Jenny Werwa (Speier), 202-225-3531
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Congresswoman Jackie Speier sent a letter today to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting he direct the Justice Department’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to examine whether any violations of Federal law occurred in the processing of foreclosures in San Francisco.
The County of San Francisco’s Office of the Assessor-Recorder recently commissioned a report assessing compliance with applicable foreclosure laws by certain entities in the mortgage industry operating in San Francisco.
Below is the full text of the letter.
February 17, 2012
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Holder:
We are writing to request that you direct the Justice Department’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to examine whether any violations of Federal law occurred in the processing of foreclosures in San Francisco.
The County of San Francisco’s Office of the Assessor-Recorder recently commissioned a report, which is enclosed, assessing compliance with applicable foreclosure laws by certain entities in the mortgage industry operating in San Francisco. The report, based on a review of a random sample of mortgage loans that entered into foreclosure between January 2009 and October 2011, found that 99 percent of the San Francisco mortgages reviewed showed irregularities in the foreclosure process, and 84 percent showed potential violations of California non-judicial foreclosure laws. In addition, foreclosures involving mortgages that were part of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), which are more likely to have been securitized, showed a high rate of conflicting information regarding the actual beneficiary, which raises questions about whether homeowners were denied their due process rights. We find these findings very troubling.
Because the report does not specify the mortgage servicers involved, it is not possible to determine whether affected borrowers can seek remedies under provisions in the multi-state mortgage settlement. However, even if some borrowers can seek redress through the settlement process, or through private rights of action, the irregularities and violations cited in the report convince us that further investigation at the Federal level is warranted to determine whether any violations of Federal civil and criminal laws might have occurred.
The Assessor-Recorder has already referred the report’s findings to California Attorney General, Kamala Harris, for her review. We believe the severity of the report’s conclusions also warrant a thorough review at the Federal level by the Task Force.
We appreciate the hard work of the Obama Administration and the state Attorneys General, including the helpful protections for borrowers secured by California Attorney General Kamala Harris, in achieving a multi-state mortgage settlement. We are hopeful that preserving the ability of the states and the Federal government to continue to pursue actions not covered by the terms of the settlement will ensure that homeowners who experienced losses unfairly, particularly where abusive practices were the cause, will be able to seek a remedy.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
best regards,
Nancy Pelosi
Democratic Leader
Jackie Speier
Member of Congress
Cc: The Honorable Kamala Harris, Attorney General, State of California
The Honorable Edwin M. Lee, Mayor, San Francisco, California
The Honorable Phil Ting, Assessor-Recorder, City & County of San Francisco
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi held her weekly press conference today in the Capitol Visitor Center. Below is a transcript of the press conference:
Leader Pelosi. Good morning.
It appears that we may be shortly voting on this legislation, to give a payroll tax cut to 160 million Americans without having it be offset. That was one of the pillars of the legislation that we had hoped to see. We insisted on three things: one, that we had the payroll tax cut, preferably unpaid for. That's in the bill.
Secondly is that we have unemployment compensation extended for a number of weeks, respectful of the needs of our workers who are out of work through no fault of their own. That is in the bill. It does not have these strange—you have to have a high school diploma in order to get unemployment benefits. For workers who have been in the workforce a very long time, that would be an unfair barrier.
And third, that we would enable seniors to be able to see their doctors under Medicare. That is in the bill, too. And while we do not like the pay for, we would prefer another pay for, and we would prefer a longer period of time, we do recognize that the bill does contain the three features that we said were necessary and does so, at least in terms of the payroll tax cut, and in terms of the unemployment insurance, in a way that I think is acceptable to most of us.
Again, on the pay for for the Medicare doctor visits for seniors, we think it could have been done in a more economical way, which was better for the taxpayer, better for our seniors, a long period of time paid for by war savings. We will wait and see if the bill, if the Speaker is going to move the bill. You probably will be asking him later in the morning.
Secondly, as you know, on the floor now we have one piece of the transportation bill. So much unease in the Republican Caucus has with their own bill, written by their own leadership, that is now in a trifurcated form. This is a bill; it is the first time in probably 50 years. When there is a transportation bill that has not been written in a bipartisan way; a transportation bill that loses jobs, maybe half a million, more than a half a million jobs; cuts safety. And I would call it the Republican horse and buggy bill, because it is a bill that says no to mass transit when it comes to trust funds being used.
