Sen. Gregg amendment to expand H-1B

Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:16 PM

<<<<< JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER No. 1840 -- 3/19/2008 >>>>>

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) announced a new amendment to expand the H-1B program.
This is in addition to the two bills in the House that were recently
introduced to triple the H-1B cap.

He intends to offer an amendment to the 2009 Senate Budget Bill. On March
12 he made this announcement on the Senate Floor:

Taking my own advice, I will mention an amendment I intend to offer
which deals with the H -1B issue. H -1Bs are visas which go to
people who can contribute immensely to our economy.

So who are these "smart people" that Gregg claims contribute to our economy?
They are the H-1Bs from overseas, not Americans. He didn't come right out and
say it, but the corollary to his statement is that Americans aren't smart
enough to innovate without the help of brainy H-1Bs. Gregg is spitting in the
face of the constituents who put him into office.

We have an economy that depends on value added--smart people
creating ideas which create jobs. A lot of those smart people come
from overseas, and we should take advantage of them wanting to come
to the United States.

Gregg is very self-assured:

I expect that this amendment will be strongly supported by those who
wish to expand our economy, especially by advancing our leadership
in the area of technology, and I know it will be strongly supported
by everybody----

Sen. Durbin asked Gregg whether Americans should be given preference for these
jobs. Gregg's answer was a simple "NO"! His rationale is that H-1B creates so
many jobs that Americans don't need protections.

Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator feel the option of job vacancies that
may be filled by H -1B visa holders should first be offered to
Americans to fill those jobs before an H -1B visa is given to a
person coming from another country?

Mr. GREGG. I happen to believe the H -1B program is one of those
programs that expands jobs in the United States, and by getting
people here, you actually create jobs and you will create more
jobs for Americans rather than lose jobs.

So, no, I don't happen to think you create a uniform rule that
says nobody can come here if somebody else can take the job
because then you are going to get the bureaucracy behind that
which would basically bar those people from ever getting here.
That becomes then a bureaucratic nightmare for building those
jobs.

You might be wondering where Gregg could get such a preposterous idea from.
Fortunately he provides us with the answer.

Bill Gates speaks to this far more eloquently than I do. He speaks
to most things more eloquently than I can because he can pronounce
the words.

Bill Gates made the following statement on March 12 to the "Committee on
Science and Technology United States House of Representatives", which is the
same day that Gregg talked on the Senate floor. Gregg might consider this
statement to be eloquent but I think quackery might be a better
description:

If we increase the number of H-1B visas that are available to U.S.
companies, employment of U.S. nationals would likely grow as well.
For instance, Microsoft has found that for every H-1B hire we
make, we add on average four additional employees to support them
in various capacities. Our experience is not unique. A recent
study of technology companies in the S&P 500 found that, for every
H-1B visa requested, these leading U.S. technology companies
increased their overall employment by five workers.17

So far Gregg hasn't formally offered his amendment, but he saved many open
amendments to the budget bill that he can use for any purpose he wants.
Expect Gregg's H-1B expansion to appear on one of the following: S.Amdt.
4303-4306, 4327, 4354-4356, 4358, 4359.

The current amendments can be seen at this link.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sc110-70&tab=amendments

NumbersUSA has a new fax campaign to protest Gregg's statement that his H-1B
expansion "will be strongly supported by everybody". For some reason
NumbersUSA didn't mention that Gregg intends on amending the budget bill.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009--
Continued -- (Senate - March 12, 2008)

[Page: S1969]

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how is the time being charged now?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Then I ask that the time I am on the floor and the time going

forward be charged against the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the order. Time is being charged against the

resolution.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if I might have the floor, there are a number of

folks who wish to speak to this bill and have amendments relative to the bill.
I strongly urge them to wander over here in the next few hours and give their
talks and talk about their amendments. It is possible that we will start the
vote-arama tomorrow. Once we start, there is not going to be any discussion.
There will be one vote after another, with a very brief time period in between
equally divided. If people want a substantive discussion on their amendments,
now is the time to come over and make their presentation.

