the Clerk of Courts where all foreclosure actions must be filed 

by law. We took each of those foreclosure filings and went through 

a pretty tedious and meticulous geo-coding process where we were 

able to take that filing and stick it right down on the geographic 

parser that is represented by the housing unit that is subject to 

that foreclosure filing. Each one of those foreclosure filings is represented by a black dot on that map. 

And what you will notice is that there are several areas of concentration. I am going to go up over here a little. Up here is a subdivision called Country Place, not too far from where we are, in the 

Stroudsburg, East Stroudsburg vicinity, and the Pocono Mountain 

Lake area. There is also—for you to be able to examine in more deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:14 Sep 29, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\95596.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
9

tail, there is a printed version of this map in slightly different coloration. But this gave us great pause because ordinarily you might 

expect these things to be more randomly distributed throughout a 

place, and in fact, we were finding the kind of clustering that, quite 

frankly, in the epidemiology field, you would say would be consistent with there being something poison in the ground. And what 

we were able to do was to be able to identify the characteristics of 

each of those transactions. Much of that will be released when the 

Secretary releases the report in about 3 weeks, a month, something 

to that nature. 

But I also wanted to be able to take these and show you by township some of the more hardly hit spots. This is Coolbaugh Township, which is in the upper portion of the county, and as you can 

see, as you walk through some of these subdivisions, it is literally 

look left, look right, and you are likely to see a housing foreclosure. 

This shows you the detail of it. 

Next, Middle Smithfield in the Winona Lakes, and I know it is 

difficult to see, but just again, so you can understand about the 

way these maps are working, these lightly-shaded gray areas actually represent physical parcel lines, which means there is a house 

sitting right on that parcel. You are seeing here 4 or 5 or 6 dots 

right next to each other. So we present these for you to get some 

sense as to both the scale and the scope and the concentration of 

what has happened up here at Monroe County. 

This is where we are now—not to distant from where we are 

now, Stroudsburg and East Stroudsburg in Stroud Township, and 

then Tunkhannock Township. 

One of the things we did want to take a look at was the extent 

to which—given that we saw that so many of the people who migrated into Monroe County from New York and New Jersey were 

of minority group status, we wanted to see whether or not the concentration of the foreclosures tended to relate to those concentrations. And in fact, what you find is that in areas—in Census blockgroups, which actually tend to be fairly small, in those blockgroups, we are seeing the largest number of foreclosures. You are 

also seeing the highest concentrations of African-American and 

Hispanic homeowners. So, in fact, these data would suggest to us 

that there is some concentration among minority group members. 

Finally, in the plans going forward, this study will be released 

on or before July 31 by the Department of Banking. When the Department of Banking releases this study, it will release a set of action-steps based on the facts that we have uncovered, some of 

which we have presented here, others of which will be presented 

with the final study. And the purpose of those action-steps will be 

to both address the current problem, and look at the kind of 

changes that could be implemented to make sure that these kinds 

of things do not happen again. 

During the fall of 2004, the Reinvestment Fund will be also releasing for the Department of Banking a study that was commissioned on foreclosures across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

We will be holding focus groups across the Commonwealth over the 

next couple months, and then we will be looking at facts not specifically to Monroe County, but as much as we can to develop the 

same kind of fact basis for Secretary Schenck to be able to make 

10

the kinds of policy recommendations, legislative recommendations, 

programmatic recommendations, that he feels will be appropriate 

to address that growing foreclosure problem in the Commonwealth. 

And, with that, I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ira Goldstein can be found on page 

68 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Mr. Goldstein, I understand that by agreement 

we are not going to engage in any questions at this time of you, 

and your schedule limits require your departure. I just want to express my appreciation to you and the State government for allowing you to be here to make that presentation to us. It was most 

helpful and insightful. The only request I might make is that at 

such point as you come to conclusions about any federal adjurative 

steps, it might be advisable if you could communicate through Mr. 

Kanjorski to the Committee any such recommendations the Committee might consider. Mr. Kanjorski? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Goldstein, I want 

to thank you again, and the Secretary of Banking of Pennsylvania, 

Secretary Schenck, for allowing you to give us the pre-disclosure of 

some of the information and facts in your upcoming report. It will 

be most helpful, and we look forward to working in conjunction 

with your organization and the Secretary of Banking of Pennsylvania to see if we cannot come to some resolve of some of the contentious problems here in Monroe County. Thank you. 

Chairman BAKER. And you are free to go as you require, sir. We 

will turn on to our record of order now, with our next witness being 

Mr. Robert Hay, broker and owner, BobHay.com Realtors. Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. HAY, BROKER AND OWNER, 

BOBHAY.COM REALTORS 

Mr. HAY. Thank you. 

Chairman BAKER. And you will have to pull that close to you. 

That is not real sensitive. 

Mr. HAY. Okay. Good morning Chairman Baker and Congressman Kanjorski. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony 

on the very important subject of home buying and achieving the 

Great American Dream of homeownership. Let me first recognize 

your efforts, Congressman Kanjorski, for your leadership in safeguarding the economic viability of the real estate industry by cosponsoring the Community Choice in Real Estate Act, HR 111. 

Through your leadership, this legislation has garnered 252 cosponsors, and will keep large banking conglomerates from engaging 

in real estate brokerage and management activities. It is time for 

Congress to act on—to finalize this legislation. 

By the way of background, I am a lifelong resident of Monroe 

County, and have been a licensed real estate practitioner for the 

last 28 years. I have also been a member of the Pennsylvania Association of Realtors, a statewide trade association representing nearly 29,000 real estate licensees since 1976. Aside from my activity 

on the State level of the Association, I participate on the local and 

national levels as well, serving on various committees and task 

forces, as invited. 

11

Even though I am currently broker-owner of a small independent 

firm, I still work with buyers and sellers on a daily basis. Let me 

give you a perspective on the home buying process, how we work 

with buyers, and the various disclosures we must use. 

On the first substantial meeting, all real estate licensees must 

review a Consumer Notice. The Consumer Notice educates the consumers of real estate about the business relationships that might 

be available to them and, in effect, puts the consumer on notice to 

exercise discretion in revealing information to a licensee before a 

relationship is formed. The consumer is asked to sign the form, and 

licensees must retain a copy in our file, pursuant to the Real Estate Licensing and Registration Act. 

Should a buyer make an inquiry by phone, the licensee can provide a verbal summary, with language dictated by law, prior to 

asking any qualifying questions and answering questions about a 

specific property. 

The second step to the process is establishing a business relationship with the buyer. Pennsylvania law specifically authorizes the 

types of business relationship that a real estate licensee can have 

with a consumer: seller agency, buyer agency, dual agency, designated agency, and transaction licensee. This disclosure protects 

the consumer because they know who the agent is representing in 

the transaction. A Business Relationship Agreement is attached for 

your reference as marked in Exhibit C. 

After establishing a business relationship with a buyer, we utilize a multiple listing service to show buyers homes that meet with 

their criteria currently available on the market, on matter who the 

properties are listed with. As a realtor and a participant of the 

MLS, we have a unilateral agreement to cooperate with each other. 

This is very beneficial to both buyers and sellers. 

Once a buyer finds a property they may wish to purchase, we 

enter into an agreement of sale, which spells out the price and 

other terms to the offer. The agreement is typically subject to a 

mortgage contingency and various inspections. We often ask for 

name of lenders, home inspectors, attorneys, insurance companies, 

et cetera. We normally give a few select—a few selections to the 

buyer. Should we have any financial interest in any of the recommendations we make, we must disclose that fact. 

Without walking you step-by-step, that summarizes the buying 

process. The real estate market continues to be very strong across 

Pennsylvania, and especially here in this region. Last year, more 

homes were bought and sold nationally than any previous year in 

history. That is more than 6 million existing homes, and just over 

1 million new homes. There is a great demand for homes with a 

very limited supply. There is legislation pending in Congress that 

would increase the supply of affordable housing. That legislation is 

Renewing the Dream Tax Credit Bill, H.R. 829, which would provide tax credits to developers and investors of affordable housing. 

Housing built or rehabilitated for those individuals and family at 

or below 80% of the area median income. 

I thank you for your co-sponsorship of this important legislation, 

and hope that Congress will act to make this proposal a reality for 

millions of Americans who seek to own their own home. The supply 

and the demand has increased home prices for the last several 

12

years. With home prices increasing, it helps the homeowner that 

has a minimum equity in their property. There are some, however, 

that just cannot sell high enough to pay off their debt. This is not 

limited to the people that just built a home. It applies to many that 

have refinanced their homes and pulled equity out. 

Recently, there have been many discussions of predatory lending, 

which has no clear definition. This practice needs to be addressed 

legislatively, but the remedy must be balanced. It must protect the 

consumer, but not hinder some of the sub-prime lending programs 

that have helped so many buyers who deserve a second chance. 

Buying a home is one of the most important purchases an individual will ever make. Before embarking on this course, whether 

building a new home or buying an existing one, buyers should come 

to the table prepared. This can easily be done by picking up a home 

guide magazine or browsing the Internet to gain knowledge of market values. 

Buyers must also take into account consideration of cost of commuting, not only financially, but mentally and socially. People 

move to the Pocono Mountains area primarily for our schools, our 

environment, the cost of housing, and taxes. Even though there 

have been some that have experienced broken dreams, thousands 

have realized the American Dream of home ownership and have 

enjoyed a good home-buying experience. These individuals benefit 

by living in one of the most beautiful places in our great country. 

Thank you, again, for this opportunity to testify, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Robert Hay can be found on page 96 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, sir. Our next witness is Ms. 

Maureen McGrath here as an interested homeowner. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MAUREEN MCGRATH, HOMEOWNER 

Ms. MCGRATH. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman——

Chairman BAKER. And you will need to pull that microphone 

close to you. 

Ms. MCGRATH. Oh, thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My 

name is Maureen McGrath. I appear here today on behalf of the 

National Advocacy Against Mortgage Servicing Fraud, and I wish 

to thank you for holding this important hearing to examine the 

problem of predatory mortgage lending and real estate fraud in the 

Poconos, and for allowing me to testify. I would also like to extend 

a special thank you to Congressman Kanjorski for the extraordinary time and effort he spends on this and other issues on behalf 

of his constituents——

Chairman BAKER. Just one second. Ma’am, you will have to pull 

that mic a little closer. Folks cannot hear in the back. 

Ms. MCGRATH. Is that better? 

Chairman BAKER. That is better. Thank you. 

Ms. MCGRATH. I would also like to extend a special thank you 

to Congressman Kanjorski for the extraordinary time and effort he 

spends on this and other issues on behalf of his constituents in the 

Poconos. 

I speak with deep personal conviction that predatory lending and 

mortgage servicing fraud devastates communities and destroys inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:14 Sep 29, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\95596.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
13

dividuals’ lives, and I testify here with great certainty that approaches to the problem are at hand, are workable, and fair. I 

would like to provide the stories of 3 victims of mortgage servicing 

fraud that the National Advocacy Against Mortgage Servicing 

Fraud has assisted. 

Mr. M is a 40-year old who lives in Monroe County. He is gainfully employed and has consistently paid his mortgage in a timely 

manner. He has owned his home for 8 years. In November of 2001, 

Mr. M was notified by his mortgage servicer that they were placing 

his loan in default, the reason, that he was 4 months in arrears. 

Mr. M disputed the servicer’s claim and immediately wrote qualified RESPA Letters of Dispute. Despite 3 such letters, the mortgage servicer never responded to Mr. M’s RESPA inquiry, and his 

loan was foreclosed on. After commencing litigation, a redacted 

copy of the loan history was finally supplied to Mr. M. A line-byline audit of the information indicates that at the time of foreclosure, over $8,000 in principal and interest payments were missing, charges for a property in Cleveland, Ohio, were charged to Mr. 

M’s account, and usurious fees were assessed. The litigation of this 

case continues. 

Ms. X is 48-year old African-American woman. She has owned a 

home in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, since January 2000. Over 

a period of 3 years, the value of her home has dropped over $40,000 

based on the BPO’s conducted by her mortgage servicer. There is 

no explanation for the decrease in value, and this is currently 

under investigation. 