The House bill, this is a quote of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, which I am sure is familiar to you, but I think bears repeating if you haven't heard it anyway: “the worst transportation bill I have seen during 35 years of public service.” He is a Republican. The horse, the House bill, maybe we should call it the ‘Horse and Buggy Bill,’ the House bill takes us back to the horse and buggy era. That is why over 300 amendments have been offered, many of them by Republicans, to a Republican bill.
So that's what, I guess there is some unease in their caucus about the bill, so they have broken it up into three pieces, trying to see if they could get people to vote for it. As you know, we are engaged in a long amendment process right now. It is really unfortunate. Because this is the jobs bill, the transportation and infrastructure bill. So it is a missed opportunity. It cuts jobs. It cuts safety. It's just wrong.
Getting back to our DISCLOSE, that we talked about last week, with our sponsor of the bill, chief author of the bill, Chris Van Hollen. I want to talk a moment to talk about the DISCLOSE Act, to get secret donations out of politics and to require everyone to stand by their acts. If this is what they want the public to know, the public should know who is saying it.
Yesterday Congressman Brady, and Democratic Members of the House Administration Committee, requested an oversight hearing on the increasing role and influence of undisclosed money in our electoral system. We are very pleased that a coalition of reform groups have come out in support of the DISCLOSE Act, saying this legislation provides essential new disclosure requirements to cover the hundreds of millions of dollars and secret contributions being injected into Federal elections by nonprofit groups, special interests, and other entities. This is, this legislation strikes right to the core of our democracy. Our Founders intended that the people would decide elections. Now, we have a system where big bankrolls will decide the outcome of elections. It's just not right. So we are very pleased the response that we have received to our many, shall we say, manifestations of the ad. ‘Visiting with You’ video, and the rest, have gotten us a drumbeat of support across the country for DISCLOSE. In many places people are initiating their own DISCLOSE, whether it is municipal entities or state legislatures and the rest. So we hope that even though we may not be, the Republicans resist, resist the disclosure of who their sources are, that at least the public sentiment on the subject will be such that people will either disclose or not contribute.
With that I would be pleased to answer any questions.
Q: Madam Leader, would you be opposed to bringing this bill up, the payroll bill, if there is a deal tomorrow? The Republicans said they need, obviously, several days to review. Does that mean you would be opposed to it?
Leader Pelosi. To bringing it up tomorrow?
Q: Yes.
Leader Pelosi. I think it would be important to bring it up tomorrow, because I don't think the American people can wait another day. We can't have it be in doubt. If an agreement is reached, then we should bring it up as soon as possible, so all doubt is removed that we will have a tax cut for 160 million Americans, that unemployment insurance will continue for our workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and that seniors can see their doctors under Medicare.
While I would have preferred to have a longer period of time for review, this has been a subject of discussion for a long time. I don't like the pay fors, but I don't have the gavel. So if this is the bill, I hope we can take it up tomorrow.
Q: Madam Leader, as the Republican leadership on transportation goes back to sort of rework their approach here, to get the votes, a two part question: has the Speaker approached you about anything that you, or Democrats, would want from this bill in the event that he seeks Democratic support for it? And secondly, if not, do you see any scenario, given what the House is working on, and what the Senate is working on, do you see any legislative scenario right now where a transportation bill this year would be preferable in your eyes to just an extension of current law?
Leader Pelosi. The answer to your first question is no. As I said, this is the first time a bill has been written in a strictly partisan way in the House, contrary to the Senate, where they have worked in a bipartisan way, and not two people who are necessarily compatible on many issues, Chairwoman Barbara Boxer of California, and Senator [Inhofe] of Oklahoma. Not very cozy and close on the substance, but nonetheless, working in a close bipartisan way for a Senate bill.
So, I think that it's important for us to be able to go to conference to reconcile and negotiate a better bill. But this bill is so far away from something that will even pass, I don't know if the Republicans even have the votes to pass this in the House on their own side.
So, no, we haven't had any suggestion of, ‘what would you like to see here?’ What we'd like to see here is a bill that creates jobs for the American people, that promotes safety, that promotes commerce. This is a very important bill. It's transportation and infrastructure. It's about moving people and products to market. It's about quality of life issues. It's people not sitting in their cars for 45 minutes while they could be on mass transit for a third of that time to get to work. It's about, again, it is a jobs bill right from the start; it is a safety issue right from the start; and it should be put together in a bipartisan way.
And the fact that they cut off, this is really quite remarkable. Just when you think you have seen it all, they go another place, which is, the trust fund will not be used for mass transit. I mean, I think they’re seeing a lot about this issue in their own caucus.
