In a message dated 3/19/08 6:15:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time, News@JobDestruction.info writes:
<<<<< 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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -