99–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 112–31 

THE HAMP TERMINATION ACT OF 2011 

MARCH 11, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BACHUS, from the Committee on Financial Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 839] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Financial Services, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 839) to amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 

of 2008 to terminate the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury 

to provide new assistance under the Home Affordable Modification 

Program, while preserving assistance to homeowners who were already extended an offer to participate in the Program, either on a 

trial or permanent basis, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 

amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘The HAMP Termination Act of 2011’’. 

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY. 

Section 120 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5230) 

is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(c) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE NEW ASSISTANCE UNDER THE HOME

AFFORDABLE MODIFICATION PROGRAM.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under paragraph (2), after the date of 

the enactment of this subsection the Secretary may not provide any assistance 

under the Home Affordable Modification Program under the Making Home Affordable initiative of the Secretary, authorized under this Act, on behalf of any 

homeowner. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
2 

‘‘(2) PROTECTION OF EXISTING OBLIGATIONS ON BEHALF OF HOMEOWNERS ALREADY EXTENDED AN OFFER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM.—Paragraph (1) 

shall not apply with respect to assistance provided on behalf of a homeowner 

who, before the date of the enactment of this subsection, was extended an offer 

to participate in the Home Affordable Modification Program on a trial or permanent basis. 

‘‘(3) STUDY OF USE OF PROGRAM BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES, VETERANS, AND GOLD STAR RECIPIENTS.— 

‘‘(A) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the extent 

of usage of the Home Affordable Modification Program by, and the impact 

of such Program on, covered homeowners. 

‘‘(B) REPORT.—Not later than the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall 

submit to the Congress a report setting forth the results of the study under 

paragraph (1) and identifying best practices, derived from studying the 

Home Affordable Modification Program, that could be applied to existing 

mortgage assistance programs available to covered homeowners. 

‘‘(C) COVERED HOMEOWNER.—For purposes of this subsection, the term 

‘covered homeowner’ means a homeowner who is— 

‘‘(i) a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on active 

duty or the spouse or parent of such a member; 

‘‘(ii) a veteran, as such term is defined in section 101 of title 38, 

United States Code; or 

‘‘(iii) eligible to receive a Gold Star lapel pin under section 1126 of 

title 10, United States Code, as a widow, parent, or next of kin of a 

member of the Armed Forces person who died in a manner described 

in subsection (a) of such section. 

‘‘(4) PUBLICATION OF MEMBER AVAILABILITY FOR ASSISTANCE.—Not later than 

5 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of the 

Treasury shall publish to its Website on the World Wide Web in a prominent 

location, large point font, and boldface type the following statement: ‘The Home 

Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has been terminated. If you are having trouble paying your mortgage and need help contacting your lender or 

servicer for purposes of negotiating or acquiring a loan modification, please contact your Member of Congress to assist you in contacting your lender or servicer 

for the purpose of negotiating or acquiring a loan modification.’.’’. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act, would terminate the authority of the Treasury Department to provide any new assistance 

to homeowners under the Home Affordable Modification Program 

(HAMP) authorized under Title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (12 U.S.C. 5230), while preserving any assistance already provided to HAMP participants on a permanent or trial 

basis. The bill also provides for a study by the Treasury Department to identify best practices for how existing mortgage assistance 

programs can be applied to veterans, active duty military personnel, and their relatives. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act, was introduced by Congressman Patrick McHenry and Chairman Bachus to terminate 

new mortgage modification activities under the HAMP. Created 

under the auspices of Section 109 of the Troubled Assets Relief 

Program (TARP) enacted in 2008 (P.L. 110–343), HAMP is a federally-funded mortgage modification program that provides financial 

incentives to participating mortgage servicers to modify the mortgages of eligible homeowners. 

As the signature piece of the Administration’s overall Making 

Home Affordable initiative on foreclosure prevention, HAMP has 

been both costly and ineffective. According to the Treasury DepartVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Mar 12, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR031.XXX HR031

pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
3 

ment, as of February 3, 2011, the Administration has obligated 

$29.91 billion to HAMP, although thus far it has only disbursed 

$940 million. Overall, the Administration has obligated $45.63 billion of TARP dollars to the Making Home Affordable initiative, 

which also includes the Hardest Hit Fund and the FHA Refinance 

program. 

By any objective measure, HAMP and these other programs have 

failed to produce their promised results. The Administration originally projected that Making Home Affordable would help 7 to 9 

million homeowners, yet foreclosures have remained elevated and 

the number of assisted families has fallen far short of promised levels. For example, in 2009, an estimated 2.8 million Americans had 

their homes enter foreclosure. In 2010, that number rose slightly 

to 2.9 million. Currently, 2.2 million mortgages in the United 

States are 90 days or more delinquent and around 13 percent of 

the loans outstanding in the market are delinquent in some way. 