Q: Do you see any, enough, or any, commonality between the House and the Senate, what looks like the House and Senate positions, going into this, that would make it preferable to just an extension of current law? Is there any way to get there?
Leader Pelosi. What I'm saying, you have to pass a bill first before you can go to reconciliation, and this doesn't look like a bill that can pass.
Q: Madam Leader, you mentioned that there wasn't anything strange in the payroll bill, but I wonder what you think of the drug testing part and the…
Leader Pelosi. Did I use the word “strange"?
Q: I think you did.
Leader Pelosi. Well, whatever. Strange is probably a good all-purpose word around here.
Q: It was in reference to the GED part, but there is also this drug testing thing, and the work search, and the Georgia Works component, and I wondered what you think of those pieces?
Leader Pelosi. Well, I think some of that is being mischaracterized. What I would like to do is let us see what the actual wording is. We haven't seen that. But some of the things that are in the bill are an extension of current law, and Republicans are characterizing them as something bigger than that as some reason to go forward with it.
So I really can't respond to you until we see what the actual language is, which we haven't seen, but we do know that they have not insisted on the provision of high school graduation or a GED, and I think that's a big improvement.
Q: Madam Leader, this is a question of politics and Santorum. You've talked a little bit about Newt Gingrich. Do you have any memories of Santorum's time here in Congress? Did you ever work with him? Any thoughts on his record here?
Leader Pelosi. Let's leave the Republican nomination process up to them. I think that they are branding it in their very, very special way, and I'd just like to leave it to them.
Q: Madam Leader, I saw yesterday that you endorsed the idea of marriage equality being in the Democratic Party platform. I am wondering what you think about, if that did happen, and it got into the platform, if that would be an awkward situation for the President since this is one of the issues that he continues to be evolving?
Leader Pelosi. Well, I have played many roles in platforms. I've been the state party Chair responsible for the platform in California years ago, 30 years ago. I have chaired the platform for the Democrats in 1992, our Clinton-Gore platform. Responsibility, community, security, opportunity. We are very proud of that.
What I, as one person, say that I support, is not necessarily what the consensus document of the platform is, so I was just talking about me when I said that. In fact, in my platform in 1982, it was a midterm platform for our convention in California. We respected the definition of "family" that worked for people, where they found their support, their loving system, and their opportunity to raise a family or to be a family.
So this is a long time for me on this. But as I said, I was talking about myself, not the entire Democratic Party speaking for the President of the United States.
Q: What do you think of his position on this? The fact that he keeps saying he is evolving and he has been evolving for at least a year and a half?
Leader Pelosi. Well, I hope the evolution continues. It always does, doesn't it, now? But I'm very pleased that the State of Washington has done, the Governor was my guest at the State of the Union Address, and she told me that this was coming, and she was very excited about it, as was I.
Q: Madam Leader, do you intend to explicitly support the payroll extension, this deal? You said that you are concerned about some of the pay-fors, but do you think that you will actually support it, and will you urge your Caucus to support it as well?
Leader Pelosi. Well, the fact that we have the three features that we asked for: payroll tax cut unpaid for, unemployment compensation extended for the amount of time that we were requesting, without some of the onerous provisions that the Republicans were suggesting, when we see the final language, the third point that we would have seniors be able to see their doctors under Medicare, very important, essential that we get these three things done.
As we go through these last hours, I hope that we can prevail and say, instead of harming one set of workers in order to help another set of workers, why can't we just use our war savings to cover that? So I hope that that will be how we go forward. But I don't see a scenario where our Members will vote against it.
Q: Do you believe that all of your conferees will sign off on the bill?
Leader Pelosi. I have no idea. They are on their own.
Q: Leader Pelosi, Joe Kennedy announced that he would be running for Barney Frank's open seat in Massachusetts. Have you spoken to him about his candidacy, and do you plan on supporting him for running for that seat?
Leader Pelosi. Well, I haven't spoken to him since he announced that he was running. I have spoken to him in his lifetime. He went to Stanford. He came West. He and his brother, we're all very proud of them. I served with his father Joe Kennedy, and, of course, the tradition is one which is a great blessing to our country. I have not spoken to him recently, but I look forward to his candidacy and serving with him in the Congress. He's lovely.
Going back to this side.
Q: Do you agree with the idea that Federal employees should pay an additional 1.5 percent of their earnings into their pensions to cover the payroll tax extension?
Leader Pelosi. No. No, I think that we can do better then that. I support the actions of Mr. Hoyer, who has been a leader on this, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Cardin, to name a few, a couple of the conferees plus our distinguished Whip, who has been a champion for our federal employees. They do great work for our country.