Ms. Y is a 50-year old immigrant. She has owned a home in 

Monroe County, Pennsylvania, since November 1999. Her mortgage 

servicer assessed her with forced-placed insurance fees in the 

amount of $1,998 per year, despite the fact that Ms. Y had hazard 

insurance in place on her home. Lenders require homeowners to 

carry homeowners insurance with the lender named as a loss 

payee. Mortgage loan documents allow the lender to force-place insurance when the homeowner fails to maintain the insurance, and 

to add the premium to the loan balance. Some predatory mortgage 

services force-place insurance naming the servicer as loss payee, 

even when the homeowner has insurance and has provided proof 

of such insurance to the servicer. Even when the homeowner has, 

in fact, failed to provide the insurance, the premiums for the forceplaced insurance are often exorbitant. Often the insurance carrier 

is a company affiliated with the lender or servicer. Furthermore, 

the cost of forced-place insurance is frequently padded because it 

covers the lender for risks or losses in excess of what the lender 

may require under the terms of the mortgage loan. The taking of 

the forced-placed fees placed Ms. Y’s mortgage in default, and she 

was forced into bankruptcy to save her home. This case is ongoing. 

Everyone is aware of such terms as home equity theft and predatory mortgage lending, however very few people are aware of mortgage servicing fraud, even when they themselves are victims. I 

hope that this Committee, after hearing my testimony, will no 

longer look at predatory mortgage lending as a process that begins 

with the mortgage broker and ends with the mortgagee, but will 

look further and realize that predatory lending breeds further 

abuse in the form of mortgage servicing fraud. 

14

Predatory lending, in and of itself, does not explain the rapid deterioration of property values in the Poconos while property values 

throughout the majority of the nation are rising. Predatory mortgage lending, by its innate nature, also brings about mortgage servicing abuse, because the consumer is already tagged with the nomenclature, and the mortgage services perpetrate this title consistently. That title is deadbeat. I firmly believe that mortgage servicing fraud is at the crux of the matter. 

As you are aware, mortgage notes are bundled together and sold 

on the secondary market and passed as certificates, these certificates may take the form of REMIC or REIT. This bundling enables 

the loan originators to receive compensation for the loan, replenishing their cash flow and enabling the creation of further credit 

for borrowers. 

However, something has gone wrong in the Poconos. More and 

more homes are being foreclosed on, and there are hardly any properties that increase in value. The cause of devaluation and the effect it may have on future trusts must be addressed. 

The path for devaluation of a home is actually quite simple. Once 

a default is fabricated, the predatory mortgage servicer files a 

script until the 90-day delinquent point when the servicer will institute foreclosure proceedings. Once this process has commenced, 

the servicer will order a BPO, or Brokers Price Opinion. This tool 

is actually meant to be used by legitimate buyers and sellers of real 

estate who wish to know the best, worst, and median price of a 

home they are contemplating selling or purchasing. The mortgage 

servicer will use the BPO in lieu of an appraisal performed by a 

licensed appraiser. The mortgage servicer will also order a quick 

sale price for the property. This will often drop the price of a home 

by $30,000, $40,000 or even $50,000. In the case of one mortgage 

servicer, if the BPO does not come in low enough, the internal review will lower the price of the home down to what they believe 

it should be. As seen in the Poconos, this practice of having undervalued or quick sale BPO’s performed has a devastating effect of 

devaluing an entire community. Once 1, 2 or 3 homes are placed 

in lawful foreclosure, and due to the fact that many loans in the 

Poconos are sub-prime or non-conforming, there is a high propensity for this behavior on the part of the servicers. 

Any legitimate appraisal for a refinancing request by any of the 

homes in the proximity of the wrongfully foreclosed home will need 

to be adjusted to reflect the value of the home due to the low sale 

price of the comparable wrongfully foreclosed home. Once you have 

several homes with high loan devalue ratios because of the downward trend of the values of the homes, and ablinge effect begins 

affecting home after home, consumer after consumer, until, finally, 

you have the phenomenon of people simply walking away from 

their homes because they cannot afford the current mortgages, they 

have been placed in a fraudulent status of default, or they cannot 

refinance because the downward trend of the values of their homes. 

The implications and effects of mortgage servicing fraud are farreaching and need to be considered when looking at real estate 

fraud or predatory lending, as well as the effect on the secondary 

mortgage market, the REMICs and the REITs. If enough loans in 

the trust are placed in default, it effects the distribution certificate 

15

holders, and it will eventually become more and more difficult to 

sell the securitization of these loans to these secondary market, 

and that will effect the ability of lending institutions to offer credit 

to borrowers. The tax consequences of wrongful foreclosures must 

also be addressed, as it affects the tax status of the REMICs and 

the REITs. 

I would like to propose that when addressing predatory lending 

and drafting any future legislation, that consideration should be 

given to requiring that a certified appraisal performed by a licensed appraiser accompany any foreclosure. This will curtail the 

practice of using quick sale BPO’s and falsely devaluing the value 

of a home, which in term will serve to protect not only the certificate holders of the trust, but also the neighboring property owners, 

by maintaining the values of the homes in the neighborhood, and 

guaranteeing that the fair market value of a home is preserved. 

Concerning the mortgage servicing aspect of the industry, it 

should be kept in mind that the great majority of loans today are 

serviced by firms that do not own the notes. The servicer is paid 

by and is beholden to the owner of the mortgage. Borrowers have 

no say who serves their loan, and if they get poor service, about 

all they can do is write a complaint—letter of complaint to HUD 

or the FTC. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that servicing does 

not generally meet the needs of the borrowers. However, it does not 

have to be that way. 

Servicing systems can be designed to meet the needs of borrowers as well as the trusts. The borrower would be the client 

alongside the lender, and have the right to change services. 

Dispension—the implication of Morris would make this process 

quite simple. This would involve competition between services to 

keep their cash flow bases, and would help prevent the fraud that 

is currently being perpetrated. 

To avoid undue disruption and encourage rational decisions, the 

opt out should become effective only after approximately 6 months 

of servicing, and should apply only once. To win the favor of opt 

out, servicers would be obligated to compete. Since servicers are 

paid by lenders rather than borrowers, they will compete with service, which is exactly what is needed. Firms with efficient and courteous support people, easy to read statement, et cetera, will draw 

opt outs from firms that have served them badly. The market 

would, at long last, begin to work for the borrower. 

This concludes my testimony. And, once again, thank you for 

your time and kind consideration. I will be happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Maureen McGrath can be found on 

page 124 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, Ms. McGrath. Our next witness is 

Mr. Richard J. Peterson, Executive Director, Pocono Builders Association. Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. PETERSON, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, POCONO BUILDERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman——

Chairman BAKER. Now, you will need to pull that mic to your left 

over there. The gray one. There you go. 

16

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman 

Kanjorski. Thank you. 

Chairman BAKER. If you would, please, the gentleman’s testimony is important. We do need to hear him. I understand the emotions are high on this and everyone will have their day, so, please, 

let the gentleman proceed. Pull the mic closer, please, so they can 

hear you. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

on behalf of the Pocono Builders Association, its members, and the 

building industry. The Pocono Builders Association is a member of 

the National Association of Home Builders and its federation. We 

represent more than 250 businesses here in Monroe County. The 

local building industry represents various trades and suppliers, 

and employs over 7,000 employees within Monroe County. Our industry generates more than 250 million annually to the Monroe 

County economy, and contributes to the State’s third largest industry a $25 billion a year industry, and is a contributing factor for 

the Commonwealth’s home ownership as high as 71 percent. Last 

year, there were over 1,630 new permits issued for new homes 

within Monroe County, and within the last 5 years, there have 

been over 7,500 new home permits. 

The Pocono area, especially Monroe County, is an area witnessing a migration of families from New York and New Jersey, as 

we just saw. They are escaping high taxes, expensive housing, and 

what they feel is a poor quality of life, and looking for something 

better here in the Poconos. They have moved here seeking the 

American Dream, especially since the 9/11. The once 50 percent vacation/second home market has now evolved to a 75 percent primary home market. 

It has been stated that the Poconos are unique with its high 

growth and high foreclosure rates, yet national studies show that 

this region is not unique, nor does it even show up on the map 

when compared to national statistics. According to the U.S. Census, 

which I have set—put a copy of that in your files—there are only 

2 States whose population increases were less than the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that was West Virginia and North Dakota. The Commonwealth saw only 3.4 percent of an increase. 

As for foreclosures, a report released last week by Foreclosures.com pointed out that foreclosures are an issue throughout 

the country, and 7 States actually rank much higher than Pennsylvania when it came to new foreclosures. They are Georgia, Indiana, 

Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. And again, 

that documentation is in your folders. In addition, just last week, 

Allegheny County, located in the Pittsburgh region, has a 500 percent increase in foreclosures over the last 8 years, largely due to 

property reassessments and property taxes. 

We are here today because of allegations regarding real estate 

fraud, especially in the area of appraisals and predatory lending. 

It is unfortunate that these allegations have occurred in the Poconos. However, I must stress that as I speak today, I only know of 

170 cases, and not to minimize this, because I am not, and these 

are serious allegations, but this represents 2.2 percent of the 7,500 

new homes that were built within the last 5 years. 

17

We believe that allegations being made, while serious—and they 

are—are ones that involve an isolated number of members of the 

local real estate lending and development industry. The issues 

seem to revolve around appraisals and financing. Our association, 

representing professional contractors, has always had a consumer 

focus, in that we believe that all consumers are entitled to safe and 

affordable housing. Consequently, our association had put in place 

many years ago a very stringent code of ethics and a consumer protection process aimed at addressing any consumer concerns with 

quality workmanship and codes. We have worked hard in the past 

few years to educate the consumer on how to hire a professional 

and reputable contractor. And, again, the documentation of that is 

in your folders. 

In light of the Attorney General’s announcement of the filing of 

a civil law suit in April of 2002, our Ethics Committee reviewed our 

current consumer education program and extended it with a billboard featuring a toll-free number for consumers who felt they had 

been the targets of contractor fraud. We also published in the news 

media information regarding our existing contractor quality commitment program and the process to file a complaint. Within 

weeks, we received several complaints in which only a few related 

to value, and that is the appraisal issue, and again, we referred 

those to the Attorney General’s office. Most complaints that came 

were not dealing with questions of appraisals and predatory lending, but workmanship issues and contractual disputes. Within the 

last 2 years, we have had——

Chairman BAKER. Please, we need to be able to hear what he is 

saying. 

Mr. PETERSON. I am talking about our association as we receive 

complaints. We are not talking about the Attorney General’s office 

or any other body that has received complaints. I am talking about 

the association. 

Now, within the last 2 years we heard 47 cases and distributed 

over 10,000 brochures to consumers on how to hire a reputable contractor, which outlines specific steps to protect consumers, again, 

in your folder. 

So committed is our association to the need for consumers to be 

educated on new home purchases, that we did reach out to one of 

the homeowner associations involved in the predatory and appraisal alleged fraud to offer them these materials that you have 

in your folder, and to help them—partner with them on consumer 

education. We remain firm in our resolve that the ultimate weapon 

against contractor fraud at all levels, and indeed this includes appraisal and predatory lending practices, is an informed and educated public. 

The present situation in the Poconos, however, does not focus on 

the issues of workmanship or codes but appraisals and lending. It 

is our understanding that the Pennsylvania Attorney General office 

is investigating these allegations and to be—should be handled 

through the proper authorities and therefore, allow the legal system to do its job. As a trade association, we are regulated by federal anti-trust laws that prohibit us as an organization to single 

out any one member or non-member within our community and 

tarnish that individual’s reputation, and can only take appropriate 

18

action when one is found guilty, and must treat each member and 

non-member as if they were innocent until proven guilty. 

We will continue to educate and inform the consumer, and as we 

tell the consumer, if it is too good to be true, it probably is. We will 

continue our role of a trade association to represent, educate, and 

hold accountable our members. We will continue to work with government officials and the business community to assure the interests of the housing consumer and the industry, and to see that they 

are protected due to the major economic impact that our industry 

does have on the Poconos. 

We believe that Congress needs to look at the issues of sub-prime 

loans and look at federal lending practices as it relates to first-time 

homebuyers programs and programs for those with bad credit. 