Taking my own advice, I will mention an amendment I intend to offer which

deals with the H -1B issue. H -1Bs are visas which go to people who can
contribute immensely to our economy. We have an economy that depends on value
added--smart people creating ideas which create jobs. A lot of those smart
people come from overseas, and we should take advantage of them wanting to
come to the United States. One of our great strengths as a nation is people
want to come here, and we should take advantage of that strength and convert
it to an economic engine.

The way to do that, of course, is to encourage people who want to come here

and who are going to contribute to the economy by being job creators--rather
than taking jobs, they will be actually job creators--to come to the United
States. So I will have an amendment to expand the H -1B program. This is
critical to the high-technology industry especially.

I expect that this amendment will be strongly supported by those who wish to

expand our economy, especially by advancing our leadership in the area of
technology, and I know it will be strongly supported by everybody----

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois for a question.

There will be no dead people brought over to the United States.

Mr. DURBIN. Lucky 7,000.

I would like to ask the Senator from New Hampshire, if I might, is he aware

of the companies that took advantage of the H -1B visas in 2006, which
companies led in the number of H -1B visa awards?

Mr. GREGG. Well, I know the Senator from Illinois doesn't like the H -1B

visa program, doesn't desire it to be expanded. I appreciate that and I
understand we have a difference of opinion on that, and when he wants time, I
will be happy to listen to his views again. But the fact is I happen to think,
even though there may have been abuses in the program, I don't think they were
at the core of the problem; that the primary energy of this program has been
to create jobs in the United States by bringing smart people here.

We should be going across the world and saying to the best and the

brightest----

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG. I will in a second--and saying to the best and the brightest in

the world, if you want to come to the United States and be a job center that
adds to the value of our economy, we would like to have you come. We would
like to consider you as being a participant under an H -1B visa program.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN. The Senator inadvertently misstated my position. I know it was

an accident. We are good friends. He is probably not aware I do support the H
-1B .

But is the Senator aware that out of the top 10 companies that secured H -

1B visas, 6 of those companies were Indian corporations; 5,000 visas to
Infosys, an Indian corporation which is a body shop which moves H -1B
engineers from India to the United States for a fee and then back to India to
compete with American companies; WoodPro, which is the second largest company,
4,000 visas; and the first American company on the list for H -1B visas was
Microsoft, with 3,000. So 9,000 had already been awarded to Indian companies,
and the Government of India has said the H -1B is what they consider their
outsourcing visa so they can send engineers to the United States to learn how
to compete against American companies.

Does the Senator believe that is an abuse which should be addressed?

Mr. GREGG. Well, I would say to the Senator from Illinois that when you

bring a person here who has the capacity to add to the strength of a
Microsoft, for example, which is probably our single biggest international
producer of economic activity for us as a nation, after maybe, I don't know,
Wal-Mart, but it is a value-added company of the first level, and that when
you bring somebody here who Microsoft feels adds to their ability to be more
competitive, if that person decides to go back to India or back to China,
well, that will be a choice they make.

But I suspect the odds are pretty good if that person has the opportunity

to stay here under an H -1B visa program, they will probably end up staying
here, or at least a large enough percentage of them will stay to add to our
economy.

Now, what my amendment does----

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG. I will in a second. What my amendment does, to make it clear, is

it recaptures visas that are unused and it uses those visas now. It also
specifically targets bringing in high-skilled nursing, people who are trained
in the nursing facility area, which is very much in demand right now.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GREGG. Certainly. Of course.

Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator feel the option of job vacancies that may be

filled by H -1B visa holders should first be offered to Americans to fill
those jobs before an H -1B visa is given to a person coming from another
country?

Mr. GREGG. I happen to believe the H -1B program is one of those programs

that expands jobs in the United States, and by getting people here, you
actually create jobs and you will create more jobs for Americans rather than
lose jobs.