We all have to make sacrifices in this. They should not carry an undue burden, especially when we have an alternative, which is called our war savings, to cover this.
Q: Do you think that the conference committee process, particularly the part of the payroll tax not being paid for, represents a shift in Speaker Boehner's leadership style, and what is your observation about his leadership style?
Leader Pelosi. I will leave that to you, to ask him about his style and this change. I'm just glad for the American people that the drumbeat that President Obama created across the country—remember, public sentiment is everything, and the public overwhelmingly supported a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans. The public overwhelmingly supported that we have unemployment insurance and the rest of the package.
But the payroll tax issue, confine it to that, the payroll tax cut unpaid for, I think, responds to the argument that we have been making. Why are we paying for this when we don't pay for tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country? I just think this was something that happened because the public was fully aware, and I salute the President for his leadership and commend my colleagues who are echoing his voice on this subject. And I think that's what made the difference.
Q: Madam Leader, a number of Catholic institutions are self-insured, and they say the whole notion that the insurer should pay for these services that they object to doesn't help them at all. For example, the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C., is a self-insured institution. Should the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. be required to pay for these morning after pills and birth control if they find that morally objectionable?
Leader Pelosi. You are talking about birth control; you are talking about women's health. I firmly believe, I want to remove all doubt in anyone's mind on where I am on this subject. This is an issue about women's health, and I believe that women's health should be covered in all of the insurance plans that are there.
Right now, as we gather here, in another part of the Capitol there is a hearing. Five men are testifying on women's health. My colleague, Carolyn Maloney of New York, who is on the committee, looked down at this panel from which a woman, who was the Democratic witness, was excluded and said: “where are the women?” And that's a good question for the whole debate. Where are the women? Where are the women on that panel?
Imagine having a panel on women's health, and they do not have any women on the panel. Duh! What is it that men don't understand about women's health? And how central the issue of family planning is to that? Not just if you're having families, but if you need various kinds of prescription drugs for your general health, which was the testimony they would have heard this morning if they had allowed a woman on the panel.
I think the fact that they did not allow a woman on the panel is symbolic of the whole debate, as to who is making these decisions about women's health, and who should be covered. And I remind you, I think it's [28] states have this requirement already. So this is nothing really new. More than half of the states already have it.
So this is probably a pretty good debate to have. Just think. Suppose you were, suppose you were a Christian Scientist, and you had an institution, and you said, if people work here for us, who are not Christian Scientists, or even if they are, they cannot avail themselves of any medical treatments because that's what we believe. Would that work for you? I mean, it's just, it's so, shall we say, disrespectful of the contribution that, in this case, women make to the workforce. Ninety-eight percent of Catholic women, I am told by all of you, [have used] birth control to determine the size and the timing of their families.
So again, it is a women's health issue. Yes, I think that all institutions should cover and give health insurance, should cover the full range of health insurance issues for women. And I think it's really curiouser and curiouser, that as we get further into this debate, the Republican leadership of this Congress thinks it's appropriate to have a hearing on a subject of women's health and purposefully exclude women from the panel.
What else do you need to know about the subject? If you need to know more, tune in. I may, I may at some point be moved to explain biology to my colleagues.
Thank you all very much.
###
]]>Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi delivered remarks on the House floor today against the House Republican leadership’s partisan Highway Transportation Bill. Below are the Leader’s remarks.
“Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.
“Mr. Speaker I rise to address the House in relation to the transportation bill, that we are currently debating in the House this week. Transportation, as you know, has traditionally been, and historically been, an idea where our two parties have been able to find common ground.
“Transportation has been an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats alike, to work to rebuild America, to create jobs, strengthen our economy, move commerce, move people, to improve the quality of life, including the public faith. That is up until now. And that is until this bill.
“With the legislation that we are debating today, Republicans put forth the most partisan transportation package in 50 years. It is not just partisan–it’s bad for our nation. Destroying more than half a million American jobs. The Transportation Bill is supposed to be a job creating bill. It always has been, until now. Destroying more than a half-million jobs, cutting highway investments in 45 states, bankrupting the Highway Trust Fund with a $78 billion shortfall. And, just the strangest of all, among many shortsighted partisan provisions in the bill, I want to make particular mention of what it does to public transportation. It eliminates all of the dedicated funding for public transportation, leaving millions of riders, already faced with service cuts and fare increases, out in the cold.