Education on the process of buying a home is important, and understanding between the new housing market, the resale market is 

also important. And, also, I agree that there needs to be some federal assistance in programs in finding affordable housing and producing affordable housing within areas like ours. 

Thank you very much for your time, and I am also available——

[The prepared statement of Richard J. Peterson can be found on 

page 170 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you Mr. Peterson. Our next witness is 

Mr. Almus Wilson, founder and CEO, Pocono Homeowners Defense 

Association. 

STATEMENT OF ALMUS WILSON, FOUNDER AND CEO, POCONO 

HOMEOWNERS DEFENSE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Chairman Baker——

Chairman BAKER. If you can tilt that mic up just a little bit, it 

will help us in hearing you. Just tilt it up. There you go. That is 

great. 

Mr. WILSON. Okay. Thank you. Chairman Baker, Ranking Member Kanjorski, I appreciate you inviting me here today to testify. 

Thank you for the opportunity——

Chairman BAKER. Make sure that mic is turned on. I am not 

sure—it is on. You just have to pull it very close. 

Mr. WILSON. Let me adjust it a little bit. Thank you for the opportunity to come before you to share the concerns of serious issues 

facing families that have become victims of predatory lending. 

The Poconos have much to offer new families starting off, established families seeking a better lifestyle, and even seniors looking 

for a great place to retire. Known for outstanding greenery, good 

schools, beautiful lakes, it is a place attractive to many looking for 

a new beginning away from urban areas. This was a solution to 

many families’ dreams. 

My family, along with over 6,000 other families from many nationalities and ethnic backgrounds, saw those dreams turn sour. I 

come before you not just to represent the Wilson family, a family 

who eagerly moved to a new home, only to later realize we had 

been defrauded, but thousands of others who have also been run 

back to various large cities or they are on the verge of losing their 

homes as well. 

Our story: it was a glorious day, I would say, in September of 

1999, that we made what I called our journey to a new and wonVerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:14 Sep 29, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\95596.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
19

derful life in the Poconos. This is what we saved diligently for. We 

were finally realizing our dream of home ownership, something I 

know our government encourages and supports of various loan programs, assistance and support. It was while reading the ‘‘Pocono 

Record’’ in April of 2001 that I first heard about housing fraud in 

the Poconos. The story was about a person losing his job and having to sell his home. Nothing unusual about that, I thought initially. Reading more of the story revealed the person in question 

was living in a home that was not worth what the builders told 

him it was worth. The builder had inflated the price—the purchase 

prices, used cheap building materials, and even had the home assessed higher than it was worth. I thought to myself at the time, 

this could not pertain to my family since we were well treated and 

told not to worry about anything. No lawyers were needed. Everything was handled here. Being a former law enforcement officer, I 

believe—I became suspicious obviously. Many more articles continued to be published in reference to predatory lending in the Poconos. 

My suspicions turned out to be right when I did reach about—

research on my family’s home. Oddly enough, I did not do research 

until I participated in a few marches and demonstrations in support of alleged homeowner victims in Monroe County. I found out 

that our dream home was not worth what the builder charged us. 

We also realized that the appraisal was questionable. Lastly, we 

knew we had to do something, not just for us, but for many people 

and others who had no voice. 

Therefore, in June of 2001, a forum was held at East 

Stroudsburg University, made up of local politicians and disgruntled homeowners. Beginning in 2002, a District Attorney taskforce 

was formed along with the State Attorney General, the FBI, and 

Justice Department. Later, the FBI was called off the case weeks 

after the District Attorney released findings. We also noticed that 

other States had predatory lending problems, and we began to wonder why is there no enforcement of laws and regulations. Also, we 

asked why no one questioned the reasons for nearly 1,000 foreclosures per year in Monroe County. 

Many people were being drawn to the area because of the dreams 

they had and promises they received via TV, radio and newspaper 

ads. The ‘‘Pocono Record’’ had published many investigative articles 

with unbiased angles. The ‘‘New York Times’’ also released an overwhelming 3-day investigative series, as well as NBC station 

Telemundo from New York City featuring Monroe County housing 

fraud. 

Finally, I get to the creation of PHDA. Because of the widespread 

fraud and predatory lending practices occurring so often, people 

were going all over for assistance. Unfortunately, no one knew 

where to turn and who to turn to. I, along with other victims of 

fraud, planned a march to protest in Washington, D.C., at the FBI 

and Justice Department. As upsetting as it was to hear some of the 

stories and to see the actual paperwork, it became more intriguing 

as to what was happening to the homeowners. 

I saw people who put down $60,000 deposits, get final paperwork 

showing they only put down 24,000. I saw workmanship that would 

make a true builder roll over in his grave. I saw people have homes 

20

built for a price, only to have the same home much later for much 

less. The area DA was no help. The Attorney General made us feel 

like we were the ones committing the crimes. And, lastly, many 

folks have just given up on the dreams that they had walked away 

from, their investment, and the crimes committed against them. 

Something had to be done, and done soon. I felt we all needed 

voices. 

Excuse me. It is a lot of stress. Along with my wife of 25 years, 

Marilyn Wilson, Maria Yagual, Chairman Cooper, PHDA was created in my kitchen. With little funding and no support from local 

officials, we have been able to assist many homeowners. Often we 

eat at the others’ homes to save money and share babysitting responsibilities, to give each other a break. This has been a full-time 

job with the reward being a family being able to save their home 

and keeping a roof over their heads. It has been a hard yet rewarding adventure. 

PHDA continues to assist homeowners from throughout the Poconos. PHDA’s goal was to uncover alleged predatory lending by insisting that local, state, and federal agencies start an investigation 

of the allegations. We want to make sure those who commit the 

fraud are held accountable, and that there are serious repercussions behind the misuses of their professional positions through deception. If a homeowner can be held accountable for falsifying documents, so should the real estate professionals that are offering the 

services needed to provide the American Dream. 

People deserve financial rewards and justice criminal indictments in order to get back to their lives. We must remember even 

though the President has a Homeowners Initiative Program, how 

many people actually go into foreclosure? In Monroe County, from 

1995 until now, there were more than 6,000 foreclosures, and our 

foreclosure to sales rate of more than 25 percent greatly exceeds 

the national average of about 1 percent. 

From identifying faulty building practices to fraudulent home assessments, we have been a leader in making things right for families in need. Despite personal attacks and a certain amount of fear 

for me, my family, and others associated with PHDA, the battle 

continues daily. Phones in my home and office rings off the hook 

7 days a week. So, whether it is a large PHDA sponsored forum 

at ESU, protest marches, family assistance, mold or heat, et cetera, 

we remain committed to help. 

I am here to share what has been a huge battle for many years, 

one that has claimed families while stripping them of their dreams 

and their dignity. We need assistance. As the founder of PHDA, 

and with a great support team that has great insight into what has 

transpired in this region, we need to be more involved with what 

is happening and need funding that will be made available. We 

have done much already, but it is only the tip of the iceberg when 

looking at what needs to be done. 

My suggestions for Congress and the PHDA members is to suggest that we need to federalize and make stronger legislation on 

the real estate and mortgage industry, which would include stiff 

penalties for illegal activity. This will hold any and all accountable 

for any real estate transactions. However, not to totally preempt 

States from being able to pass State legislations whereby they 

21

would enforce and police their real estate industry. It is vital that 

they have some forms of power or jurisdiction to do that, as they 

can adapt to the system. 

To protect—to petition the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the entire real estate housing situation surrounding Monroe 

County, which has a big question mark pertaining to this particular area-investigation here regarding the housing fraud situation. 

Three: to provide a larger budget for consumer education and 

housing organizations. I think it is vital that you need more money 

for these types of program and things like that. 

Lastly, the predecessors of the last three administrations in the 

State, we’re requesting that the Congressmen here petition the 

U.S. Justice Department to investigate the Monroe County District 

Attorneys Office, the State Attorneys General Office, and the Pennsylvania State Banking Department. We are not talking about Secretary Schenck, we are talking about his predecessors. The last administrations need to be looked at. These are serious allegations. 

This is something that we deal with on a daily basis from citizens 

who are calling us and complaining. The last complaints we have 

received, is that they are receiving calls from the State Attorney 

General’s office acting as a collection agency for the bank. 

Thank you, Congressman Kanjorski, Chairman Baker. I appreciate this opportunity. I apologize, but these issues are very sensitive, and they have been long-range for us at PHDA. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Almus Wilson can be found on page 

212 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Our next witness is 

Mr. Donald J. Bisenius, Senior Vice-President, Credit Policy and 

Portfolio Management from Freddie Mac. Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD J. BISENIUS, SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT, CREDIT POLICY AND PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT, 

FREDDIE MAC 

Mr. BISENIUS. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Baker and 

Ranking Member Kanjorski. It is a pleasure to be here this morning. My name is Donald J. Bisenius. I am the Senior Vice-President 

of Credit Policy and Portfolio Management at Freddie Mac. I am 

responsible for establishing and implementing a comprehensive 

credit risk management framework for Freddie Mac. 

I welcome the opportunity to be here today to discuss the steps 

Freddie Mac has taken in responding to the serious loan origination improprieties and fraudulent activities associated with certain 

loans made on properties located in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania. Freddie Mac opposes any actions that denies homebuyers 

fair treatment in the purchase of decent, safe and affordable housing. 

I commend the Subcommittee for its leadership in promoting responsible lending practices. Chairman Baker has a long history of 

diligence and vigilance in critical financial services matters. 

I would like to recognize Congressman Kanjorski for his tireless 

dedication to working with affected and concerned parties in developing solutions that will help to reduce the likelihood of the situaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:14 Sep 29, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\95596.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
22

tion of the Poconos reoccurring anywhere in the country. I should 

go further to note that the Congressman’s lengthy record of service 

to affordable housing and economic development in general. I am 

honored to appear in his District at this important field hearing. 

Congressman Baker and Congressman Kanjorski’s many years of 

seniority on the Committee give them a unique vantage point for 

seasoned, effective public policy advocacy. 

Freddie Mac’s mission is to ensure the stable supply of low-cost 

mortgages for America’s families, whenever and wherever they 

need them. For more than 30 years, Freddie Mac has helped meet 

the home financing needs of low- and middle-income families across 

the country. As the company whose mission is to expand affordable 

home ownership, Freddie Mac is dedicated to promoting responsible credit underwriting and appraisal practices for all America’s 

families who seek to achieve the dream of home ownership. 

Today I will focus on 3 areas: Freddie Mac’s credit risk management practices, the steps we took after discovering the fraudulent 

activities in the Poconos, and our commitment to promoting responsible lending practices. 

The prevention, detection and resolution of mortgage improprieties are an integral part of Freddie Mac’s business operations. 

Freddie Mac has in place a comprehensive risk management program designed to help us evaluate the quality of mortgage lenders 

and servicers with whom we do business, and the characteristics of 

the loans we have purchased. 

Freddie Mac has institutional eligibility requirements that help 

to ensure that the companies that sell loans to us, or service mortgage loans for us, have the organizational structure, financial resources, quality controls, and personnel expertise to originate and 

service mortgages that are acceptable to Freddie Mac. We require 

all mortgage loan sellers and services to originate and service every 

mortgage loan they sell to us or service for us in conformance with 

contract requirements and all applicable laws. 

As part of our broad detection efforts, we routinely sample performing and non-performing mortgage loans to check for conformance with contract requirements. We refer all suspicious patterns 

or trends to our internal fraud investigation area for further review. 

Freddie Mac has long been a leader in the fight against mortgage 

fraud. In 1989, we created the first fraud investigation unit in the 

secondary mortgage market because we are dedicated to helping reduce the likelihood of mortgage fraud. We have established a tollfree fraud hotline for reporting suspected fraudulent activity, and 

we have created and maintained an exclusionary list of individuals 

and companies that we have excluded from participating in transactions involving Freddie Mac loans. 

Our fraud investigation area has substantially affected the mortgage fraud landscape. Our efforts have led to hundreds of individuals and companies being barred from selling loans to Freddie Mac, 

to indictments and convictions by federal and state prosecutors, 

and to the recovery of millions of dollars. 