HAMP itself, which was initially projected to modify 3 to 4 million loans, has only started 1.47 million trial modifications in its 

two years of existence. Of those loans trials, only 521,630 loans 

have been transitioned to a permanent status and remained active. 

Meanwhile, more than half of the trial modifications started—involving 792,529—loans have ended up being cancelled. HAMP’s 

lack of success has been so pronounced that the New York Times 

noted in a January 2010 editorial that HAMP has ‘‘raised false 

hopes among people who simply cannot afford their homes’’. 

Additional concerns have been raised about the benefit to participants of a mortgage modification program that gives borrowers a 

false sense of hope as they struggle to keep their homes. The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program 

(SIGTARP) has testified before Congress that HAMP is a program 

that ‘‘benefits only a small portion of distressed homeowners, offers 

others little more than false hope, and in certain cases causes more 

harm than good.’’ That harm comes from having borrowers provisionally make reduced loan payments during a trial period, only to 

be told that they owe back payments, interest, and fees, sometimes 

in one lump sum, should they be rejected from the program before 

attaining permanent status. For some borrowers, that reversal constitutes their last gasp, as their increased indebtedness and tarnished credit rating preclude them from qualifying for a privatesector proprietary loan modification program which might have 

helped them retain their home. 

Finally, in addition to its high cost and poor track record, HAMP 

has also been plagued by poor administration and resistance to 

proper oversight since its inception, placing taxpayers at risk. For 

example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has cited the 

Treasury Department for having not ‘‘fully implemented all of our 

prior recommendations to increase the transparency, accountability, and consistency of the program.’’ The Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP has noted that ‘‘despite repeated urgings 

from the Panel, Treasury has failed to collect and analyze data that 

would explain HAMPs shortcomings, and it does not even have a 

way to collect data for many of HAMPs add-on programs.’’ 

SIGTARP has added that HAMP ‘‘has been beset by problems from 

the outset and, despite frequent retooling, continues to fall dramatically short of any meaningful standard of success.’’ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
4 

Continued government intervention and bailouts only prolong 

our current economic crisis and ensure that the housing market 

will continue to struggle. The market needs to find its own footing 

free of government intervention and manipulation so that we can 

get on with a full recovery. HAMP, for all its good intentions, has 

thus far impeded that process and prolonged our economic woes. 

Thus, Congress should enact H.R. 839 to immediately end this costly, ineffective, injurious, and poorly run program. 

HEARING

The Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing, and Community Opportunity held a hearing on March 2, 2011 entitled ‘‘Legislative 

Proposals to End Taxpayer Funding for Ineffective Foreclosure 

Mitigation Programs.’’ The following witnesses testified: • The Honorable Neil M. Barofsky, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Office of the Special Inspector General • The Honorable David Stevens, Assistant Secretary for 

Housing and Commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development • The Honorable Mercedes M. Ma ̃ rquez, Assistant Secretary, 

Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development 

• Mr. Matthew J. Scire`, Director, Financial Markets and 

Community Investment, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

• Ms. Katie Jones, Analyst in Housing Policy, Congressional 

Research Service, Library of Congress 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee on Financial Services met in open session on 

March 3, 2011 and ordered H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act, 

as amended, favorably reported to the House by a record vote of 32 

yeas and 23 nays, (Record vote no. FC–19). 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record vote on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. A motion by Chairman Bachus to report the bill, as amended, to the House with a 

favorable recommendation was agreed to by a recorded vote of 32 

yeas and 23 nays, (Record vote no. FC–19). The names of Members 

voting for and against follow: 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–19 

Representative Aye Nay Present Representative Aye Nay Present 

Mr. Bachus ........................... X ........... ............. Mr. Frank (MA) ..................... ........... ........... .............

Mr. Hensarling ...................... X ........... ............. Ms. Waters ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. King (NY) ........................ ........... ........... ............. Mrs. Maloney ........................ ........... X .............

Mr. Royce .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Gutierrez ........................ ........... ........... .............

Mr. Lucas .............................. X ........... ............. Ms. Vela ́zquez ...................... ........... X .............

Mr. Paul ................................ X ........... ............. Mr. Watt ............................... ........... ........... .............

Mr. Manzullo ......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Ackerman ....................... ........... X .............

Mr. Jones ............................... X ........... ............. Mr. Sherman ........................ ........... X .............

Mrs. Biggert .......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Meeks ............................. ........... X .............


