Because in the beginning, many of us were heartened that there would be tens of billions of dollars available, and there was even an indication that the settlement would be across-the-board.

We had a chance to force Wall Street banks to take responsibility for an economic crisis they helped create but were too easy on them from the start.

The problem is a lack of meaningful participation by servicers and a lack of enforcement and willingness to change by Treasury.

So the banks got quite a bit of money to stabilize themselves, and the money that we put forward so that homeowners could stay in their homes really wasn't utilized that much.

I think maybe we should remember that the next time a Treasury Secretary comes before the Congress of the United States to ask us to bail out the industry to the tune of $700 billion.

I voted for it, primarily because I thought, well, at least there will be some money so that people can stay in their homes.

Letting the market bottom out is simply a euphemism for letting more people lose their homes.

Millions of families are still facing default or foreclosure, vacant homes are dragging down communities.

the next time they have a crisis, don't call me.

So what technical advice are you giving them?

Let me move forward so I can ask better questions next time a Treasury Secretary, especially one who used to work for Goldman Sachs, comes before the Congress of the United States to ask us for billions of dollars to bail out his buddies…

I believe that the program was the right solution to the problems facing unemployed homeowners and shouldn't be discounted simply because the agency we charged to implement it dropped the ball.

The Republicans have no answer on how to fix HAMP and have offered no alternatives because they are steadfastly unwilling to challenge the servicers.

But that is why I was always fighting for a consumer protection agency, someone whose purpose is to look specifically at these kinds of loans.

I hope we check into these products and use enforceable standards created by a new consumer protection agency, which I hope we stop tying the hands of.

I support the work these regulatory agencies are doing to encourage banks to offer safe and sensible loan products to underserved borrowers.

when we wrote, drafted the Dodd-Frank bill, and passed it in the House and the Senate, one of the things that we did was say there was going to be a study so we could kind of streamline and the improve Securities and Exchange Commission.

I find it curious that when it comes to the agency whose major purpose is the Securities and Exchange Commission to watch, they want more regulations and they want to hamper it, and they want to tie it up in knots.

Seniors are struggling to make ends meet, and we are denying them the access and information they need.

So there won't be any money, but it is a requirement.

So just think about, what it is you perceive to be, right, that warranty on your car.

Thank you so much. First of all, I want to welcome my friend and advocate for housing, for people who really, without his advocacy, wouldn't have an opportunity to be part of the American dream.

it is essential that we use taxpayer dollars responsibly and in the most effective way possible

I think that housing counseling is very, very important.

All housing counseling programs under HUD, none of them would receive any funding? They would all come to an end in the very immediate future?