Freddie Mac is firmly committed to helping participants in the 

mortgage finance industry establish comprehensive quality control 

practices that safeguard against fraud. We have developed a publiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:14 Sep 29, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\95596.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
23

cation, ‘‘Discover Gold Through Quality’’ that provides all of our 

mortgage sellers and servicers with the information about best 

practices for quality control. 

So let me now turn to the steps that Freddie Mac has taken, and 

continues to follow, and enhance, after discovering the fraudulent 

activities in the Poconos. At the onset, I would note that when the 

allegations of significant loan origination improprieties arose in the 

Poconos, it was Congressman Kanjorski who was instrumental in 

helping all parties work towards solutions that will help the Pocono 

borrowers keep their homes. 

Freddie Mac issued an industry letter alerting the primary market of the serious allegations of fraud in connection with loans originating in the Poconos. After discovering the fraudulent activities, 

we held accountable primary market participants who were involved, and we worked closely with Congressman Kanjorski and 

the primary market, to facilitate a process whereby the primary 

market was able to provide many Pocono borrowers with the appropriate assistance and corrective measures that enabled them to 

keep their homes. 

Freddie Mac temporarily suspended foreclosure activities on 

many of the affected loans, so that the borrowers and the primary 

market lenders would have sufficient time and opportunity to work 

through the problems associated with these loans. Freddie Mac also 

established a special toll-free Poconos hotline for responding to borrowers’ questions and concerns. 

Throughout the period of investigation and discovery of the 

fraudulent activities, Freddie Mac worked closely with criminal and 

civil authorities. Since our experience with the Poconos, we have 

enhanced our focus on operational risk, as demonstrated by our expansion of on-site evaluations of mortgage lenders and servicers. 

The fraudulent activities that occurred in the Poconos have served 

to reinforce our commitment to promoting responsible lending practices. 

We have instituted the secondary mortgage market’s most comprehensive set of measures designed to promote responsible lending 

practices. Our publications and educational programs help potential borrowers to better understand the mortgage lending process, 

an effective way in protecting borrowers from predatory practices. 

Freddie Mac is among the first secondary mortgage market institutions to have adopted anti-predatory lending policies, and we 

have developed a range of mortgage products aimed at making 

credit less costly and more sustainable. 

In closing, I want to reiterate that Freddie Mac has always opposed any action that denies home buyers fair treatment in the 

purchase of decent, safe and affordable housing. Working with Congressman Kanjorski, we have helped to fight mortgage fraud in the 

Poconos. We have in place a comprehensive risk management program that includes rigorous quality control, and helps us to identify loans with suspicious or fraudulent characteristics. 

Our fraud investigation unit has had substantial positive effect 

on reducing the likelihood of mortgage fraud, and we have instituted the secondary mortgage market’s most comprehensive set of 

measures designed to protect consumers. 

24

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I look forward to working with you, Congressman Kanjorski, and the members of the Committee, as you consider legislation to help reduce 

the likelihood of mortgage fraud and predatory lending practices. 

[The prepared statement of Donald J. Bisenius can be found on 

page 50 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, sir. Our next witness is Mr. Zach 

Oppenheimer, Senior Vice-President, Single-Family Mortgage Business of Fannie Mae. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF ZACH OPPENHEIMER, SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT, SINGLE-FAMILY MORTGAGE BUSINESS, FANNIE MAE 

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Thank you, Chairman Baker, Ranking Member Kanjorski, and members of the Subcommittee who are not here. 

My name is Zach Oppenheimer, and I am Fannie Mae’s Senior 

Vice-President for Single-Family Mortgage Business based here in 

Pennsylvania. And since 2001, I have led Fannie Mae’s efforts to 

address the problems being discussed here today. 

I want to thank you for inviting me to testify about our efforts, 

and commend you, Congressman Kanjorski, for your leadership 

right here in and around Monroe County. Your concern and attention have been critical to helping families stay in their homes and 

right themselves financially. 

As this Subcommittee is keenly aware, Fannie Mae’s mission is 

to expand homeownership, with a special focus on helping underserved Americans overcome the unique barriers they face. Our role 

among financial institutions, and one of the things that sets us 

apart, is that we provide private mortgage capital to all communities, at all times, under all economic conditions. But Fannie Mae 

does not originate loans. We buy loans from lenders in a very competitive secondary mortgage market, and we rely on lenders who 

sell us loans to comply with all laws and requirements to properly 

underwrite loans, and to asses the value of the property securing 

those loans. 

Because our mission is expanding homeownership, we are committed to being a leader in promoting responsible lender practices. 

We support the adoption of a strong federal anti-predatory lending 

law, and look forward to working with you on that issue. 

Fannie Mae has been purchasing mortgage loans in the Pocono 

area for many years, and we continue to do so. While we have observed swings in home values as economic conditions have fluctuated, changing home values by themselves do not necessarily indicate a problem. But in early 2001, newspaper articles alleging inflated appraisals began appearing, and Congressman Kanjorski 

alerted us that the valuation problems in this area required closer 

attention. We also began to hear similar concerns from lenders and 

others. 

At that time, Fannie Mae owned or guaranteed close to 8,300 

mortgage loans in Monroe County and the surrounding area. We 

immediately formed an internal team to identify the nature and 

cause of the alleged problems, begin to take action to appropriately 

remedy the situation, and to assist affected homeowners with their 

mortgage loans. Fannie Mae fully recognizes that foreclosures can 

25

be devastating to homeowners and their families, to the community, and to mortgage investors. 

In order to help homeowners whose loans we own, we committed 

to working with borrowers, through our lender partners, to make 

every reasonable attempt to keep families in their homes. We directed our servicers not to foreclose on any property in the area 

until they had reviewed the original appraisal and loan documents 

for irregularities, and we granted a moratorium on foreclosures for 

up to 60 days. For homeowners who could—who wanted to refinance their Fannie Mae-owned loans but could not, because of 

valuation issues, we even designed and offered a special refinancing program for them. We encouraged lenders originating new 

loans to implement controls to improve the appraisal process to reduce the possibility that homeowners would pay too much for 

homes that they were purchasing in this area. 

We joined the Home Ownership in the Poconos Enterprise, or 

HOPE, which was formed by Congressman Kanjorski to bring together national and local housing industry leaders, elected officials, 

and community groups, to find solutions to problems in the Pocono 

housing market, and to prevent similar situations from recurring. 

Joe Terrana, the Deputy—the Director of our local partnership office, is actively engaged in addressing community housing issues 

right here in the Pocono region. 

Since the end of 2000, we have managed to reduce our foreclosure rate in this area by more than half, and the trend continues 

lower. Since 2001, our loan workout ratio, which measures the percentage of defaulted loans that we were able to cure without foreclosure, has averaged more than 60 percent, far exceeding the 

State rate in Pennsylvania of 45 percent. But not withstanding 

these challenges, Fannie Mae has remained committed to providing 

mortgage loan liquidity here in Monroe County, and has increased 

our investments in this region from the 8,300 loans that I mentioned, to more than 10,000 loans today. 

As we move forward, we remain committed to serving this community. We have developed new procedures to detect this kind of 

problem sooner. We can now identify the refinance transactions 

with potential excessive property value estimates by using automated underwriting technology, and we also now refer unacceptable appraisal reports identified through this process to the Pennsylvania State Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers for their 

investigation. 

We believe that better appraisal practices, along with a better 

understanding of the home buying process on the part of homebuyers, could have enabled some consumers to avoid the problems 

that they experienced. Fannie Mae is a strong advocate of homebuyer education, and we require it under our own programs. In 

order to support homebuyer education, we have worked with the 

Alliance for Building Communities, the Pocono-based Pennsylvania 

Homeowners Defense Association, and others. We have also joined 

in the Keystone Housing Initiative by backing a $32 billion mortgage commitment here in Pennsylvania, which will provide additional opportunities to learn about responsible borrowing and home 

buying. 

26

In conclusion, Fannie Mae remains committed to providing mortgage loan liquidity in all communities throughout the United 

States, in strong markets, in weak markets, and throughout challenging times. Fannie Mae remains committed to this community, 

and we will continue to work with all parties to improve and 

strengthen the housing market in this area. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Zach Oppenheimer can be found on 

page 164 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Oppenheimer. Our next witness is Mr. Gary P. Taylor, President of the Appraisal Institute. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF GARY P. TAYLOR, PRESIDENT, APPRAISAL 

INSTITUTE 

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Baker, Congressman 

Kanjorski. Let us review the record. Poconos real estate was 

thrown into turmoil by an influx of lower-income New Yorkers 

flooding in to seek——

Chairman BAKER. Ladies and gentlemen, if you will, please, help 

us. We are here to get the facts, and we obviously are hearing—

we are hearing from both sides. We are hearing from both sides, 

and we cannot proceed without allowing the gentleman to present 

his statement. I understand there is disagreement, but please help 

us. We want to get to the bottom of the facts, and we cannot do 

that without letting us proceed, please. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. If I could have your attention, Mr. Baker has 

courteously traveled about 1,200 miles to be in Monroe County. We 

now have the advantage here of some of the most expert witnesses 

in the country, both locally, regionally, and nationally. We cannot 

complete this hearing unless we have an understanding of what 

each witness is going to say. Therefor, if you will do me a favor as 

your Representative in Congress, let the Congress hear the witnesses statements without interruption. Thank you. 

Chairman BAKER. Let us start. Mr. Taylor, if you would, proceed 

with your statement. 

Mr. TAYLOR. What is——

Chairman BAKER. I assure you, all statements are going to be examined and questioned at the appropriate time. In our business, 

we have to let each side make their own case, and—I know, but 

they have not been saying it to us. Let us proceed, please. Please, 

Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Flooding in to seek a better life. Powerful interests—powerful interests misled the existing residents as to the 

value and extent of their property, cynically cheating them out of 

their homes. Pennsylvania authorities ignored the victims’ complaints for years. I am referring, of course, to the infamous Walking Purchase of 1737, a swindle pulled off by Colonial Secretary 

James Logan, expanding the boundaries of settlement, which 

should have ended up roughly here in Stroudsburg, all the way up 

to Lackawack. Logan worked his scam by misleading the principles, departing from norms in land deals, and controlling the 

process. This beautiful land has been plagued by crooked deals ever 

since. The spirit of James Logan apparently still haunts the Poconos. How can we get rid of it? 

27

One obvious place to start is by eliminating corrupt and inflated 

appraisals, which figure in the outrageous transactions we are discussing today. My written testimony lists 15 specific measures to 

correct weaknesses in our appraisal licensing system. Most of these 

would have to work their way through Congress, but one could 

work now: if the bank regulators on the Federal Appraisal Subcommittee would use the authority they already have. 

Last year, bank regulators reminded lenders that borrowers and 

loan production staff should not influence the selection of appraisers, yet this mandate is still routinely ignored. Some mortgage brokers even require a predetermined value to be met if an appraiser 

wants future work from them. The regulators have authority to 

stop this abuse of appraiser independence, and they should use it 

now. 

Similar problems during the savings and loan scandals of the 

1980’s prompted FIRREA, which sought to foster accurate appraisals as key elements in federally financed real estate transactions. 

The appraisal industry responded by creating uniform standards 

and promoting greater professional development. 15 years later, we 

see FIRREA has failed to meet its goal, and no where more than 

here in the Poconos. 

Appraisal profits exist around the country, but they are acute 

here, where 1/5 of all the mortgaged homes face foreclosure. Compare the 29 percent foreclosure rate in Monroe County to the national average of under 1 percent. Pennsylvania’s appraisal regulators have been especially slow to deal with complaints. The political and judicial establishments have been so close to some developers that it was necessary to bring in judges from elsewhere to ensure fair, legal proceedings. 

In 2002, Freddie Mac made Chase Manhattan Bank buy back the 

loans it had sold to them, an extraordinary occurrence. Much Pocono development targeted inexperienced homebuyers, especially 

from New York City, completely unfamiliar with the area. Corrupt 

developers, financiers, and appraisers, in some cases, are one and 

the same. 

Now, 6 overlapping investigations seek to unravel the mess, 

which every resident of Monroe County and the region pays for one 

way or the other. As an appraiser proud to represent my profession, I am appalled that misleading appraisals have helped to ruin 

so many lives here. 