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
5 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–19—Continued 

Representative Aye Nay Present Representative Aye Nay Present 

Mr. Gary G. Miller (CA) ......... X ........... ............. Mr. Capuano ........................ ........... X .............

Mrs. Capito ........................... X ........... ............. Mr. Hinojosa ......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Garrett ............................ X ........... ............. Mr. Clay ................................ ........... X .............

Mr. Neugebauer .................... X ........... ............. Mrs. McCarthy (NY) .............. ........... X .............

Mr. McHenry .......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Baca .............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Campbell ........................ X ........... ............. Mr. Lynch ............................. ........... X .............

Mrs. Bachmann .................... X ........... ............. Mr. Miller (NC) ..................... ........... X .............

Mr. Marchant ........................ ........... ........... ............. Mr. David Scott (GA) ............ ........... X .............

Mr. McCotter ......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Al Green (TX) ................. ........... X .............

Mr. McCarthy (CA) ................ X ........... ............. Mr. Cleaver ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. Pearce ............................. X ........... ............. Ms. Moore ............................. ........... ........... .............

Mr. Posey .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Ellison ............................ ........... X .............

Mr. Fitzpatrick ....................... X ........... ............. Mr. Perlmutter ...................... ........... X .............

Mr. Westmoreland ................. X ........... ............. Mr. Donnelly ......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Luetkemeyer .................... X ........... ............. Mr. Carson ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. Huizenga ......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Himes ............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Duffy ............................... X ........... ............. Mr. Peters ............................. ........... X .............

Ms. Hayworth ........................ X ........... ............. Mr. Carney ............................ ........... X .............

Mr. Renacci ........................... X ........... .............

Mr. Hurt ................................ X ........... .............

Mr. Dold ................................ X ........... .............

Mr. Schweikert ...................... X ........... .............

Mr. Grimm ............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Canseco .......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Stivers ............................ X ........... .............

During consideration of H.R. 839, the following amendments 

were considered: 

1. An amendment offered by Mrs. McCarthy of New York, no. 1, 

providing that termination does not apply to those who submitted 

an application or made a verifiable request to the servicer for a 

modification before March 1, 2011, was not agreed to by a recorded 

vote of 24 yeas and 31 nays, (Record vote no. FC–16). 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–16 

Representative Aye Nay Present Representative Aye Nay Present 

Mr. Bachus ........................... ........... X ............. Mr. Frank (MA) ..................... ........... ........... .............

Mr. Hensarling ...................... ........... X ............. Ms. Waters ........................... X ........... .............

Mr. King (NY) ........................ ........... ........... ............. Mrs. Maloney ........................ X ........... .............

Mr. Royce .............................. ........... X ............. Mr. Gutierrez ........................ ........... ........... .............

Mr. Lucas .............................. ........... X ............. Ms. Vela ́zquez ...................... X ........... .............

Mr. Paul ................................ ........... X ............. Mr. Watt ............................... ........... ........... .............

Mr. Manzullo ......................... ........... X ............. Mr. Ackerman ....................... X ........... .............

Mr. Jones ............................... ........... X ............. Mr. Sherman ........................ X ........... .............

Mrs. Biggert .......................... ........... X ............. Mr. Meeks ............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Gary G. Miller (CA) ......... ........... X ............. Mr. Capuano ........................ X ........... .............

Mrs. Capito ........................... ........... X ............. Mr. Hinojosa ......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Garrett ............................ ........... X ............. Mr. Clay ................................ X ........... .............

Mr. Neugebauer .................... ........... X ............. Mrs. McCarthy (NY) .............. X ........... .............

Mr. McHenry .......................... ........... X ............. Mr. Baca .............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Campbell ........................ ........... X ............. Mr. Lynch ............................. X ........... .............

Mrs. Bachmann .................... ........... X ............. Mr. Miller (NC) ..................... X ........... .............

Mr. Marchant ........................ ........... ........... ............. Mr. David Scott (GA) ............ X ........... .............

Mr. McCotter ......................... ........... X ............. Mr. Al Green (TX) ................. X ........... .............

Mr. McCarthy (CA) ................ ........... X ............. Mr. Cleaver ........................... X ........... .............

Mr. Pearce ............................. ........... X ............. Ms. Moore ............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Posey .............................. ........... X ............. Mr. Ellison ............................ X ........... .............

Mr. Fitzpatrick ....................... ........... X ............. Mr. Perlmutter ...................... X ........... .............

Mr. Westmoreland ................. ........... X ............. Mr. Donnelly ......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Luetkemeyer .................... ........... X ............. Mr. Carson ........................... X ........... .............