So, no, I don't happen to think you create a uniform rule that says nobody

can come here if somebody else can take the job because then you are going to
get the bureaucracy behind that which would basically bar those people from
ever getting here. That becomes then a bureaucratic nightmare for building
those jobs. It makes much more sense to bring these smart, intelligent people
here, have them create jobs here, rather than leave them creating jobs in
China and India.

Bill Gates speaks to this far more eloquently than I do. He speaks to most

things more eloquently than I can because he can pronounce the words.
But as a practical matter, he says these people are centers for the energy
that creates the ideas, that creates the jobs that drive the economy. And if
you leave them in China, if you leave them in India, as those types of
individuals creating jobs, they become huge competitors to the
entrepreneurship of America. If you bring them here, they become adjuncts to
our economy.

I think the proposal makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of job

creation and from the standpoint of making our economy stronger, so I will be
offering it later in the day.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I can ask my friend to withhold for a minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have had a conversation with Senator McConnell,

and he and I have had a discussion as to what is going on here and what needs
to go on. We believe we should start voting about 11 o'clock tomorrow, or
maybe a half-hour earlier. We have an event in the Rotunda that he and I have
to attend, and there is a moment of silence for our troops, so we can start
about 10:30 or 11 o'clock.

Tonight, Members should offer any amendments they want, talk as long as

they want. But it appears, based on my conversation with the Republican
leader, it will not be necessary that we be in all night. So that would be all
I have to say, and that is also based on the conversation we had with the two
managers of the bill earlier in the evening.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would ask the leader, for the purposes of

clarification, if Members would be permitted to speak tonight on their
amendments but to call them up tomorrow. We already have a very long line of
amendments in the queue. I think the ranking member would probably agree that
we would permit Members to speak tonight, but they would have to sequence
their amendments tomorrow because we already have a long line of amendments in
the queue. I think that would provide a better discipline for the process
tomorrow.

Mr. REID. I would say to my friend, if the managers of the bill agree to

that, I am sure Senator McConnell would agree to that. So unless we hear from
the Republican leader to the contrary, I would say, based on that, there will
be no rollcall votes tonight and that we will proceed along that line. Staff
will draw up a consent agreement the two of you can take a look at and make
sure it is in order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.

Mr. GREGG. I take it the Senator from North Dakota is suggesting we will

continue this evening, but in debate only, unless the chairman and the ranking
member of the committee agree to put an amendment in order.

Mr. CONRAD. I think that would be the best way to proceed, don't you, to

maintain some discipline for what is to come tomorrow?

Mr. GREGG. I agree. I wished to make certain.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Dodd is going to speak

for 20 minutes. At the end of Senator Dodd's presentation, I ask unanimous
consent that Senator Ensign be recognized.

[Page: S1970] GPO's PDF The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. CONRAD. I would not object, but if Senator Ensign can give an idea, for

the knowledge of other Members, how long he will take. An approximation.

Mr. ENSIGN. About 20 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. That might be helpful to our colleagues who might be listening,

in knowing how much time it would take.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. So the order will be the Senator from Connecticut

for 20 minutes and the Senator from Nevada for 20 minutes?

Mr. CONRAD. That is correct.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator the Connecticut is recognized.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to talk about a couple amendments I will be

offering, but let me inquire, if I may, of the chairman of the Budget
Committee, if it would be appropriate for us to submit our amendments this
evening. I understand the sequence will be left to the committee, but I am not
sure whether I should be submitting an amendment or whether we can do that
tomorrow.

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. GREGG. I think you can file one, but it can't be called up.

Mr. DODD. I understand that. That is the point.

Well, Mr. President, what I will do, then, is I would like to file two

amendments, and I send them to the desk and ask they be filed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me discuss these two amendments, and I will

reserve about 5 or 6 minutes at the end to talk about the present housing
issue that is critical to all of us. I wish to take a few minutes, which is
far more than I will probably get tomorrow with the 1 minute allocated to talk
about these amendments that are important in a number of aspects.