An appraiser must be independent to render an objective evaluation, and must be free to resist pressure to inflate values. Despite 

FIRREA, such pressure persists. Three-quarters of appraisers 

polled nationwide told independent surveyors that they have been 

pressed to deliver higher values. Contrary to the intent of FIRREA 

to increase professionalism, qualified appraisers are being 

marginalized. Language in the law is being misinterpreted to cater 

to minimally qualified appraisers at the expense of those with the 

most experience and professional development, the equivalent of 

hiring high school dropouts rather than college graduates. 

So-called bargain bundling of real estate services renders appraisal just a formality in a mixed bag of services controlled by 

lenders, courting the disastrous results we have seen here in Monroe County. Regulators have been under-funded, understaffed, misVerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:14 Sep 29, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\95596.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
28

directed as to priorities, and sometimes just plain lazy. Some state 

regulators impose fines for trivial mistakes while leaving massive 

deliberate frauds unchecked. They chase their tails while swindled 

homebuyers end up on the street. Complaints languish for months 

and even years without resolution, while the Federal Appraisal 

Subcommittee does little to encourage timely action. 

Our professional organizations recommend specific changes to 

the law that would promote appraiser independence, and allow 

FIRREA to work as intended to protect government financial interests, and with them, consumers. We recommend giving regulators 

enough access to do their jobs, giving public access to regulatory 

proceedings, and advancing the professionalism of appraiser. Most 

important of all, we want accountability down the line, from a credible federal enforcement entity, through responsible State regulatory agencies, to the entire mortgage lending industry. 

The realty scandals of the Poconos reflect problems across the 

nation. Let us stop this mortgage merry-go-round whizzing in circles without going anywhere. We can work with Congress towards 

a system of accountability and clearly defined responsibility guaranteeing the integrity of honest appraisals is the first step toward 

purging Pennsylvania of the spirit of Logan and the modern 

Logans that still prey upon it today. 

Thank you, Congressmen. 

[The prepared statement of Gary P. Taylor can be found on page 

199 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Mr. Kanjorski, you have a motion? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Before we question our distinguished witnesses, I would ask unanimous consent that we insert into the record 2 documents from individuals who contacted 

me before the hearing and requested to submit material. Mr. Carl 

Silverstein, a father of 8 children, has encountered certain problems in his mortgage, and he raises some serious concerns about 

his initial appraisal for his home in the Poconos. Additionally, Mr. 

Joseph Fisher, who presently serves as an appraiser in the Poconos, has developed a proposal to combat problematic appraisals by 

redefining the description of neighborhoods. Consequently, I ask 

unanimous consent that both of these statements be entered into 

the record. 

Chairman BAKER. Without objection, both statements shall be incorporated into the official Committee record. 

[The following information can be found on page 235 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. I shall begin my questions. Mr. Goldstein, I 

am not sure that I should ask any questions of you, given the fact 

the report is not been released, but I just want an observation to 

be confirmed for me. Your data would seem to indicate that over 

the last decade, generally, Pennsylvania real estate values have 

been on the increase. Is that a fair assessment of the real estate 

market? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Pennsylvania? Yes. 

Chairman BAKER. Yes? Speaking for the GSE’s, I just pick Mr. 

Oppenheimer to make a general statement. In your credit review 

process of portfolios, you do not in the course of normal business 

conduct, examine the underlying appraisals of values of every loan 

29

which is acquired as a part of the secondary market acquisition, is 

that correct? 

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. That is correct. That is correct, sir. 

Chairman BAKER. So——

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. We have standards for prudent investment 

quality underwriting that would relate to every appraisal for every 

loan that we purchase. We randomly sample loans to make sure 

that all of the lenders selling loans to Fannie Mae abide by our requirements and our standards. When we find a problem like we did 

in the Pocono Mountains, we quickly take action to identify the nature and cause of the problem, and remedy the problem with solutions. 

Chairman BAKER. But as to a normal day-to-day business practice, you rely on the conduct of the originator, the appraisal, the 

closing attorney, the home builder, the real estate agent, and their 

professionalism, to provide to you a product which you can acquire 

in good faith. That is correct. Mr. Taylor—ladies and gentlemen, 

please, help us out. We are trying to go somewhere here with this 

line of questions, and you can tell us how good we are doing later, 

but let us work a little bit. Mr. Taylor, you indicated from your perspective as the national director of an appraisal organization that 

the pattern of practice of appraisals in the region, in the county, 

was, of your opinion, deeply concerning and likely fraudulent conduct. Is that a correct summary of your testimony? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, it is, Mr. Baker. 

Chairman BAKER. And did you summarize your findings and recommendations in correspondence to the Federal Appraisal Committee as of this date? 

Mr. TAYLOR. I believe we have, yes. 

Chairman BAKER. Okay. Could I get—please request a copy of 

that for the Committee’s consideration? We would like to see what 

your findings were and specific recommendations. Mr. Peterson, in 

your statement, you seemed to indicate that the best weapon 

against abusive practices is for an educated consumer. In the event 

of a closing, is it not a standard of fiduciary conduct for the closing 

attorney, the real estate agent, the home builder to some extent, 

and specifically the appraiser, to exercise independent authority 

and judgment in providing that the representations made are accurate and in the fair and balanced interest of the consumer as well 

as the seller? 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes, I would believe it is. 

Chairman BAKER. If you would, please, get a microphone so we 

can—you seemed also to indicate—and for the record, the gentleman answered that question as that is correct. Secondly, you 

had seemed to represent that the actions in the Poconos, you believe, to be aberrant, not common practice, and that, to a large extent, the significant majority of home closings were customarily in 

line with professional standards of performance, is that correct? 

Mr. PETERSON. I would believe so. Again, I am speaking on behalf of the builders. We do not represent appraisers or real estate 

agents in that. 

Chairman BAKER. That is certainly understandable. 

Mr. PETERSON. We are strictly the builders for new construction. 

Chairman BAKER. I used to be a home builder myself——

30

Mr. PETERSON. Right. 

Chairman BAKER.—but when I built a house—I am no longer in 

the business. I have been out of the business for a long time. I have 

no monetary——

Mr. PETERSON. Right. 

Chairman BAKER. But when I built a house and put it on the 

market, I had a pretty good idea about what the value of that 

house would likely sell for——

Mr. PETERSON. Right. 

Chairman BAKER.—without the need of an appraiser. Would that 

be true——

Mr. PETERSON. Right. 

Chairman BAKER.—of——

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. 

Chairman BAKER. Would it also be likely—Mr. Hay, excuse me—

that when you take a listing from a builder and put it on the market without the need of an appraiser to tell you the value, based 

on your practice of experience in the market, you would have some 

idea as to what the market value of that market value of that property might be? 

Mr. HAY. That is true. However, in our market area, there are 

very few new home constructions, other than maybe a spec home, 

that actually are listed by a realtor. That is not to say that a realtor does not work with builders and refer clients to them, but typically they are not put into the Multiple Listing Service as—and put 

on the open market because there is very little speculation building 

done. 

Chairman BAKER. So what you are saying in this case is that 

many of the homes were built pursuant to a buyer contract of 

presale? 

Mr. HAY. That is true. There are—between the builder and the 

contract that the builder has with the buyer. They are not listed 

with a realtor, and then they do not go through a realtor. 

Chairman BAKER. There seems to be a conclusion reached by Mr. 

Taylor that there were abusive and inappropriate, perhaps fraudulent, appraisal methodologies in many closings of Pocono homes. Do 

you dispute that finding or conclusion, or do you think it has 

merit? 

Mr. HAY. I think it has merit. I do not dispute it at all. I—in our 

association of realtors, our local association of realtors, Pocono 

Mountains, works primarily with realtors that are working with existing homes and, in many cases, we do list and sell the homes 

once they have gone into foreclosure. 

Chairman BAKER. Well, Mr. Goldstein indicated his studies produced data that there was a progression in home values over the 

last decade, and generally Pennsylvania housing values. Notwithstanding the fact there may be a subdivision or a trouble property 

that would have some debilitating reason for a depreciation in 

value, from an outsider looking in, if I understand that there have 

been an aberrantly high number of foreclosures, that the value of 

the transaction at the time of closing appears to be elevated from 

a falsified or incorrect appraisal in which a home builder willingly 

participated along with a realtor in the closing, who both have substantive professional knowledge as to the value of that property on 

31

the open market, with a lender, who then knows they are going to 

sell it off to a government-sponsored enterprise who has no liability 

nor the ability to examine each credit condition at closing, how is 

it possible for that practice to become a widespread methodology of 

market conduct? There are so many moving parts where one—any 

one part could say, wait a minute, something is not right here. 

What is it that you—ladies—please, please. I am trying to help 

you, if you will just help me. Thank you. 

Mr. HAY. Okay. If we could back up a moment, Mr. Chairman. 

Is the—again, the realtors are normally not involved with new 

home construction, or not involved with the contract at all in any 

way, shape or form, with a builder. I am not saying——

Chairman BAKER. I do not know Pennsylvania law. Is it okay for 

a homebuilder to market his own property without a real estate license? 

Mr. HAY. That is correct. 

Chairman BAKER. Okay. 

Mr. HAY. And that is the way that I would say would be 99.5% 

of the time. 

Chairman BAKER. That is not the case in my state. 

Mr. HAY. Okay. 

Chairman BAKER. I just——

Mr. HAY. Yeah, realtors are not involved. We do work with—

more on the existing home level, not on the new home construction 

level. And typically in many cases, the buyer has already spoken 

to a lender prior to engaging a real estate agent, as you probably 

have seen those advertisements even on national TV, national companies. So it is not untypical for us to have to work with a lender 

out of California or Georgia or Florida. That is typical. 

Chairman BAKER. And——

Mr. HAY. People do go to their——

Chairman BAKER.—as a matter of practice——

Mr. HAY.—licensed——

Chairman BAKER.—within an agency of your size, you do not 

usually finance purchases yourself? 

Mr. HAY. Not at all. 

Chairman BAKER. Okay. 

Mr. HAY. Not at all. And typically the realtors in the area do not 

finance. That is not to say that they do not have companies that 

they refer business to——

Chairman BAKER. Sure. 

Mr. HAY.—but they do—again, if there is any financial interest 

there, they have to be—that has to be disclosed through the rules 

and regulations and the Licensing Act of the Pennsylvania Real Estate Commission. 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you. Mr. Bisenius, when a person is 

found to have been the victim of fraudulent conduct and a home 

closing occurs which is subsequently followed by a bankruptcy proceeding, you indicated that—or it was Mr. Oppenheimer—I am 

sorry—indicated that in pursuit of wrongdoers, there was successful recovery of significant amounts of money. Has any of that 

money made its way back to consumers, or has that been for the 

GSE’s best interest? If you want to get back to me on that later——

Mr. BISENIUS. Let me do that. 

32

Chairman BAKER. Secondly, with regard to curative work, in the 

instance where an individual has been the victim of fraud, there 

is a final judgment against a perpetrator that it was fraud, the individual has gone into bankruptcy, is there any curative work done 

on that individual’s credit record when those facts are determined? 

Please, let me ask the questions. 

Mr. BISENIUS. Not that I am aware of. 

Chairman BAKER. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kanjorski, I have been 

overly abusive of time, but please, take as much time as you like 

and I will come back with another round. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want you to use all the time in 

the world, because it is important that you get the information. As 

I discern the testimony of the entire panel, there is no one single 

cause of a problem here in the Pocono Mountains. It is a multiplicity of causes, and to start off, and I think if you—it comes from 

a meeting you and I had here at the university maybe a year ago, 

and when we had maybe 400 of the people involved. To a large extent, am I to understand that there has been a dearth of professional support, either through the representation of an attorney or 

real estate agent that has been contracted for by the buyer? Most 

of the individuals that have been quote allegedly defrauded, they 

did not have the benefit of a real estate agent or an attorney, is 

that relatively correct? Are there—well, I cannot ask of you, but I 

can ask of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac people, what is the custom 

across the country? Are there any requirements of state law that, 

particularly first-home—first-time homebuyers have the advantages of professional services, and a predicate—I will put a predicate in that. I think we are all aware that part of the problem is 

sometimes a lack of sophistication of knowing what to look for, and 

an overly anxious desire to acquire the property because it is the 

escape from maybe the urban area to a pristine area like the Pocono Mountains, so that, as a result, there is that desire to acquire 

the property, and then a financial illiteracy, if you will, in terms 

of not themselves knowing necessarily how to price a property because they are from out of town, not having the benefit of a strong 

or independent appraisal as we would hope be the correcting mechanism, and then further not having the professional representation 

of the realtor or the attorney? How do we fill that? What do we do? 