“This legislation is so detrimental to our nation that Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood–a former Member of this body on the Republican side of the aisle has said: ‘This is the most partisan transportation bill that I have ever seen… And it is also the most anti-safety bill I have ever seen. It hollows out our number one priority, which is safety, and frankly, it hollows out the guts of the transportation efforts that have been for about the last three years… It’s the worst transportation bill,’ says Secretary LaHood, former Republican Member of Congress, ‘that I have seen in the 35 years of my public service.’
“In recommending that the President veto this legislation, the Administration has said: ‘it would make America’s roads, rails, and transit systems less safe, reduce the transportation options available to America’s traveling public, short circuit local decision-making, and turn back the clock on environmental and labor protections.’
“Mr. Speaker, this is so unfortunate. Because it is so out of character with the American way—the common sense of the American people about what we should be doing for them.
“The beginning of our country, Thomas Jefferson, when he was President, he enlisted his Cabinet officers to build an infrastructure plan for America, that involved transportation. In 1808, this plan, under Secretary Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury, was put forth. It recognized that we had made the Louisiana Purchase, that there were Lewis and Clark Expeditions going on, and that we had to Build America. Build roads and transportation out into these territories so that people would move there, commerce would develop, our country would be strong. Following this, the Erie Canal, the Trans-Continental Railroad, the Cumberland Road, they were all built after the War of 1812—of course, the Continental Railroad, later then that—when our population was sparse, and so was our national treasure.
“In my own community of San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the San Francisco Bay Bridge, both were built 75 years ago, in the middle of the Great Depression. President Eisenhower, in the late 50s, the mid to late 50s, not a good economic time either. President Eisenhower built, and instituted, the Interstate Highway System, unifying our country. It was a national security issue, to unify our country. And it was done at a time when our coffers were low on money. But it created jobs, it did what it was intended to do. And now, we are abdicating our responsibility. Again, 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson. A hundred years later, Teddy Roosevelt, his initiative for infrastructure, centered around our National Park system and how we make that part of our natural patrimony, and some of that falls under the Transportation Subcommittee.
“And now, here we are a hundred years later, putting forth a bill that loses jobs, diminishes public safety—a missed opportunity. And it’s no wonder Republican colleagues are having so much trouble building support for it in their own caucus.
“I just wanted to take a moment to share my views with our colleagues, about how wrong this is for the future. And how out of keeping it is with our great past, which has seen the strength of our country’s growth, because of our investments in our infrastructure, and our bringing people together through transportation.
“With that, I yield back the balance of my time.”
###
]]>Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the State Department’s joint initiative with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the Initiative to Cut Short-Term Climate Pollutants:
“Today’s announcement that the Obama Administration, led by Secretary Clinton, will partner internationally to reduce emissions of short-lived pollutants is good news for the environment and for global health. It is a necessary step that will help raise the profile of this issue and hopefully spur other nations, including other developing nations, to action.
“I have long said that the United States must be a leader in addressing global climate change. In addition to today’s action, we must enact longer-term strategies to address carbon emissions.
“The leadership of the Obama Administration on behalf of our environment is good for our economy, good for our citizens, and good for the planet. I look forward to working with the Administration to continue to take strong action on behalf of our clean energy future.”
###
]]>Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the House Republican leadership’s decision to bring a stand-alone payroll tax cut extension bill to the floor tomorrow:
“The House has voted twice overwhelmingly to instruct the Conference Committee to complete all of its work by this Friday, February 17. The House Republican leadership plans to bring to the floor a stand-alone payroll tax cut extension bill tomorrow. We have long proposed bringing this tax cut to the floor without payfors and House Democrats will support it so that taxes are not raised on 160 million working Americans, but this should not be a substitute for the work of the Conference Committee.
“We continue to call upon the conferees to resolve the remaining issues – extending unemployment benefits and ensuring seniors can continue to see their doctors under Medicare – by February 17. If the Conference Committee is unable to complete its work on a comprehensive bill by that date, the Republican leadership should cancel the recess and remain in Washington next week. These crucial policies affect millions of middle class families and seniors and must not expire at the end of this month.”
###
]]>Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on President Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2013:
“President Obama has laid out an innovative blueprint for restoring opportunity for all Americans and for constructing an economy that is built to last. The budget is balanced, fair, and responsible and is an investment in our economic growth, in job creation, and in a stronger, thriving middle class. It is a fiscally responsible plan, reducing the deficit by $4 trillion over ten years.
