Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to compile the cost estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office which are included in reports filed by committees of the House on approved legislation and post such estimates on the official public Internet site of the Office of the Clerk.

First, I want to acknowledge the praise given to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), and, I would add, I was thanked, but the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) worked closely with Mrs. Capito to bring this bill forward.

Secondly, on the deficit, this Friday morning I will be at a meeting. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and I are beginning an enterprise to pull back the excessive overreach of America militarily. We are spending more money now defending Western Europe from an enemy unknown to anybody--including those in Western Europe--than we're spending on virtually any domestic program. So, yes, I welcome that, and I'll look to see where we are on that.

I support President Obama's efforts to save money in the space program. Frankly, when people tell me that we have got a serious debt crisis but they're willing to commit hundreds of billions of dollars to send a human being to Mars so he or she can be brought back--and the President is not, I think, correct on this--then I am also skeptical.

Some of my friends in the Agricultural Committee and in the South who support sending $147 million of American tax dollars to the Brazilian cotton farmers to offset the subsidy given to American cotton farmers, I doubt their true depth of their commitment to cutting the budget.

But let me talk about revisionist history.

The Republican Party controlled the Congress from 1995 to 2006. No legislation changing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went through. President Bush controlled the executive branch for 2000 to 2008. What he did--he said he wanted some reform. You've heard the former chairman, the former Republican chairman Mr. Oxley, denigrate Mr. Bush's cooperation there. But in 2004, the Bush administration ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase the number of mortgages they bought for people below the median income. And at the time I said I thought that was a mistake; wrong for the people who were being pushed into this, wrong for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and, in fact, it led me to change my opinion.

As Secretary Donovan testified, unchallenged by any of the Republicans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not now costing the taxpayers any money. The money that is owed is from the prior activity before Secretary Paulson put them into conservatorship with authority that he did not get from a Republican Congress but from a Democratic Congress, and Secretary Paulson said it wasn't a perfect bill but it was a bill that he could work with.

Since then, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been in conservatorship. They have already been drastically changed, and they are not costing the taxpayer moneys. Clearly, we have to take a next step, but we have consulted with the Realtors, with the home builders, with advocates for low-income housing, with virtually everyone concerned with housing, and their recommendation is, yes, keep them in conservatorship and replace them.

The Republican plan that you have heard, the plan of the minority of Republicans from 2005, abolishes them with no replacement, and so housing finance is left in a turmoil. We have Ginnie Mae, we have the FHA, we have the Federal home loan banks, we have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Yes, we believe there should be a sorting out of these things, but let's again just summarize.

I have been told that it was my fault that during the Republican years in Congress we didn't pass a bill on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Well, Mr. DeLay of recent memory was in charge of the House agenda then, and I have to disclaim the notion that I was secretly advising Mr. DeLay, and I'll prove that to you, Madam Speaker. If I were giving Mr. DeLay advice, I would have told him not to go on the dance show. It wouldn't have just been Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would have benefited; a lot would have benefited.

But we were frustrated by him. He was in charge of the housing agenda. A few Republicans wanted to change it. They were outvoted by the Republican majority. When the Democrats took office--and you can read this in Secretary Paulson's book--we cooperated with the Paulson administration. We gave them the authority to put it into conservatorship. They are now both in conservatorship, and we await the next step.

First, to underline it, under authority that the Bush administration asked for and didn't get until the Democrats took over Congress, Fannie and Freddie were put into conservatorship. That's a very drastic reform of where they were.

The $145 billion that, regrettably, is being lost was lost before the conservatorship. We put an end to those losses. And that's the current testimony of Secretary Donovan.

And then as to compensation, I welcome my friend from West Virginia, belatedly, to the cause of limiting the compensation. Because the Committee on Financial Services put a bill out to specifically limit the compensation of the GSEs. We had general compensation limitations for TARP recipients, but we had one that would have limited GSE recipients, as well. And the gentlewoman from West Virginia voted against it, as did most of the Republicans.

So we had a general compensation restriction, and we had one for--I take it back. It was any recipients of government aid, including the GSEs and the TARP recipients. And the Republican Party voted ``no.'' So they are now opposed to raises which they refused to vote to block. That's the pattern.