Someone mentioned education. What do——

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Congressman, the direct answer to your question is that it varies by location when you asked about whether 

there is legal representation to homeowners. In other jurisdictions 

around the country, it truly does vary. One thing that you touched 

on that I think is critically important though is homebuyer education. To the best of our knowledge, many of the homebuyers here 

in Monroe County were first-time homebuyers. Many of these people did not have any experience previously with the process of buying a home, and many of them did not know enough to look for 

comparable properties in the area, to know what comparable market value would be for the homes that they were purchasing, nor, 

Congressman Kanjorski, were many of them familiar with homebuyer inspections and other things that many people take for 

granted if they have already been through the home buying process 

many times, which is why Fannie Mae requires for many of our 

33

community lending programs and first-time homebuyer programs, 

homebuyer education. In fact, many Fannie Mae customers use 

materials that are published by the Fannie Mae Foundation, in a 

variety of languages, that help consumers understand the process 

of buying a home and financing a home. Because what many of us 

take for granted having purchased homes in the past, is not common knowledge for first-time homebuyers, and I believe that homebuyer education is not just critically important, but will help prevent the recurrence of these problems in other areas throughout 

the country with more education on the part of first-time homebuyers. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Do the—any of the States actually require some 

professional representation if you are a first-time homebuyer, 

or——

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. In other words, it is caveat emptor? 

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. And if you can get a purchaser from out of the 

area, unfamiliar—and I was particularly struck when we had this 

meeting with Mr. Wilson’s group too—that so many of these buyers 

came from the State of New York where they were accustomed to 

a Housing Commission in the State of New York. It is much more 

protective of a homebuyer. 

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. I believe attorneys also represent buyers in 

the State of New York. Attorneys are required at settlement. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Attorneys are required? 

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. I believe so. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. In the State of New York? So it would not be 

abusive, at least at a State level, to require representation by counsel, but maybe even on a national level, look at that question. I—

you know, we always, and I know Richard is the same I am, we 

do not want to impose federal jurisdiction in the actions of the various States in the exercise of their property rights because they are 

quite different. But on the other hand, if we found that this was 

a uniform question, particularly in first-time homeownership, 

would it be wise for us to set some standard out there that says 

that we have to have representation? Because I found it critical in 

our discussions and the group meetings that I have had with these 

buyers, that so often the problem that they stepped into was really 

easily curable or solvable at the very beginning if they had either 

a realtor or an attorney that was representing them and not the 

seller, or not the mortgage company, who would have asked the 

questions, would have alerted them. It would have been over. Now, 

maybe we should look at, in these marginal areas where we are 

now attempting to get higher homeownership, and particularly encouraging relocation ownership, where the people are unfamiliar 

with the area and the customs of the area, and they do not have 

a contact within the area to refer to, maybe we should look at the 

potential of the requirement of professional representation. Is 

that—I do not want to make work for lawyers or for realtors, but 

maybe having a lawyer in at the closing is going to protect the 

transaction and the individual with the foreknowledge. 

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. I would answer your question, Congressman, 

by saying that it is a requirement for many of our first-time homeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 22:14 Sep 29, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\95596.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
34

buyer programs that homebuyer education classes be taken. And 

the truth of the matter is what some first-time homebuyers do not 

know can hurt them, as evidenced by what has happened here in 

Monroe County. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Well I was struck though with Mr. Taylor’s testimony. At this time, Mr. Taylor, you see how you can have a response from people when you put the first clause out there? And 

then you won the audience because obviously your testimony was 

going to be that you have worked, and your institute has worked, 

very diligently over the last 3 years to set up high standards of appraisals because we saw that as a major weakness in Monroe 

County, this idea of the—that the appraiser were not really coming 

within the parameters of what a fair market price was for whatever reason. Again if you had a part of the problem here, it probably does go to over-exaggerated appraisals, at the very least. 

Would that have been ascertained by a real estate agent or an attorney if they had participated in the whole closure of the proposition, that they may have looked at it? I know when I practiced 

law, I could pretty much tell you the value of a home anywhere in 

the perimeters of the county that I represented. I could just look 

at it and say, wow, is that over-inflated. And I would imagine that 

the bar here would have the same familiarity, or certainly the real 

estate. Why is it that it is that common to have—I mean, that 

shocks me. I have to say for the audience I have a daughter that 

moved from Pennsylvania, went to school in California, and then 

moved to New Mexico. She told me she was going to buy her firsttime home and was ready to close on a transaction, where I said, 

who is your attorney? And then she proceeded to tell me she did 

not have one because she was smart enough not to have an attorney, or was so encouraged by the seller, and her daddy did an ugly 

dance and said you will not have any support from me unless you 

get an attorney, got one, and saved yourself from a horrible transaction. But even lawyers’ children and well-educated people make 

this error of the largest financial transaction of their lives. They 

think they can avoid the expenditure either for proper legal counsel 

or real estate expertise. As a result, regardless of what Mr. Taylor’s 

organization does in terms of appraising, unless somebody is to test 

the appraisal and be alert, they cannot alert the secondary market, 

they cannot alert the mortgage company, they cannot talk to the 

builder. It is just a process that builds up and goes along and gets 

one. And then if there is a failure, it is a horrible failure, as happened here. From the whole panel, a question, anybody jump in. 

What should the federal government do, and what limits should we 

put on what we do so that we do not impose upon the States and 

preempt the States too much? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Congressman, if I might start off. One of the questions you asked is would someone be better served having a realtor 

or an attorney at the closing. I would say to you that they would 

be best served having an independent appraisal performed, that 

they would hire the appraiser, not just rely on the appraisal that 

was being done for the transaction. I would then say, yes, having 

a realtor there would probably be helpful, and if the attorneys were 

doing the closings on a consistent basis, I agree with you. I think 

they would get an idea as to what the values were in the area from 

35

closing so many properties consistently. I do find it was unusual. 

My wife was from Pennsylvania, and when we were married and 

buying our first home, she said to me what do you mean we are 

spending money on an attorney for a closing. And I live in New 

York, and I said, well, it is required. Are you telling me it is not 

required in Pennsylvania? She goes we never had one in any of our 

closings. But she did mention she had an appraiser who did an appraisal for her and actually saved her money on the closing because 

the price that she was going to pay was too high and they renegotiated the deal. 

Mr. OPPENHEIMER. Congressman, this is the front page of the 

‘‘Philadelphia Inquirer’’ real estate section yesterday. The title is 

First-Time Homebuyers Beware. There are so many risks and 

issues that need to be addressed for first-time homebuyers, that we 

at Fannie Mae strongly favor a federal anti-predatory lending law 

that would be applied in every state in the country to protect consumers from the practices that are predatory in nature in the marketplace today. Fannie Mae is but one investor, but since 2000, we 

have put guidelines and restrictions in place for loans that we purchase or securities that restrict prepayment penalties and balloon 

payments, that prohibit steering borrowers from lower cost loans to 

higher cost loans, that prohibit excessive charges and fees, and that 

prohibit single premium credit life insurance payments. Those 

practices are still very common in the marketplace today, and there 

are probably others that I am not mentioning, but we would 

strongly favor and support a strong federal anti-predatory lending 

law. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Well, as you may know, we are working on that 

legislation right now. But one of the things that disturbs me about 

it is that, you know, we can identify a particular problem and outlaw it, but the reality is there is a profit in the marketplace for either fraud or near-fraud conveyance of real estate, and invariably 

someone is going to find a way around whatever we—you know, 

whatever thou shall not that we pass, they will find a willing way 

to circumvent that, so I—well, what—of course, we have to look at 

that on a national scale and are doing so. I do not think there is 

any—certainly any decision on my part or the co-sponsors that I 

have that are interested in the issue, and is certainly going to filter 

through my friends on the Committee, Mr. Baker included. And I 

hope that out of the consensus—what did you say, 10 percent of the 

Congress sits on our Subcommittee alone, Mr. Chairman we ought 

to be able to come up with something that is a standard. But we 

look forward to working with you on this, and I certainly recommend that you do get together with some of the staff on the 

Committee and my own staff that are working on this proposition. 

And part of the bill that we are working on includes a counseling—

buyer education. I just do not know how far to go, and I do not 

want to create something that is required that gets placed into a 

manufactured appearance. It is so often—I am familiar with some 

of the prior Congresses on lending obligations, and even myself, 

you know, I am handling—when I do a transaction personally, I am 

handed a series of documents to sign which I never read. And it 

was all because of the magnificence of the Congress that we 

thought that by creating these documents we would be protecting 

36

people. The reality is you can over-create requirements and documents that ultimately people then do not sign. 

Any way, we have to find some real solution to the problem, not 

just to cover our tail or cover the lender’s tail or the appraiser’s tail 

or the seller’s, so we have to find a way that makes it practical for 

people that are, particularly first homebuyers, that they get the attention of a professional to assist them along the line, and that 

they know what questions to ask, and particular an appraisal, 

when in doubt, to get it. Right now, I have to say, Mr. Taylor, just 

my observances in Pennsylvania, and I suspect it is nationwide. 

Because of the lack of the number of accredited appraisers that 

exist, there is a tremendous delay out there in funding, and—or in 

getting appraisals and completing the mortgage process. Sometimes the delay in Pennsylvania is 2, 3 or 4 months, just to get a 

clearance of getting an appraisal. That very often frustrates the 

buyer and the mortgager. It slows down the transaction materially. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Congressman, if I could respond to that. I think 

there are time periods when the appraisal process gets slowed 

down when there is an explosion in the marketplace, as we saw 

over the last 2 years of interest rates. But I think as far as the 

number of appraisers out there, there are currently 80,000 licensed 

and certified appraisers in the United States right now. The problem that we see is that of that 80,000, only approximately 30,000 

of those appraisers belong to professional associations. When Title 

XI was passed in 1989, it contained a so-called anti-discrimination 

clause within that bill. And that bill basically instructed lenders, 

or told them that they could hire on a federally-related transaction, 

any appraiser that was licensed, licensing being a minimum requirement. They then went on to indicate that you could not hold 

as a requirement that someone belong to a professional association 

or have attained credentialing by that association as an additional 

requirement. So what it did really was to prove to appraisers who 

were working diligently to move forward din their careers and their 

professionalism, that perhaps they did not need to spend the time, 

and there was a fleeing from the associations because to be licensed, not to have to belong to an association, not to have to pay 

dues, not to have to be subject to ethical standards and reviews 

and potentially punishment and removal from the association, was 

much easier to agree to just be licensed. Licensing in the States 

right now requires 90 hours of education, no degrees. The professional association which I am a member of requires 120 hours of 

education to begin with, and in order to get a designation for residential appraising requires 200 hours, plus substantial number of 

hours of experience. We really think that the law from the federal 

end needs to be looked at, to say that the anti-discrimination 

clause of appraisers has really had a negative impact, and is not 

accomplishing what it was set out to accomplish. And that was to 

raise the bar to increase professionalism and to continue to protect 

the consumer and the federal institutions. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. So it would be your recommendation we go back 

and reexamine what we did in FIRREA, to see whether or not we 

in fact constricted the use of appraisal as a protective device. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Correct, Congressman, and I think that has been 

looked at. The Senate looked at that recently in testimony also. It 

37

has been 15 years now and the question is did FIRREA accomplish 

what it set out to accomplish. And it really has created a tangled 

mess for real estate appraisers such that if one is to try and practice from one State to the other, they must conform to the individual State requirements, and there is no consistency. The federal 

authority the Appraisal Subcommittee has the right to issue temporary licenses, or to say that an appraiser in New York for instance could do an appraisal in New Jersey without having to be 

licensed there under a temporary basis. That has not happened. 