“The President is reinforcing the building blocks of American prosperity: ensuring our students and our workers have the skills and education to succeed in the future; investing in innovation and strengthening small businesses; supporting manufacturers and creating the clean energy jobs of tomorrow; and rebuilding our roads, bridges, broadband lines, and rail lines.
“Democrats are ready to work with the President and Congressional Republicans to create jobs, preserve the Medicare guarantee, get our fiscal house in order, and pass a budget that reflects our fundamental values. We are committed to reigniting the American dream and building ladders of opportunity for all who work hard, take responsibility, and play by the rules – and we have work to do.”
###
]]>Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the House Republican leadership’s latest proposal on the payroll tax cut:
“Democrats have always demanded that we extend the payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans without paying for it.
“The Republican plan to decouple the payroll tax jeopardizes both the ability of seniors to see their Medicare doctors and benefits for millions of Americans who lost their jobs. There is no reason all three of these priorities cannot proceed at the same time as both the House and Senate agreed.”
###
]]>Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the announcement from Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus that the next Independence variant littoral combat ship will be named the USS Gabrielle Giffords:
"Throughout her service in Congress, Gabby Giffords always demonstrated her respect for our men and women in uniform and her love of our country. That is why it is so appropriate that a Navy ship will bear her name.
"Serving with dignity, strength and character, Gabby Giffords embodies the ideals of our military. And in her recovery, she has shown enormous, and inspirational, courage, just as troops do daily.
"We look forward to the day when the USS Gabrielle Giffords is launched. May it always find fair winds and following seas."
###
]]>Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the rule announcement on preventive services for women announced by President Obama, which will continue to make available such services with no co-pay as provided for under the historic Affordable Care Act, including recommended contraceptive services:
“I thank President Obama for his thoughtful leadership and his ongoing commitment to women’s health.
“I appreciate the President’s unifying approach as we work to ensure that the American people continue to receive the benefits of health care reform.”
###
]]>
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today after the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, and state attorneys general across the country announced a $25 billion settlement addressing servicing and foreclosure abuses by the country’s five largest banks. The agreement will provide relief to many homeowners at risk of foreclosure, with Californians set to receive as much as $18 billion for principal reduction and refinancing opportunities for homeowners with negative equity, assistance to unemployed homeowners, and other initiatives to stem the foreclosure crisis in the state:
“Today’s multi-state mortgage settlement is a positive step forward for homeowners in California and across the country. Though limited in its reach, this agreement will help move us towards a more stable housing market and, in doing so, strengthen our economy.
“I commend the Obama Administration and state leaders for their hard work and their commitment to protect middle class families. Congress must remain vigilant and ensure that mortgage servicers hold up their end of the bargain so we can bring immediate relief to families who need it most.
“Throughout the settlement negotiations, California Attorney General Kamala Harris never compromised her basic principle that California homeowners, especially those hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis, must be better off with a settlement than without one. She earned the respect of her colleagues and now the gratitude of our state’s families. Her hard work and steadfast leadership resulted in a better deal for California’s homeowners, one that holds servicers accountable and preserves the state’s ability to further investigate significant abuses in the mortgage market. We thank her for standing strong and protecting the interests of middle class families in California.”
“The settlement covers only a small portion of the two million California homeowners estimated to be underwater. To help more underwater homeowners, President Obama, in his State of the Union address, urged Congress to pass legislation making it easier for responsible homeowners to refinance their mortgages at historically low mortgage rates. I urge the House Republican leadership to schedule this legislation for a vote so that more responsible homeowners not covered by the settlement, and whose homes have lost value through no fault of their own, can have access to refinancing opportunities.”
###
]]>Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke on the House floor today in support of sending the STOCK Act to a Conference Committee of the House and Senate to be strengthened. Republicans stripped a critical provision on political intelligence, one which passed with bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate, from the House bill. The revised House STOCK Act passed the House today by a vote of 417 to 2.
“I thank the gentleman for yielding. And thank him for giving us this opportunity to discuss an important matter: the integrity of Congress on the floor of the House.
“I too want to join the distinguished Majority Leader, Mr. Cantor, in praising the leadership of Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, our Ranking Member on the Rules Committee, and Congressman Tim Walz, for their extraordinary leadership over time. Their persistence, the approach that they have taken to this—to remove all doubt in the public’s mind, if that is possible, that we are here to do the people’s business and not to benefit personally from it.