Mr. Huizenga ......................... ........... X ............. Mr. Himes ............................. X ........... .............


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
6 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–16—Continued 

Representative Aye Nay Present Representative Aye Nay Present 

Mr. Duffy ............................... ........... X ............. Mr. Peters ............................. X ........... .............

Ms. Hayworth ........................ ........... X ............. Mr. Carney ............................ X ........... .............

Mr. Renacci ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. Hurt ................................ ........... X .............

Mr. Dold ................................ ........... X .............

Mr. Schweikert ...................... ........... X .............

Mr. Grimm ............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Canseco .......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Stivers ............................ ........... X .............

2. An amendment offered by Mr. Grimm, no. 3a, requiring the 

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to study the usage 

of the HAMP for members of the armed forces, veterans, and gold 

star recipients, to the amendment offered by Mr. Green, no. 3, allowing for the continuation of the program for members of the 

armed forces, veterans, and gold star recipients was agreed to by 

a recorded vote of 32 yeas and 24 nays, (Record vote no. FC–17). 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–17 

Representative Aye Nay Present Representative Aye Nay Present 

Mr. Bachus ........................... X ........... ............. Mr. Frank (MA) ..................... ........... ........... .............

Mr. Hensarling ...................... X ........... ............. Ms. Waters ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. King (NY) ........................ ........... ........... ............. Mrs. Maloney ........................ ........... X .............

Mr. Royce .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Gutierrez ........................ ........... ........... .............

Mr. Lucas .............................. X ........... ............. Ms. Vela ́zquez ...................... ........... X .............

Mr. Paul ................................ X ........... ............. Mr. Watt ............................... ........... ........... .............

Mr. Manzullo ......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Ackerman ....................... ........... X .............

Mr. Jones ............................... X ........... ............. Mr. Sherman ........................ ........... X .............

Mrs. Biggert .......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Meeks ............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Gary G. Miller (CA) ......... X ........... ............. Mr. Capuano ........................ ........... X .............

Mrs. Capito ........................... X ........... ............. Mr. Hinojosa ......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Garrett ............................ X ........... ............. Mr. Clay ................................ ........... X .............

Mr. Neugebauer .................... X ........... ............. Mrs. McCarthy (NY) .............. ........... X .............

Mr. McHenry .......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Baca .............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Campbell ........................ X ........... ............. Mr. Lynch ............................. ........... X .............

Mrs. Bachmann .................... X ........... ............. Mr. Miller (NC) ..................... ........... X .............

Mr. Marchant ........................ ........... ........... ............. Mr. David Scott (GA) ............ ........... X .............

Mr. McCotter ......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Al Green (TX) ................. ........... X .............

Mr. McCarthy (CA) ................ X ........... ............. Mr. Cleaver ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. Pearce ............................. X ........... ............. Ms. Moore ............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Posey .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Ellison ............................ ........... X .............

Mr. Fitzpatrick ....................... X ........... ............. Mr. Perlmutter ...................... ........... X .............

Mr. Westmoreland ................. X ........... ............. Mr. Donnelly ......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Luetkemeyer .................... X ........... ............. Mr. Carson ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. Huizenga ......................... X ........... ............. Mr. Himes ............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Duffy ............................... X ........... ............. Mr. Peters ............................. ........... X .............

Ms. Hayworth ........................ X ........... ............. Mr. Carney ............................ ........... X .............

Mr. Renacci ........................... X ........... .............

Mr. Hurt ................................ X ........... .............

Mr. Dold ................................ X ........... .............

Mr. Schweikert ...................... X ........... .............

Mr. Grimm ............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Canseco .......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Stivers ............................ X ........... .............

3. An amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney, no. 4, allowing for 

the HAMP to continue operating after the date of enactment until 

500,000 additional loan modifications have been made permanent, 

was not agreed to by a recorded vote of 23 yeas and 32 nays, (Recorded vote no. 18). 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
7 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–18 

Representative Aye Nay Present Representative Aye Nay Present 

Mr. Bachus ........................... ........... X ............. Mr. Frank (MA) ..................... ........... ........... .............

Mr. Hensarling ...................... ........... X ............. Ms. Waters ........................... X ........... .............

Mr. King (NY) ........................ ........... ........... ............. Mrs. Maloney ........................ X ........... .............

Mr. Royce .............................. ........... X ............. Mr. Gutierrez ........................ ........... ........... .............

Mr. Lucas .............................. ........... X ............. Ms. Vela ́zquez ...................... X ........... .............

Mr. Paul ................................ ........... X ............. Mr. Watt ............................... ........... ........... .............