And I stress again, Fannie and Freddie have already been drastically reformed. They are in conservatorship. That is a very significant form of limitation. They are not being run remotely the way they were in the past when the Bush administration and others pushed them into buying too many loans from low-income people. And we do believe they need to be replaced, but in a way that does not further destabilize housing finance.

That's why the realtors and the home builders and a number of groups concerned about the deficit oppose this Republican plan simply to abolish them without replacing housing finance mechanisms. But they are currently being run in conservatorship.

And, again, I repeat, as Secretary Donovan said, unchallenged by the Republicans when he was testifying, they are not now losing the money. The losses predated the conservatorship, and the responsible thing to do was to replace them responsibly.

But the fact is that it's not losing money--whether it's persuasive or not, the fact is uncontested that it's not losing money. The CBO talks about past debt.

I just want to talk about the past that the gentleman from Illinois is so desperate to cover up.

The House voted on a bill that would have limited compensation to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives a year ago. It was not on other corporations; it was on TARP recipients, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It came out of committee, it came to the floor of the House, and the gentleman voted against it. If he had helped us a year ago--it passed the House but it died in the Senate--if we had been able to get that bill through, we would have limited these.

So the gentleman over a year ago--and I know that's history and he doesn't like to talk about history, particularly when it doesn't reflect well on his argument--but he voted against that limitation.

The reason we talk about the history is very simple: Every dollar that is lost and is about to be lost was lost because there was a delay in reform.

The losses are not resulting from current operations. Secretary Donovan said that before the committee, and no Republican challenged him. We are stuck with losses that happened before we were able to put it into conservatorship by our votes and stop the bleeding.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I appreciate the revised view of history itself. For some time, my Republican colleagues have been trying to blame those of us who try to expand housing, decent housing for lower-income people, for the crisis, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I think the record is very clear. Twelve years of Republican rule, no bill became law to change Fannie and Freddie Mac's operation. George Bush in 2004--not ancient history--expands, by his mandate, the number of low-income loans that they have to purchase, loans from low-income people.

That is why we have the debt. That is why this is relevant. The Democrats take power in 2007 and, working with Secretary Paulson, as he documents in his book--and he notes, by the way, that some Republicans were mad at him for working with us. But the result was a good bill that allowed him to put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship. And, post-conservatorship, we have not had the problems.

If you abolish Fannie and Freddie tomorrow, you wouldn't save a penny because we would still have the debts that accrued when it was run previously, an unreformed Fannie and Freddie--unreformed because the Republicans wouldn't touch it, unreformed probably because President Bush pushed them into more loans. To talk about what you do in the future you have to understand the source of the problem; that's what we get in history.

So Fannie and Freddie have been drastically changed and they are in conservatorship. The question is, what do you do next? They have played an important role in housing finance. They are playing a constructive role now as opposed to the destructive role they played before. And I was slow in recognizing that; it wasn't until 2004 that I did. But in 2005, I joined many Republicans in trying to support a bill until it was hijacked from any housing purposes. By the way, the fact that I voted against the bill finally had no impact. The bill passed the House. It died in the Senate because Senate Republicans didn't like it. Senate Democrats offered the House Republican bill; that caused the end of the war.

But let's talk about going forward. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now run by a conservator. Unfortunately, their salaries aren't capped because the Republicans helped sabotage a bill which we supported to cap their salaries. But it is now being run in a way that helps promote financial--and does not have the mistakes of the past. There are not these problems. The money owed is money that results from past decisions that are no longer being taken because of the conservatorship.

The question is, what do you do going forward? The National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, everybody involved in housing finance argues--very correctly, I think-- that simply having Fannie and Freddie disappear--again, not the old Fannie and Freddie, they have disappeared, the agencies that caused us the problems no longer exist. My colleague from Illinois, with a fresh figure of speech, said they were 800-pound gorillas. Well, if they are gorillas, they are deeply chained, they are in cages, and they are being fed and are quite docile. Yes, they need to be replaced, but you need to take all of the various aspects of housing finance and figure out how to do it going forward. The Republican bill doesn't do that; that's too hard.

