I can simply come to the floor and speak to what the experts have testified in committee with problems of language of this nature. One is, as I've already stated, experts have said that language like this would encourage the situation for borrowers to not do the right thing, that is, to call up their lenders and say, ``I have a problem, and I want to engage in negotiations to try to work out the loan.'' We know this is an ongoing problem, and that's why there's so many advertisements and like on TV right now to encourage people to do the right thing. This language would be counterproductive in that, so the experts say. And secondly, the lenders have come to the committee and testified before our committee that the longer the borrower remains delinquent, the less likely he or she will be able to cure the delinquency and avoid foreclosure. All this is really doing is prolonging what should be dealt with today. It's never to be put off to tomorrow what we should deal with today, and this language, unfortunately, does just that.
Scott Garrett: “I can simply come to the floor and speak to what the experts have testified in committee with problems of language of…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the impact of language in legislation on borrower behavior and foreclosure during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Scott Garrett
During this non-recovery recovery, to borrow Chairman Hensarling's words, ... the SEC should be focusing its attention less on funds serving sophisticated investors.
This legislation codifies the common-sense principle of using a rules-based approach when determining monetary policy.
You lamented the problem, but failed to admit to acknowledge in your comments that it is your actions and the Fed and the government policies that can have a dramatic impact on expansion of the gap between rich and the poor.
This trend needs to stop before it becomes the loophole that devours the SEC's 2012 commitment to proper economic analysis.