Mr. Manzullo ......................... ........... X ............. Mr. Ackerman ....................... X ........... .............

Mr. Jones ............................... ........... X ............. Mr. Sherman ........................ X ........... .............

Mrs. Biggert .......................... ........... X ............. Mr. Meeks ............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Gary G. Miller (CA) ......... ........... X ............. Mr. Capuano ........................ X ........... .............

Mrs. Capito ........................... ........... X ............. Mr. Hinojosa ......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Garrett ............................ ........... X ............. Mr. Clay ................................ X ........... .............

Mr. Neugebauer .................... ........... X ............. Mrs. McCarthy (NY) .............. X ........... .............

Mr. McHenry .......................... ........... X ............. Mr. Baca .............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Campbell ........................ ........... X ............. Mr. Lynch ............................. X ........... .............

Mrs. Bachmann .................... ........... X ............. Mr. Miller (NC) ..................... X ........... .............

Mr. Marchant ........................ ........... ........... ............. Mr. David Scott (GA) ............ X ........... .............

Mr. McCotter ......................... ........... X ............. Mr. Al Green (TX) ................. X ........... .............

Mr. McCarthy (CA) ................ ........... X ............. Mr. Cleaver ........................... X ........... .............

Mr. Pearce ............................. ........... X ............. Ms. Moore ............................. ........... ........... .............

Mr. Posey .............................. ........... X ............. Mr. Ellison ............................ X ........... .............

Mr. Fitzpatrick ....................... ........... X ............. Mr. Perlmutter ...................... X ........... .............

Mr. Westmoreland ................. ........... X ............. Mr. Donnelly ......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Luetkemeyer .................... ........... X ............. Mr. Carson ........................... X ........... .............

Mr. Huizenga ......................... ........... X ............. Mr. Himes ............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Duffy ............................... ........... X ............. Mr. Peters ............................. X ........... .............

Ms. Hayworth ........................ ........... X ............. Mr. Carney ............................ X ........... .............

Mr. Renacci ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. Hurt ................................ ........... X .............

Mr. Dold ................................ ........... X .............

Mr. Schweikert ...................... ........... X .............

Mr. Grimm ............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Canseco .......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Stivers ............................ ........... X .............

The following amendments were also considered by the Committee: 

1. An amendment offered by Mr. Bachus and Mr. Green, no. 2a, 

to add ‘‘lender or’’ before ‘‘servicer’’ on line 10 and to strike ‘‘stay 

in your home’’ and insert ‘‘negotiating or acquiring a home modification’’ on line 12, to the amendment offered by Ms. Waters, no. 

2, requiring HUD to post on its website a notice regarding the termination of the program, was agreed to by voice vote. 

2. An amendment offered by Ms. Waters, no. 2, as amended by 

an amendment offered by Mr. Bachus and Mr. Green, requiring 

HUD to post on its website a notice regarding the termination of 

the program inviting borrowers who are having trouble paying 

their mortgage and need help in communicating with their lender 

or servicer to contact their Member of Congress for assistance in 

reaching the lender or servicer for the purpose of negotiating or acquiring a loan modification, was agreed to by voice vote. 

3. An amendment offered by Mr. Green, no. 3, as amended by an 

amendment offered by Mr. Grimm, no. 3a (Recorded vote no. 17), 

requiring HUD to study the usage of the HAMP for members of the 

armed forces, veterans, and gold star recipients, was agreed to by 

voice vote. 

4. An amendment offered by Ms. Waters, no. 5, requiring HUD 

to inform HAMP applicants of the program termination, was withdrawn. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
8 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has held a hearing and made 

findings that are reflected in this report. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee establishes the following performance related goals and objectives for this legislation: 

The purposes of H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act, are to terminate the authority of the Treasury Department to provide any 

new assistance to homeowners under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) as authorized under Title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (12 U.S.C. 5230), while preserving any assistance already provided to HAMP participants on 

a permanent or trial basis and to provide a study by the Treasury 

Department to identify best practices for how existing mortgage assistance programs can be applied to veterans, active duty military 

personnel, and their relatives. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, March 11, 2011. 

Hon. SPENCER BACHUS, 

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act of 2011. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
9 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Chad Chirico, who can 

be reached at 226–2820. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 839—HAMP Termination Act of 2011 

Summary: H.R. 839 would terminate the Department of the 

Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification program (HAMP). 

CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would decrease direct spending by $1.3 billion over the 2011–2016 period and $1.4 

billion over the 2011–2021 period. Pay-as-you-go procedures apply 

because the legislation would affect direct spending. 