“I listened attentively to the distinguished Majority Leader, Mr. Cantor’s remarks, about the STOCK Act and its importance. And, it just raises a question to me, as to if it is so important, and it certainly is, that why we could not have worked in a more bipartisan fashion, either to accept the Senate bill, which was developed in a bipartisan fashion, either to accept the Senate bill, which was developed in a bipartisan fashion and passed the Senate 96 to 3, 96-3—it’s hard to get a result like that in Congress these days. But, they were able to get that result because they worked together to develop the legislation.
“We had two good options: one was to accept the Senate bill, or to take up the Slaughter-Walz legislation, which has nearly 300 cosponsors, almost 100 Republican cosponsors on the original STOCK Act. The discharge petition has been calling upon the leadership to bring that bill to the floor. What’s important about that, is that when we pass that bill, we can go to conference and take the best and strongest of both bills to get the job done.
“Instead, secretly, the Republicans brought a much diminished bill to the floor—it has some good features. So, I urge my colleagues to vote for it, to bring the process along. What’s wrong about it is, it makes serious omissions. And, I won’t associate myself with remarks that have been made earlier, but I think they bear repetition, in any event.
“Senator Grassley’s remarks are stunning, stunning indictment of the House Republicans, in terms of their actions on this bill. He said, and I know my colleague has read this into the record already, but I will too. Senator Grassley said: ‘it’s astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street’s wishes by killing this provision,’ that would be the provision on political intelligence. ‘The Senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that’s behind the scenes, if the Senate language is too broad, as opponents say, why not propose a solution, instead of scrapping the provision all together, I hope to see,’ Senator Grassley said; ‘a vehicle for meaningful transparency through a House-Senate conference, and other means, if Congress delays action,’ as Chairman Conyers just said, ‘if Congress delays action,’ said Senator Grassley, ‘the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows, just the way Wall Street likes it.’ Well, the Senator’s statement is very widely covered. In ‘The Hill’ today, has a full page: ‘Grassley: Republicans caved; Iowa Senator says House doing Wall Street bidding.
“I think it’s important to note, that on the Senate side, there was interest in doing this study, that is now in the House bill, and it was rejected by the Senate, by a 60–39 vote, to include the political intelligence provision, in the bill rejecting the study. Now that that’s already been rejected in the Senate, its resurrected on the House side, a weakening of the bill.
“So, whether it’s the political intelligence piece, proposed by Senator Grassley. Or, Senator Leahy’s piece about corruption, I think it’s really important that those two elements be included in the bill. A good way to do that, to find a path to bipartisanship in the strongest possible bill, is to pass the bill today, despite its serious shortcomings—and it’s hard to understand why the shortcomings are there, but nonetheless they are.
“Pass the bill today and go to conference. To pass earlier, we’re to accept the Senate bill, or to take the original STOCK Act, strong STOCK Act, to the floor. Both of those were rejected. Pass this bill. Go to conference. It’s very important that the House and the Senate meet to discuss these very important issues.
“With all due respect to a study on political intelligence, that’s really just a dodge, that is just a way to say: ‘we’re not going to do the political intelligence piece.
“So, again, with serious reservations about the bill, but thinking it’s the better course of action, is to pass it—and I don’t want anyone to interpret the strong vote for it, to be a seal of approval for what it is, but just a way of pushing the process down the line, so that we can move expeditiously, to go to conference for the strongest possible bill.
“And, I want to close again, by saluting Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, and Congressman Tim Walz, for their most persistent dedication to this issue. Had they not had this discharge petition, and the nearly 300 cosponsors—bipartisan, nearly 100 of them Republicans—I doubt that we would be even taking up this bill today.
“So congratulations, and thank you. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.”
###
]]>Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today in response to the recent violence in Tibet:
“Today, Tibetans around the world are holding vigils to call attention to the recent violence in Tibet and to express solidarity.
“In recent weeks, the Chinese government has intensified its crackdown; there have been reports of indiscriminate shootings by Chinese police forces resulting in the loss of life and injuries. Further, the disturbing trend of self-immolations by Tibetans reflect the desperation of the human rights situation and the need for the Chinese government to change its repressive policies against the Tibetan people.
“The Tibetan people have legitimate grievances after decades of harsh rule. They have been economically marginalized in their own land, imprisoned for peacefully expressing their political views, and forced to endure ‘patriotic education’ campaigns to denounce His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
“It is long past time for the Chinese government to enter into a meaningful dialogue with representatives of the Tibetan Government-In-Exile to produce a way forward that promotes peace and stability in China and Tibet.”