Some States have their own requirements. Some States have rejected designated appraisers in our organization that have gone 

well beyond minimum credentialing, because they say you do not 

meet the State requirement, which is hard to imagine. But it has 

created 54 jurisdictions with 54 sets of rules and regulations, and 

in some ways has restricted the interstate commerce of appraisers, 

and has hurt the industry from, again, as I said earlier, encouraging people not to go the extra 10 yards and go and join a professional association and subject yourself to potential disciplinary actions. The States, I think, have also failed, as we have seen here 

in Pennsylvania, to enforce the laws that have been set out by the 

States. It often takes years for cases to come to light, and in the 

interim these bad actors, as we call them, are still continuing to 

prepare appraisals, still have their licenses. New York, as I indicated in my testimony, had someone who committed a felony, and 

after spending a year in jail, was re-given his license because he 

was supposedly rehabilitated. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Very good. Could I just prevail on one more 

point, Mr. Chairman? One of the situations that is unique somewhat to the Poconos is an extraordinary difference between the 

new property price and the used property market. And I have been 

looking at it, not only that it is effective here in the Poconos, but 

there are policies and engagements across the country in real estate that possibly account for that happening, and also whether we 

should look into it. One is that we are dealing here with contained 

or controlled communities to a large extent. In other words, a seller 

can be selling a lot across the street from a home that is almost 

identical to the new house to be constructed, and the home is sitting across the street, but the buyer of the new parcel would not 

be aware of the for sale of that piece of property because there is 

a denial of putting for sale signs and for advertising, and even if 

you could put a for sale sign, the neighborhood may be a closed 

neighborhood so the public cannot get in. And I think, to some extent, that may exacerbate this tremendous difference between the 

new property price and used property, which sometimes is as much 

as 50 percent in 3-, 4-, 5-year-old property. Is there anything we 

should do about it, or—and should we in some way construct with 

peoples’ right to privately construct and give away their rights 

when they become homeowners, or—I mean how far should we 

walk down holding the hands of the real estate buyer? 

Mr. HAY. If I could address that, Congressman. Typically when 

the developers initially started a community, they did prohibit—in 

their deed restrictions did prohibit for sale signs, and that follows 

obviously the chain of title, and they are still in there. The primary 

reason, of course, that the original developer, which are long gone 

38

in 99% of our communities here. The primary reason that they 

wanted the prohibition of the for sale sign is because they did not 

want the competition of the resale market, so that if they were selling more homes in the area, they did not want that there. That 

was the primary reason. However there are many of the associations that have allowed that prohibition to stay there and remain 

today, and in the market that we have today, because it has been 

so strong, it is not a real big issue, but the concern is, is if that—

I guess I could relate back to the early ’90s and mid-’90s when we 

had literally a 7-year supply of homes on the market in any one 

community, and if there was a for sale sign on every one of those 

homes, it almost looks like there is something blighted and something wrong with the community when in fact there was not. So 

that is why there are a lot of the communities do not allow the for 

sale signs there. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. How does that affect the used-market price if 

people who would be coming into the community do not know what 

houses are for sale? How do they not get into building a new home 

when in fact they could acquire a used home——

Mr. HAY. Yeah. 

Mr. KANJORSKI.—with significant savings? 

Mr. HAY. I think, you know, a lot of it still goes back to the education process because the buyers do not know that the homes are 

for sale in these communities, and they are just shown the—today, 

with the Internet availability, they can find homes that are in 

those communities and for sale. But if there is this homework that 

has to be done that way and education that has to be given. If I 

could just jump back on the predatory lending comment. I feel that 

there is a need for a federal predatory lending legislation, and the 

reason for that are there is many people that go out on the internet 

and they get a mortgage company off the internet because of the 

rate, or everything that sounds good. And so we are not just bound 

to instate lenders. There are people that are lending that the do 

come off the internet. I had one that was a lender mortgage company out of New York State. Within the last 2 months, the mortgage broker called me and said we need to do an addendum to the 

agreement of sale increasing the sale price of the home by $30,000, 

and that we need to find an appraisal—appraiser that will appraise 

it for that amount of money. And it was just so that buyers could 

show that there was—or that they could—and going back to the 

phantom paperwork, that they could show that there was equity 

into that home when in fact there really was not. So these people 

can be found out of state, so that is why I think that something 

federally needs to be done. On the appraisal side, one of the concerns that I have is some of the lenders utilizing credit ratings and 

only using an assessed value of the area, not really having an appraisal done at all. That really concerns me because they do not 

have anybody going out and physically looking at that property to 

tell what that property is worth. And secondly, some of the lenders, 

because of the credit rating—someone having a good credit rating, 

at most, will ask for a drive-by appraisal, and again that is not fair 

to either the buyer or, in some cases, the seller. So I think those 

are some of the things that we need to look at, but I appreciate 

39

your work on predatory lending law, but I think we do need to do 

something federally on that. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Okay. I am going to pass it back to you. 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Kanjorski. By way of show of 

hands—do not stand up, please—how many people are here in the 

audience today who have either directly or indirectly been affected 

by what they believe was misrepresentation in home price, just to 

get some idea. Okay. If you will put your hands down. How many 

of that number were first-time—let me reverse it. How many of 

that number were not—you already had owned real estate prior occasions, just—so it was predominantly first-time homebuyers, but 

there were some experienced homebuyers who also were adversely 

affected. By way of explanation from my own experience in my 

home state, we have a requirement that a realtor meet certain licensing requirements, but that you cannot represent but one party 

in a transaction, either the buyer or the seller. If you are to put 

yourself in the position of representing both, then you must have 

both sign a document agreeing to that arrangement, and then you 

cannot advise either party. I cannot tell the seller what the buyer 

what—will really pay. I cannot advise the buyer what the seller 

will really take, because that is a violation of law. If you violate 

your fiduciary duty, you go to jail. We have a similar requirement 

for appraisers, and we have to have an independent appraisal done 

by a third party who has no interest in the transaction other than 

the appraisal fee. The attorney is under a similar obligation, and 

the mortgage company has an obligation. So that in all—and we 

did not just jump ahead of the curve here. We came out of the S&L 

crisis in the late ’80s, so we had people going to jail in every direction. And so as a result of that, we put into effect at the State level 

a remedy, which in my view of the world, might greatly enhance, 

along with the appraisal recommendations of Mr. Taylor, where we 

might need to go. But as to the issue of predatory lending, we first 

have to design a definition of what is it that is not already currently a violation of law. It appears from what has been described 

here today, there is sufficient grounds for actions against individuals where you—where the addition of a predatory law would not 

necessarily make any big difference. However should we pass one, 

I am understanding that members of the secondary market would 

want to have an exclusion from liability should there be an abusive 

practice identified to your portfolio, that you rely on the originator 

to do the screening. Because otherwise you are going to be at the 

Georgia model. Then you are going to find yourself not participating in the market at all. Is that correct, Mr. Bisenius? 

Mr. BISENIUS. Well, not exactly. The issue only comes down to 

one whether it is strict—liability or more limited liability. We believe we should be held accountable to a standard where we have 

to do reasonable due diligence against the people we are doing 

business with and the practices they are engaging in. And as long 

as we take reasonable efforts to watch against that, then we think 

we should be protected from the liability. If we had no quality control, we had no lender approval, we did no due diligence, then we 

should be subject to the same liabilities in the market——

Chairman BAKER. But that does not go to where you are doing 

a—you get down to a credit examination of every loan. You—what 

40

you are doing is taking the current business practice and saying 

that standard shall be applicable going forward, although for mortgage originators at the State level, they will have a higher standard of liability than they do today. 

Mr. BISENIUS. That is correct. 

Chairman BAKER. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman BAKER. Mr. Peterson, I want to go back to your earlier 

comments about the homebuilders obligation. Is there any—what is 

the standard—is there a professional code of conduct, for example, 

that the Homebuilders Organization has in effect that requires you 

to utilize any method of what I would call a fiduciary standard—

homebuilders may have another description of it. What is your 

stated professional organization’s obligation to your home purchaser? 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, number one, as an association, locally we 

do have some guidelines that our builders and our contractors must 

sign, saying that they are going to do specific things, that they are 

going to follow code and stuff. Unfortunately, most of these deal 

with construction and quality and workmanship. They do not deal 

with appraisals. They do not deal with financial issues. Now that 

is something that we can be looking at, but it is hard for us as 

builders to determine that if we are not licensed appraisers and we 

are not attorneys, and we ourselves do not know that. 

Chairman BAKER. But you know what cost you have going into 

the home to construct it. You know what normal rates of return——

Mr. PETERSON. right. 

Chairman BAKER.—would be on that product. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. 

Chairman BAKER. And if you have something that represents a 

200 percent rate of return, maybe a flag goes off there. Is there 

anything that—there is no bounds from which you as a professional 

organization—let me make it easy. How about, if you can, get us 

a copy of your current homebuilding code of conduct and we can examine it and take a look at it. 

Mr. PETERSON. And you do have that. That is in your——

Chairman BAKER. Great. 

Mr. PETERSON.—package. I—you did receive that today. Again, 

there is not anything dealing with the appraisal end of it. Maybe 

that is something that we do need to——

Chairman BAKER. Has there been——

Mr. PETERSON.—look at. 

Chairman BAKER.—any curative action, corrective action, penalty 

assessments, anyone taken out of the organization as a result of 

identified irregularities of conduct? 

Mr. PETERSON. For workmanship and code violations, yes, there 

have. For appraisals? 

Chairman BAKER. Yeah, no. Appraisals is not your business. 

Mr. PETERSON. Right. It is not our business. But for workmanship and contractual problems, things like that, we have, but for 

the financial end, no. 

Chairman BAKER. And please, I need to hear what he is telling 

me so we can get it on the record. I thank you for your interest. 

Secondly, if you were to go personally to a closing on a home that 

41

you felt was worth $200,000 and the appraiser came back with a 

$250,000 appraisal. The mortgage lender says that is not my job, 

it is the appraiser’s responsibility. We are going to loan 80 percent 

of the value. Does everybody just go along their merry way, or 

what do you feel is the homebuilder’s responsibility at that 

point——

Mr. PETERSON. Right. 

Chairman BAKER.—in fairness of value? 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, again, from the national level of our federation to our State association and ours, we recommend that the consumer does have a real estate attorney. We do recommend—unfortunately it is not law here in Pennsylvania, and I think maybe that 

is something that needs to be done here. We also recommend that 

they do their homework. We actually go out and say to a consumer—and I get many phone calls every day from consumers——

Chairman BAKER. I bet, yeah. 

Mr. PETERSON.—saying, you know, do—can you give us a list of 

builders and stuff like that. And I simply say, look, when you are 

shopping, shop with more than just one builder. Do not get just 

nailed with one developer and start looking at just their products. 

Shop among at least 4 or 5 different builders and developers——

Chairman BAKER. Well, let me——

Mr. PETERSON.—and compare——

Chairman BAKER.—ask the question about marketing responsibility. Would your organization, either for whom you appear here 

today or in your opinion in a State-wide basis, oppose a requirement that would require a licensed realtor whether the homebuilder was a licensed realtor himself? 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. 

Chairman BAKER. And from your view, I understand that is another layer of cost, another layer of bureaucracy, so forth——

Mr. PETERSON. Right. 

Chairman BAKER.—but there is a code of conduct which goes 

with being established as a State licensed realtor that if you misrepresent values or your actions mislead either buyers or sellers, 

then there is accountability. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. 

Chairman BAKER. Would you find that a reform that would be 

unacceptable to homebuilders? 

Mr. PETERSON. No. Personally and locally here, I believe that we 

would support something like that. Our concern is, though, is that 

as you bring more red tape into that process, it will delay the process for the homeowner to be able to buy their home and close. So 

there needs to be a balance there of where the safeguards are 

there, but also you do not tie up the process with a lot of red tape. 

Chairman BAKER. My experience is generally the realtors waiting on the homebuilder to get the paint color right, so I do not 

know that you have a big problem with the realtor hanging around 

waiting on that. I would—unless Mr. Hay has a different view. You 

would not object to that process, would you, sir? 