I wish to thank Senator ORRIN HATCH of Utah, Senator Schumer, the Presiding

Officer, and Senator Durbin for joining me in the first amendment I will be
offering to increase funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant.
This amendment that I will be calling up is supported by a large coalition of
organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that the list of organizations and
letter from the organizations be printed in the Record at this point.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the

Record, as follows:

FRIENDS OF THE TITLE V MATERNAL

AND CHILD HEALTH PROGRAM,

DEAR SENATOR: As organizations committed to improving the health of

America's women, children, and families, we urge you to support full funding
for the Title V Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Services Block Grant. Full
funding at the authorized level of $850 million will enable all states and
territories to provide vital public health and health care services to
millions of women, infants and children, including children and youth with
special health care needs.

The MCH Block Grant is the only Federal program that focuses solely on

improving the health of all of our nation's mothers and children. State and
territorial health agencies and their partners use MCH Block Grant resources
to reduce infant mortality, deliver services to children and youth with
special health care needs, support prenatal and postnatal care, screen
newborns for genetic and hereditary health conditions, deliver childhood
immunizations, and prevent childhood injuries. MCH Block Grant funding assists
states in addressing critical health workforce needs, including the training
of health professionals, and supports the development and testing of
innovative public health practices.

State and territorial MCH programs coordinate their work with Medicaid

agencies, state Special Supplemental Nutrition Programs for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC) and other programs serving vulnerable and at-risk populations.
This collaborative work assures that every dollar is used to provide necessary
services without duplication to underserved mothers, children, and families in
your state.

Six years ago, funding for the MCH Block Grant was $731 million and has

remained flat or has decreased ever since. The FY 2008 omnibus appropriations
bill cut MCH Block Grant funding to $666 million, the lowest level since 1993.
Five years of cuts have curtailed progress in improving the health of mothers,
children, and families. Full funding for the MCH Block Grant will allow states
to efficiently meet increased demand for public health and health care
services in their communities.

We strongly urge you to fully fund the Title V MCH Block Grant at $850

million. Your support of this vital program is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs; American Academy of
Pediatrics; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American
Public Health Association; Association of Public Health Laboratories;
Association of State & Territorial Health Officials; Association of University
Centers on Disabilities; Autism Society of America; CityMatCH; Children's
Dental Health Project; Division for Early Childhood of the Council for
Exceptional Children; Epilepsy Foundation; Family Voices; Families USA; First
Focus; IDEA Infant Toddler Coordinators Association
(ITCA) March of Dimes Foundation National Association of County and City
Health Officials; National Assembly on School-Based Health Care; National
Center for Children in Poverty; National Healthy Start Association; National
Hispanic Medical Association; Prevent Blindness America; The Arc of the United
States; The Children's Defense Fund; The Children's Health Fund; United
Cerebral Palsy.

-- Support for Dodd Amendment on Maternal and Child Health Block Grant

Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs; American Public Health

Association; Association of Public Health Labs; Association of State &
Territorial Health Officials; Autism Society of America; AFSCME; Child FIRST,
Bridgeport Hospital, Yale New-Haven Health System; Child Welfare League of
America; CityMatCH; Division for Early Childhood of the Council for
Exceptional Children (DEC); Easter Seals; Epilepsy Foundation; Family Voices;
First Focus; IDEA Infant Toddler Coordinators Association (ITCA) March of
Dimes Foundation; National Assembly on School-Based Health Care; National
Center for Children in Poverty Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia
University; National Center for Learning Disabilities; National Child Abuse
Coalition; National Healthy Start Association; Prevent Blindness America;
SEIU; Voices for America's Children.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, among the associations and organizations that are

supporting this amendment is the Association of Maternal and Child Health
Programs, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, and many
others.

In a minute, I will speak to the second amendment I am offering relating to

autism funding.