###
]]>Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi delivered remarks tonight at the National Association of Latino Elected Officials’ Edward Roybal Gala. Below are the Leader’s remarks as prepared for delivery:
“In 1976, Congressman Edward Roybal truly altered the course of Congress and our nation by founding two organizations dedicated to the values of equality and fairness for Latinos and for all Americans: the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and NALEO.
“These institutions stand as monuments to Ed Roybal’s success – as a pillar of the Latino community and a shining example of achievement for all Americans. Whether working with the United Farmworkers in California or chairing a subcommittee on Appropriations in Congress, Ed Roybal was always there for working families.
“I had the privilege of learning from him as he was my chairman on the Appropriations Committee, and I was honored to speak at his funeral. He served with strength, effectiveness, and great dignity.
“Today, his legacy lives on in the service and leadership of his daughter, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, who shares his values and has made her own highly-respected mark in Congress.
“NALEO’s ongoing work is a great tribute to Congressman Roybal’s life and service: empowering Latinos to vote, to run for office, to serve at all levels of government.
“How proud he was to see the number of Latino voters and public officials growing every year. Today, NALEO’s work has never been more critical – because, in empowering Latino voters and electing Latinos to office, NALEO will strengthen our democracy and change the face of our nation.
“Following in the footsteps of Congressman Roybal have been a generation of extraordinary men and women, including Lucille, who share his ideals and are committed to reigniting the American dream.
“Congressman Roybal was first in many respects. It is appropriate that this year’s Edward R. Roybal Award for Outstanding Public Service goes to the first Latino Mayor of Los Angeles in modern times: Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
“Nearly seven years ago, the Mayor took office with a stirring call to action, inspiring his fellow Angelenos with a simple, yet moving, phrase: ‘dream with me, Los Angeles.’
“As many of us know, these words were only fitting – because his family has been a living example of the American dream.
“He is a child of L.A.’s public schools, who was driven to graduate and succeed by his English teacher. As the leader of the L.A. teachers’ union, as Speaker of the Assembly, as a member of the City Council, and as Mayor, he has worked to help others realize their dreams.
“As Mayor, he has strengthened teachers and invested in classrooms so every student has a chance to thrive and made L.A.’s streets safer and its neighborhoods more secure. He has led the charge for a public transit network to connect L.A.’s diverse communities, working to secure critical investments with his 30-10 initiative, and he has fought to transform L.A. into the ‘cleanest, greenest big city in America.’
“He dreamt, like NALEO and Ed Roybal, of a city and a nation where every citizen can vote and every vote is counted – and he fought for that dream by marching for civil rights, by organizing union workers, by advancing our civil liberties.
“Mayor Villaraigosa’s dreams for his city seem endless. And he is still asking all of us to dream with him – now as President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, where he has received national recognition for his leadership.
“In that spirit – in the spirit of Congressman Roybal, the leaders of NALEO, and Latino elected officials across the country – let us all continue to dream big, to uphold the values of justice and opportunity, to advance the cause of equality, our heritage and our hope.
“Congratulations, Mr. Mayor, on tonight’s honor. And thank you to NALEO for remaining a powerful voice on behalf of the Latino community and America’s future.”
###
]]>
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proposition 8 – the California measure banning same-sex marriage – is unconstitutional:
“Today’s decision is a victory for civil rights and for progress for the LGBT community and for all Californians.
“By declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional, the Ninth Circuit made a strong statement that laws must not target the LGBT community for discrimination and all of our state’s families deserve to enjoy fair and equal treatment under the law.
“As this battle moves through the appeals process, we must, and will, continue the fight for the fundamental rights of LGBT couples and every American. We will keep up the charge for change and equality in state legislatures and in the courts, and work in Congress to repeal and overturn the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Together, we will make every discriminatory marriage amendment and law a thing of the past.”
###
]]>
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today after President Obama announced the Veterans Jobs Corps:
“We know that the single best action we can take to support our troops and veterans is creating jobs. Those who have bravely served our nation in uniform are highly-skilled and they have demonstrated enormous leadership; today President Obama laid out the details of his proposal to put our veterans to work protecting and rebuilding America, and provide them with tools needed to start small businesses. The Veterans Jobs Corps will ensure that our veterans are at the front of the line when it comes to hiring in our local communities.
“Today’s announcement by the President is just the latest action by Democrats to open the door to job opportunities for those who have worn our nation’s uniform. Last year, we were proud to pass the ‘VOW to Hire Heroes Act,’ which combines a key component of President Obama’s jobs bill with a related, bipartisan initiative to boost employment opportunities for veterans.
“On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a nation, let it be our pledge that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind.”
###
]]>