Mr. HAY. No. I would not, no. 

Chairman BAKER. Mr. Kanjorski? 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Does anyone on the panel, and we almost have 

all been dealing with the Pocono mountain problem for 3 or 4 

42

years, does anyone have any insight or identifiable things that 

have not thus are been mentioned that we should be considering? 

Ms. MCGRATH. Yes. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Well, let me get Ms. McGrath, and then come to 

you, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Okay. 

Ms. MCGRATH. Thank you. What I would like to address is something that—I am originally from New York City. I was 38 years in 

the legal industry there. And when I came here to Pennsylvania, 

I purchased in an upscale community. It was supposed to be a private community with a private golf course with a private country 

club. After the sale of my community to a new developer, he rewrote everything. We are now a public golf course. Our private 

country club is now a public restaurant. We have people in and out. 

It is no longer a private community. However, we are still paying 

the taxes as if this was all of our private stuff and has never been 

handed over to the developer. This happens here not only in my 

community, but it has happened in other communities. Country 

Club of the Poconos, when those people purchased, they were promised a utopia. It was never developed into the utopia that it was. 

There are no laws to enforce this, because here in Pennsylvania, 

the highest command of government you have is your developer. 

They are higher than the Constitution of the United States of 

America. They write their own laws. They serve the laws. You go 

to your township officials, you go to your Senator, you go to your 

commissioners, and you are told you have to go to your developer. 

So that needs to be addressed. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. I want to reflect back on the recommendations in 

reference to federal regulation. I think the only thing that is going 

to stop housing fraud, predatory lending, is going to be stiff criminal and civil penalties. Someone has to go to jail. Until you put 

somebody in jail, you are not going to stop it. You can pat them 

on the hand. You can pat them on the head. But up until somebody 

is going to realize that if you inflate an appraisal, and based on 

some of the facts I have seen. For instance, I am going to submit 

evidence an application whereby a homeowner was given a loan for 

$188,000 from a bank. The application was not signed. It was not 

even filled out. The bank writes back and tells the homeowner that 

this is what was submitted to us by your broker. Now if that is not 

blatant crimes and criminal, and inflating something intentionally 

by $20,000 and $30,000, and causing young families, old people, to 

be homeless, what is a crime? I mean where is justice in America? 

My position is this. Based on what I have done for the last 3 years, 

so many families and so many problems, there has to be laws put 

in place that will hold each and every builder, appraisal, title company, bank, totally accountable for their actions. Should the homeowner participate or collaborate, he should be held accountable, 

even if it is me. But the type of fraud that I have seen, there is 

no question in my mind, being trained in college in criminology and 

law enforcement, there is no doubt that the type of documents that 

I reviewed—as the FBI said to me 2 years ago when I called their 

office. I am not going to call the agent’s name. He said, Mr. Wilson, 

the facts and the evidence that you guys are looking for are in the 

43

documentation that you have in your closing documents. You do 

not need to look any further. 

Now when I started to review those documents, I began to uncover things, not as an expert, but as a homeowner—a new homeowner, because there was a lot of people who purchase homes that 

were not first-time homeowners. There are a lot of people who 

owned 2 and 3 homes, got robbed. Right there from New Jersey. 

So now when you are dealing with criminality, and when you are 

dealing with criminals who have perfected crime and how to manipulate the public, you are dealing with something that the average homeowner is not going to be able to deal with, whether he is 

educated or not. You need the education, no doubt. You need the 

counseling. But the reality of it is until there are laws put in place 

on the federal or state level, that it is going to actually make these 

people aware that if you commit this crime, the chances are you 

are going to put between 5 to 10 or 20 years for committed, it is 

not going to stop. We can talk about predatory lending all we want. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Let me just ask—let me just take the national 

experts here. You have now heard everything here about Monroe 

County in Pennsylvania. Do you see a pattern in other areas of the 

United States that are similar to this one? 

Mr. TAYLOR. Congressman, if I could answer. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Yes. 

Mr. TAYLOR. When we are discussing predatory lending and 

legal-federal legislation in that area, as recently as 2003—in the 

fall of 2003, Tom Watson and 5 others from the Federal Institutions Lending Institutions reissued a statement that was issued in 

1994 requiring that there be a separation between those processing 

and handling mortgage lending and appraisers. So that document 

had been issued back in 1994. They felt it necessary to reissue it 

in 2003. And recent discussions at an ABA conference I attended 

2 weeks ago indicated that a high percentage are not following that 

mandate because there is no enforcement and no penalty. And I 

think unless there are enforcements and penalties issued for trying 

to coerce appraisers into reaching values, who are not separating 

the powers between those ordering appraisals and those receiving 

them and using them for loans, we will continue to have abuses in 

the system, just as we have seen here in Monroe. and we have seen 

it in other parts of the country as well, where appraisers are being 

coerced by mortgage brokers, by institutions looking to file and get 

mortgages who are involved in the transactions. I mean what happened here was probably the extreme case of fraud with the connections between the appraiser and the builder and the mortgage 

broker in this. But I think we need to have strong penalties for 

those engaging, and we need to have a system of reporting because 

right now the best an appraiser can do is as—I guess it was Nancy 

Reagan said, just say no. And they have done that time and time 

again, but they are threatened with being blacklisted. They are 

threatened with non-payment. They are threatened with basically 

being strangled out of business in the local area. So again I think 

it is important for the government to consider that, and again go 

back to consider the enforcement of the rules. The rules are there. 

They are not being enforced, and they need to be enforced and have 

teeth in them before they become meaningful. 

44

Mr. BISENIUS. What I have heard today is something we see a 

pattern of around the country. While in the Poconos, the magnitude 

of the fraud and improprieties that occurred in the lending practice 

goes beyond what we see in many areas, we have seen similar 

types of scams, similar types of things going on in other parts of 

the country. It appears that as long as there is, as you said, profit 

to be made, someone will try and find a way to scam. There are 

laws which, if enforced, could protect us. As I mentioned, we have 

a fraud investigation unit. We regularly make referrals to the appropriate criminal authorities in order to pursue these folks. And 

many times we are successful at having them prosecuted and having them put in jail, but not as frequently as it occurs. We also do 

maintain an exclusionary list. We do not let certain mortgage participants who have committed fraud in the past be part of transactions with us. So we have attempted, through both the exclusionary list and our fraud investigation unit, to punish those responsible for perpetrating fraud. It is critical from our perspective 

that we continue to educate consumers and educate lenders. There 

are many lenders that do not fully understand all the rules and 

regulations, even though they are part of the industry. I think 

there are many lenders that do not understand the need for the 

independence in the appraisal process, and therefore feel like they 

are doing the right thing. I think further educating lenders as we 

have attempted to do through some of publications like ‘‘Discover 

Gold Through Quality’’, educating consumers through such things 

as ‘‘Don’t Borrow Trouble’’, a publication we put out to educate consumers, as well as ‘‘Credit Smart’’, ‘‘Credit Smart Espanol’’, which 

are designed to help consumers understand what their rights and 

responsibilities are in the transaction, go a long ways. So educate 

the consumers, educate the originators, and hold those responsible 

accountable for their actions is the way we see success. 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you. I would like to thank each of our 

witnesses here today. Your insights have been most helpful to us 

in understanding the scope and depth of the problem that has occurred here, and addresses policy concerns on the national level. 

Let me assure everyone that all statements will be carefully reviewed by Committee staff. This will not be the concluding hearing 

on this matter. We will return to Washington, but I assure Mr. 

Kanjorski we will continue to work diligently on the identified 

problems of concern. To those who feel they have not been treated 

professionally in the conduct of their home purchase, it is my hope 

that state officials will pursue wrong doers with available tools 

with some sense of urgency. It is clear to me that there is more 

than sufficient facts to warrant actions being taken against the responsible individuals. With that closing comment, unless Mr. Kanjorski has further statement——

Mr. KANJORSKI. Just to say, Mr. Chairman, that I thank you for 

taking the time out of your schedule to come here to Monroe County. I hope that the citizens of Monroe County at all levels, the 

homeowners, the industry, the Chamber of Commerce, the realtors, 

the legal bar, and the financing institutions, recognize that we 

have serious problems here in Monroe County, but they are not so 

large and overpowering that we do not have a good par. Monroe 

County is a very good success story for growth. What we want to 

45

do is perfect it to a much higher success story, and your attention 

to this issue will certainly help us accomplish that. On the other 

hand, we do not want to negatively affect the economy or the success of Monroe County in the future. Thank you for coming, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Kanjorski. With that statement, our meeting stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X

June 14, 2004

48


95596.001
49


95596.002
50


95596.003
51


95596.004
52


95596.005
53


95596.006
54


95596.007
55


95596.008
56


95596.009
57


95596.010
58


95596.011
59


95596.012
60


95596.013
61


95596.014
62


95596.015
63


95596.016
64


95596.017
65


95596.018
66


95596.019
67


95596.020
68


95596.021
69


95596.022
70


95596.023
71


95596.024
72


95596.025
73


95596.026
74


95596.027
75


95596.028
76


95596.029
77


95596.030
78


95596.031
79


95596.032
80


95596.033
81


95596.034
82


95596.035
83


95596.036
84


95596.037
85


95596.038
86


95596.039
87


95596.040
88


95596.041
89


95596.042
90


95596.043
91


95596.044
92


95596.045
93


95596.046
94


95596.047
95


95596.048
96


95596.049
97


95596.050
98


95596.051
99


95596.052
100


95596.053
101


95596.054
102


95596.055
103


95596.056
104


95596.057
105


95596.058
106


95596.059
107


95596.060
108


95596.061
109


95596.062
110


95596.063
111


95596.064
112


95596.065
113


95596.066
114


95596.067
115


95596.068
116


95596.069
117


95596.070
118


95596.071
119


95596.072
120


95596.073
121


95596.074
122


95596.075
123


95596.076
124


95596.077
125


95596.078
126


95596.079
127


95596.080
128


95596.081
129


95596.082
130


95596.083
131


95596.084
132


95596.085
133


95596.086
134


95596.087
135


95596.088
136


95596.089
137


95596.090
138


95596.091
139


95596.092
140


95596.093
141


95596.094
142


95596.095
143


95596.096
144


95596.097
145


95596.098
146


95596.099
147


95596.100
148


95596.101
149


95596.102
150


95596.103
151


95596.104
152


95596.105
153


95596.106
154


95596.107
155


95596.108
156


95596.109
157


95596.110
158


95596.111
159


95596.112
160


95596.113
161


95596.114
162


95596.115
163


95596.116
164


95596.117
165


95596.118
166


95596.119
167


95596.120
168


95596.121
169


95596.122
170


95596.123
171


95596.124
172


95596.125
173


95596.126
174


95596.127
175


95596.128
176


95596.129
177


95596.130
178


95596.131
179


95596.132
180


95596.133
181


95596.134
182


95596.135
183


95596.136
184


95596.137
185


95596.138
186


95596.139
187


95596.140
188


95596.141
189


95596.142
190


95596.143
191


95596.144
192


95596.145
193


95596.146
194


95596.147
195


95596.148
196


95596.149
197


95596.150
198


95596.151
199


95596.152
200


95596.153
201


95596.154
202


95596.155
203


95596.156
204


95596.157
205


95596.158
206


95596.159
207


95596.160
208


95596.161
209


95596.162
210


95596.163
211


95596.164
212


95596.165
213


95596.166
214


95596.167
215


95596.168
216


95596.169
217


95596.170
218


95596.171
219


95596.172
220


95596.173
221


95596.174
222


95596.175
223


95596.176
224


95596.177
225


95596.178
226


95596.179
227


95596.180
228


95596.181
229


95596.182
230


95596.183
231


95596.184
232


95596.185
233


95596.186
234


95596.187
235


95596.188
236


95596.189
237


95596.190
238


95596.191
239


95596.192
240


95596.193
241


95596.194
242


95596.195
243


95596.196
244


95596.197
245


95596.198
246


95596.199
247


95596.200
248


95596.201
249


95596.202
250


95596.203
251


95596.204
252


95596.205
253


95596.206
254


95596.207
255


95596.208
256


95596.209