Under the President's budget, the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant

will be funded at $666 million for the second consecutive year. This amount
represents a cut of $65 million from 5 years ago, when funding peaked at
$731 million. These persistent cuts and flat funding have a real impact on the
services States are able to offer to nearly 35 million women, children, and
youth affected by maternal and child health programs.

The Maternal and Child Health programs include direct health care for

children with special needs, preventive and primary care for children and
youth, integration of health care with other child and family services,
newborn screening for genetic disorders, lead poisoning prevention, injury
prevention, and public education.

We must ensure that the States are able to continue to offer these services

to those in need. That is why I am offering this amendment, which will
increase the funding of this block grant by $184 million to the authorized
level of $850 million.

Again, I wish to thank Senators HATCH, SCHUMER, and DURBIN for supporting

this effort in a bipartisan way. The Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
services act as a critical source of care for many of our Nation's uninsured
children. Of the more than 23 million children receiving services in 2006, 6.8
percent, or nearly 1.8 million children, had no known source of health
insurance at all.

More than a third of MCH funds are used to provide primary and preventive

health care services to children--including immunization clinics, outreach to
enroll eligible children in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance
Program, SCHIP, and funding and technical assistance to school based health
centers, that serve adolescents.

In other words, MCH funds are used to ensure that mothers and children in

traditionally underserved populations receive absolutely necessary care.

Yet, despite this important mission, we continue to ask State MCH programs

to do more with less. According to the Association of Maternal and Child
Health Programs, the purchasing power of the MCH block grant has decreased
close to 24 percent since 2003.

[Page: S1971] GPO's PDF Consider this: at present, low birth weight and
preterm births are increasing, the U.S. ranks 32nd out of 33rd of the world's
industrialized nations in the rate of infant deaths with African American
infants in the United States more than twice as likely as white infants to die
before their first birthday, and childhood obesity rates for some age groups
representing a three-fold increase in rates over the past two decades. We can
do much better. This program has proven it works. Thus you have the support of
Senator HATCH and others who know that this program has made a difference in
the lives of millions.

Nearly one-half of all preterm births have no known cause but what we do

know is that by reducing certain risk factors in the mother such as cigarette
smoking and obesity, we can help reduce rates of prematurity.

I chair the Children and Families Subcommittee of the HELP Committee and

authored the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act with Senator HATCH--passed the
Senate unanimously last December--and the Preventing Prematurity Research
Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act, better
known as the PREEMIE Act with Senator ALEXANDER, enacted into law.
These initiatives have made important steps toward giving children a healthy
start at life. But now it's time for us to ensure that the money will be there
to continue the success of these vital programs.

The MCH block grant is a proven success for helping ensure a healthy future

for our Nation's children. States are required to match $3 for every
$4 of Federal funds provided by the block grant. The MCH block grant has
performance measures and evaluations that document the effective impact of
this modest investment. To quote the Bush administration:

The program is well designed. The [MCH Block Grant] serves as a safety net

to help improve the health of mothers and children and has a positive impact
on their health.

The MCH program is critical to the health and well-being of millions of

families across this country, including some of the most vulnerable members of
our society. Years of funding cuts and level funding have stretched maternal
and child health programs to their limits. I urge my colleagues to support my
amendment to increase MCH block grant funding to $850 million in this year's
budget resolution. On behalf of Senators HATCH, SCHUMER, DURBIN and others, we
hope that members will be in favor of something that has enjoyed broad
support.

Mr. President, I would now like to speak on an amendment I will be offering

with Senators Collins and Kennedy. I thank Senator Collins and Senator
Kennedy, the distinguished Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee for their support for this amendment. I would also like to
thank Autism Speaks for their support for this amendment.

The amendment increases funding for autism in the fiscal year 2009 budget

by $197 million in a budget-neutral manner, bringing autism funding up to its
authorized level and then doubling our commitment to funding research into the
causes of and treatments for autism.

In 2006, the Congress unanimously passed the Combating Autism Act, which my

colleague from Pennsylvania former Senator Rick Santorum and I authored along
with the strong support of Senators Kennedy and Enzi. This initiative was the
largest Federal expansion of funding and programs for children and families
with autism spectrum disorder. It authorizes $800 million to find the causes
and decide how to treat the myriad of problems faced by families of children
with autism.