The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 839 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 600 (income security). 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
10 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011–2016 2011–2021 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget Authority .................................................................................................. ¥10 ¥279 ¥354 ¥276 ¥222 ¥195 ¥91 ¥2 0 0 0 ¥1,337 ¥1,437 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................................................. ¥10 ¥279 ¥354 ¥276 ¥222 ¥195 ¥91 ¥2 0 0 0 ¥1,337 ¥1,437 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
11 

Basis of Estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted by June 2011. Because of the complementary nature of the Treasury’s Making Home Affordable programs, 

CBO also assumes that the following related programs would be 

terminated along with HAMP: • Second Lien Modification Program, • Federal Housing Administration HAMP, • U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Service’s 

Rural Development HAMP, • Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives, • Home Price Decline Protection, • Home Affordable Unemployment Program, and • Principal Reduction Alternative Program. 

The Making Home Affordable programs are intended to help 

homeowners who are facing the possibility of foreclosure by subsidizing loan modifications as well as other foreclosure alternatives. 

The Department of Treasury has obligated about $27 billion of 

spending authority provided by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 for HAMP and its related programs. 

Program funds are used to cover costs incurred for the modification of mortgages that are not owned or guaranteed by the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. 

Generally, the programs provide incentive payments to mortgage 

servicers, investors, and eligible homeowners to either reduce the 

homeowner’s mortgage payment to 31 percent of monthly income or 

to sell their house outside of foreclosure. All modification payments 

are contingent on borrowers remaining current on their mortgages. 

Through December 31, 2010, approximately 600,000 mortgages 

have been modified through the HAMP and its related programs 

(listed above), 45 percent of which were non-GSE mortgages. 

Servicers and borrowers currently have until December 31, 2012, 

to modify mortgages through the program. 

CBO estimates that H.R. 839 would prevent the Treasury from 

making payments for approximately 100,000 new modifications of 

non-GSE mortgages. (The cost of modifications entered into prior to 

enactment would continue to be paid by the Treasury.) Based on 

data provided by the Office of the Special Inspector General for the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program, CBO estimates that such modifications, when combined with the costs of the related programs mentioned above, cost an average of about $13,000. As a result, CBO 

estimates that enacting H.R. 839 would reduce direct spending by 

$1.3 billion over the 2011–2016 period and $1.4 billion over the 

2011–2021 period. 

Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to those pay-asyou-go procedures are shown in the following table. Enacting H.R. 

839 would have no impact on federal revenues. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
12 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 839, THE HAMP TERMINATION ACT OF 2011, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL 

SERVICES ON MARCH 9, 2011 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011–2016 2011–2021 

NET DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact ..................................................................................................... ¥10 ¥279 ¥354 ¥276 ¥222 ¥195 ¥91 ¥2 0 0 0 ¥1,337 ¥1,437 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
13 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: The bill contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Chad Chirico; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum; Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates reform Act. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of the section 102(b)(3) of the 

Congressional Accountability Act. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 839 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariffs benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

This section establishes the short title of the bill, the ‘The HAMP 

Termination Act of 2011.’ 

Section 2. Termination of authority 

This section amends Section 120 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to terminate the authority of the Treasury 

Department to provide any new assistance to homeowners under 

the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). It also preserves the Treasury Department’s authority to continue to provide 

any assistance to homeowners who have already been extended an 

offer to participate in HAMP on a permanent or trial basis. 

Further, this section directs the Treasury Secretary to conduct a 

study to determine the extent of usage of HAMP by ‘‘covered homeowners.’’ Covered homeowners are defined as individuals who are 

active duty members of the U.S. armed forces and their spouses or 

parents, veterans of the U.S. armed forces, and individuals eligible 

to receive a Gold Star lapel button under 10 U.S.C. 1126 as the 

widow, parent, or next of kin of a fallen member of the U.S. armed 

forces. The Treasury Secretary is then required to submit a report 

to Congress including the results of that study and identifying any 

best practices that could be applied to existing mortgage assistance 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
14 

programs available to covered homeowners within 90 days of enactment of this Act. 

Finally, this section requires the Treasury Secretary to publish 

in a prominent location on the Treasury Department’s website, in 

a noticeable font, a statement that HAMP has been terminated and 

inviting borrowers who are having trouble paying their mortgage 

and need help in communicating with their lender or servicer to 

contact their Member of Congress for assistance in reaching the 

lender or servicer for the purpose of negotiating or acquiring a loan 

modification. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italics 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008 

DIVISION A—EMERGENCY ECONOMIC 

STABILIZATION 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—TROUBLED ASSETS RELIEF 

PROGRAM 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 120. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE NEW ASSISTANCE

UNDER THE HOME AFFORDABLE MODIFICATION PROGRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under paragraph (2), 

after the date of the enactment of this subsection the Secretary 

may not provide any assistance under the Home Affordable 

Modification Program under the Making Home Affordable initiative of the Secretary, authorized under this Act, on behalf of 

any homeowner. 