At the time the bill passed, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, CDC, estimated that 1 in 166 children were diagnosed with autism.
Today the CDC estimates that number to be 1 in 150. In fact, 67 children are
diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder per day. A new case is diagnosed
almost every 20 minutes.

It continues to be a challenge to determine how much Federal funding is

actually going to study the causes of and treatments for autism. In fact, some
estimates are that actual NIH funding for research specific to autism is less
than half of what is being reported.

That is why this amendment is so critical. It will redouble our Federal

commitment to funding autism, the fastest-growing developmental disability in
the U.S.

At a time when the number of children and families living with autism has

grown exponentially, the President's budget proposes to freeze Federal
spending on autism at levels that are insufficient to make the kind of
discoveries in autism that are needed.

Many of my colleagues no doubt have been visited by children and their

families with autism. Autism is a complex neurological disorder, which
manifests itself differently in each individual but occurs in all racial,
ethnic and socioeconomic groups. It is a lifelong condition that affects not
only the individual with the disability, but impacts the entire family, often
requiring intensive levels of support and intervention.

There are so many unanswered questions about autism. And it will require a

major scale-up in funding to bring us closer to answering them. We should
close no doors on promising avenues of research into the causes of autism and
my amendment allows all biomedical research opportunities on autism to be
pursued.

The amendment I am offering would enable us to redouble our efforts on

autism research and treatment services by increasing funding for research,
treatments, education and interventions by $197 million in fiscal year 2009
and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Again, I emphasize it is the fastest growing developmental disability in

our country. The number of children who will be born with autism is increasing
every day in this country. Again, on behalf of Senator Collins and myself,
Senator Kennedy and others, we urge you to be supportive of this amendment
when it comes up. It is deficit neutral, which ought to make it easier for
Members to support this amendment.

Lastly, I want to take a couple of minutes, to commend the chairman of the

Budget Committee, Senator Conrad and Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking member as
well, and the other members of the Budget Committee. I served on that
committee for many years and have nothing but admiration and respect for those
going through this process. This budget is a positive step to address the
serious challenges our economy is facing today. Having just spoken on the
specific issues regarding the resolution, on autism and maternal and child
health, I want to take a moment to again address some of the problems that are
plaguing our economy.

I have been coming to the floor with some regularity in recent weeks to

speak on economic issues. I do not wish to test the patience of our
colleagues. But I believe that these issues are of such paramount importance
at this point in our national life that they merit the consideration of our
colleagues.

Just yesterday the Federal Reserve announced a significant new action that

attempts to address the liquidity lock-down that has spread through our credit
markets and crippled the ability of lenders to lend and borrowers to borrow.
The announcement by the Fed is a significant measure that is intended to
address this very serious situation. The markets'
strong positive reaction to the Fed's action demonstrates that policymakers
can undertake actions which have the potential to improve our situation.
However, I do not believe that the Fed's action alone will be enough to right
our Nation's economic ship. Additional steps should also be considered to
address the root cause of the present market turmoil--namely, the housing
market and specifically the foreclosure crisis.

New data was released last week regarding the condition of America's

homeowners. It is stark, even alarming in certain respects. Foreclosures have
hit a new all-time record, according to the Mortgage Banker's Association,
MBA. This data shows that more than 1 in every 50 homes with a mortgage in the
country is in foreclosure, as of the end of last year.
Foreclosure rates have been growing at record levels for some time.
Foreclosures are increasing because people are continuing to struggle to make
their payments, and because those payments are increasing for millions of
Americans. The report tells us

[Page: S1972]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Newsletter Homepage:
http://www.JobDestruction.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm

Support this Newsletter and www.JobDestruction.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm

To Be removed from this mailing list, reply to this email with UNSUbSCRIBE in
the subject window

Back to archives