(2) PROTECTION OF EXISTING OBLIGATIONS ON BEHALF OF

HOMEOWNERS ALREADY EXTENDED AN OFFER TO PARTICIPATE IN

THE PROGRAM.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to 

assistance provided on behalf of a homeowner who, before the 

date of the enactment of this subsection, was extended an offer 

to participate in the Home Affordable Modification Program on 

a trial or permanent basis. 

(3) STUDY OF USE OF PROGRAM BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED

FORCES, VETERANS, AND GOLD STAR RECIPIENTS.— 

(A) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the extent of usage of the Home Affordable ModiVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Mar 12, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR031.XXX HR031

pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
15 

fication Program by, and the impact of such Program on, 

covered homeowners. 

(B) REPORT.—Not later than the expiration of the 90-day 

period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report 

setting forth the results of the study under paragraph (1) 

and identifying best practices, derived from studying the 

Home Affordable Modification Program, that could be applied to existing mortgage assistance programs available to 

covered homeowners. 

(C) COVERED HOMEOWNER.—For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘covered homeowner’’ means a homeowner 

who is— 

(i) a member of the Armed Forces of the United 

States on active duty or the spouse or parent of such 

a member; 

(ii) a veteran, as such term is defined in section 101 

of title 38, United States Code; or 

(iii) eligible to receive a Gold Star lapel pin under 

section 1126 of title 10, United States Code, as a 

widow, parent, or next of kin of a member of the Armed 

Forces person who died in a manner described in subsection (a) of such section. 

(4) PUBLICATION OF MEMBER AVAILABILITY FOR ASSISTANCE.— Not later than 5 days after the date of the enactment of this 

subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury shall publish to its 

Website on the World Wide Web in a prominent location, large 

point font, and boldface type the following statement: ‘‘The 

Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has been terminated. If you are having trouble paying your mortgage and 

need help contacting your lender or servicer for purposes of negotiating or acquiring a loan modification, please contact your 

Member of Congress to assist you in contacting your lender or 

servicer for the purpose of negotiating or acquiring a loan modification.’’. 

* * * * * * * 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
(16) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

H.R. 839, ‘‘The HAMP Termination Act of 2011,’’ is one of four 

bills being advanced by the Majority as a coordinated assault on 

federal programs designed to address the nationwide housing and 

foreclosure crisis. The bill would prohibit new mortgage loan modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program 

(HAMP), which is funded under authority generally referred to as 

TARP. However, the bill would grandfather in assistance on behalf 

of homeowners who, prior to the date of enactment, had already 

been extended an offer to participate in RAMP, either on a permanent or trial basis. 

This program is one of a number of complementary federal programs that address different problems posed by our current housing programs. The other programs the Majority is shutting down 

are an FHA refinance program that is used in conjunction with 

principal mortgage reductions, loans to unemployed homeowners to 

bridge the gap so that homeowners can resume payments when 

they find a job, and grants to local communities for purchase and 

rehabilitation of foreclosed and abandoned homes, to address blight 

and deterioration of neighborhoods experiencing a high foreclosure 

rate. At the hearing on these four bills, not a single witness—including the GAO and SIGTARP, who were witnesses called by the 

Majority—supported shutting down any of these four programs at 

this time. 

A major factor in the housing crisis was private sector lenders 

originating loans to borrowers that could not afford them, with 

such loans often combined with predatory loan features, such as exploding mortgage rate reset terms. As the housing crisis hit and 

homeowners started to default on loans, these same private sector 

lenders announced that they would address problems through proprietary loan modifications. In practice, there is a general consensus that these initial efforts were woefully inadequate to address the default and foreclosure crisis, particularly since a majority of these modifications actually increased the payments borrowers were required to make. Therefore, in early 2009, the Obama 

Administration started to roll out the first of a number of initiatives, using general authority under the TARP legislation, to facilitate loan modifications and refinancings of borrowers in or at risk 

of default, and in danger of foreclosure. 

Now, two years later, as some of these initiatives are showing 

real results and others are just beginning to take off, the Majority 

wants to shut these efforts down. They claim that these federal 

programs have not helped enough homeowners. But, their answer 

to the criticism that not enough homeowners have been helped by 

these programs . . . is to stop them from helping anyone else in 

the future. Their answer is to eliminate federal assistance that 

helps keep people in their homes and to eliminate the nationwide 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
17 

loan modification standards that go with them. Their answer is to 

turn over resolution of the foreclosure crisis to the very entities 

that created the bad loans in the first place and failed to achieve 

meaningful loan modifications in the period before these government programs were put in place. The result would lead inevitably 

to a worsening of the foreclosure crisis, dampened home prices, and 

economic instability. 

The HAMP program was put in place by the Obama Administration in early 2009. Servicers of over 90% of mortgages nationwide 

currently participate in HAMP, under which homeowners who have 

defaulted on, or are at serious risk of defaulting on, a mortgage 

may be eligible for a mortgage modification. A HAMP modification 

reduces the homeowner’s payments to a sustainable debt to income 

ratio of 31%. This significantly enhances the ability of homeowners 

to make their mortgage payments and keep their home, as well as 

improving loan performance, by avoiding the heightened cost of a 

foreclosure. The program provides incentives to loan investors and 

servicers in consideration for the loan modifications, and incentives 

for homeowners to continue to make on-time payments. program is 

authorized to run through the end of 2012. As of January 31, 2011, 

there are approximately 540,000 homeowners with current permanent HAMP loan modifications. The number of new permanent 

HAMP modifications averaged around 29,000 per month over the 

last six months of 2010. Therefore, assuming a modestly declining 

rate from this, a reasonable estimate is that program participation 

will double by the end of next year, for a cumulative total of 1.1 

million homeowners. Based on this estimate, the bill would deny 

modifications to more than a half million homeowners at risk of 

foreclosure. 

Median savings on a HAMP loan modification is $527 a month, 

and Treasury estimates aggregate homeowner savings to date of 

some $5 billion. After 12 months of a HAMP loan mod, 85% of 

homeowners have remained in a permanent modification. The OCC 

has reported that the re-default rate for HAMP loan modifications 

(60+ days delinquent) at six months was about half the rate of nonHAMP modifications done by lenders. 

To date, only around $1 billion has been spent on these 540,000 

permanent HAMP modifications, and a reasonable estimate of the 

ultimate cost of assisting these families would be in the range of 

$5 billion. Since these families are grandfathered in under the bill, 

the bill produces no cost savings related to these homeowners. 

However, as noted, the bill would prevent new mortgage modifications going forward. The Majority has argued that this program 

imposes a cost on taxpayers, and therefore this bill will save taxpayers the cost of the program going forward. In fact, the TARP 

statute requires the President to propose a fee on financial institutions to recover any TARP expenditures not previously recovered. 

Thus, assuming the President’s proposal is adopted, all program 

costs will be borne by financial institutions, and there will be no 

cost to the taxpayer. 

The Majority has criticized HAMP on the grounds that the program has not met initial Administration estimates that it could 

help 3 to 4 million homeowners. There are a number of reasons for 

this failure to meet initial numerical goals. First, the program apVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:12 Mar 12, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR031.XXX HR031

pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING
18 

propriately excludes different categories of borrowers—including investors, owners of second homes, homeowners whose mortgages are 

unsustainable even with HAMP assistance, and homeowners that 

can pay their mortgage without government assistance. Secondly, 

legally, banks and other mortgage holders cannot be forced to reduce interest payments or principal. Therefore, programs have had 

to be voluntary, targeting financial assistance to incentivize lenders 

to reduce mortgage payments in lieu of foreclosing on defaulted 

borrowers. 

Finally, banks and other mortgage servicers were generally 

understaffed and unprepared to carry out the level loan modifications precipitated by the housing crisis. This has resulted in widespread homeowner complaints about lost files, conflicting guidance 

given to them about the program, and outright non-responsiveness 

in the application process for a loan modification. 

Many in the Minority Party have expressed concerns about these 

issues, urging the Treasury Department to take stronger actions to 

ensure that servicers respond to HAMP applications in a more 

timely, responsive, and effective way—criticisms that tend to echo 

those raised by the TARP Inspector General (SIGTARP). 

However, regardless of the criticisms of servicer performance, 

and regardless of the fact that the program has not reached as 

many homeowners as hoped, it is a mistake to terminate this program at a time of heightened default and foreclosure levels, and a 

fragile housing market. Terminating the program at this time 

would simply increase our nation’s foreclosure level. The bill should 

be rejected. 

BARNEY FRANK. 

MAXINE WATERS. 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ. 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY. 

BRAD MILLER. 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA. 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO. 

KEITH ELLISON. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 

JOE BACA. 

GARY L. ACKERMAN. 

AL GREEN. 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH. 

EMANUEL CLEAVER. 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with HEARING