Railing against the mistakes of the past--and they say they don't like history? But their bill is a firm statement against the operation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before it was put into conservatorship and deals, unfortunately, with debts that we are stuck with. Going forward, how do you untangle the private shareholder corporation and a public mandate to try and subsidize housing to some extent? What agency should you have? What's the role of the Federal Housing Administration and Ginnie Mae and the private sector and the secondary market entities? We need to think about that. They haven't done that. Their bill includes nothing to replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So passing their bill tomorrow--or last week--wouldn't save us anything because their current operations aren't losing money, and it wouldn't discharge us from the debts that occurred when it was being run on their watch under their rules.

We do stop the bleeding by putting them into a tough conservatorship. You can read Hank Paulson's book, and he tells you how they were going to resist that. He insisted and fired the board of directors and shareholders were substantially diminished or wiped out. And new rules, new loans are going forward that aren't the kind of bad loans that were made, and now our job is, responsibly, to try and replace it. And what you get from the Republicans is confession. They are very angry at the fact that when they were running the place in the White House and here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to run up all those debts and they never were able to do anything to stop it. I didn't see that early on. I saw it--and in fact acted on it--quicker than many of them. We have now stopped the bad stuff and we are not incurring losses, and the question is, what do you do going forward? And that is a harder question than my Republican colleagues are prepared to grapple with.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1424 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1424.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The rule provides for consideration of House bill 5072, the FHA Reform Act of 2010. It is a structured rule which makes in order 13 amendments. The rule waives all points of order against the bill except those arising under clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. It further considers the amendment in the nature of a substitute from the Financial Services Committee be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides authority to the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Thursday and Friday of this week.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 5072, the Federal Housing Administration Reform Act of 2010, provides FHA with the necessary tools to strengthen its mortgage insurance program and overall financial position. The collapse of the private sector in the wake of the financial crisis left a large void in the housing market. Banks didn't have the capital to lend, so potential home buyers were left out in the cold. FHA played a critical role in filling this void, providing a much-needed catalyst to the real estate industry, which was left reeling from the subprime debacle. This preserved hundreds of thousands of jobs in the real estate industry.

As a result of taking on a more prominent role, FHA's market share increased from about 4 percent to now more than 30 percent of total purchases, 88 percent of which are first-time home buyers.

This bill makes several necessary reforms which will make it more efficient and accountable. First, it provides FHA with the authority to raise the annual mortgage premium for new borrowers. It also provides FHA with enhanced authority when FHA finds evidence of fraud or noncompliance by a mortgagee. If a lender or underwriter is found to be violating FHA regulations when underwriting loans by making risky loans or cutting corners, the FHA can terminate that underwriter or lender's ability to lend under the program. The bill also improves FHA's risk management, and under the bill, the FHA will provide additional data which will give a clearer overview of FHA's fiscal position.

The bill we are considering here today is bipartisan and incorporates many changes sought by the Housing and Urban Development Department, industry stakeholders, and Members of Congress. It passed the Financial Services Committee by a voice vote with little opposition. Most important, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the bill and estimates it will save $2.5 billion over the next 5 years.

FHA plays a critical role in the marketplace, and this bill strengthens the program so that it can continue its role in a sound manner. FHA was created during the Great Depression to stimulate the economy, particularly with regard to real estate. This purpose is equally important today, so it is crucial that we make reforms to the program that will allow it to keep up with the industry. This bill will promote responsible lending and reduce the deficit by $2.5 billion. I look forward to the debate on this bill, which will restore greater confidence in the housing industry.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's support of the underlying bill and the savings of $2.5 billion and that they'd like to proceed and make some cuts to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the course of the next year, and that is something that ultimately we have to address.

Under Mr. Frank and under this Democratic Congress, we've already worked on reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, unlike my friends on the Republican side of the aisle. And I just remind them what their chairman of the House Financial Services said about the efforts to reform and revamp Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back when the Republicans were in charge of both the White House and this Congress.

There was an effort to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between Mr. Oxley and Mr. Frank, but instead of getting any assistance, he fumed particularly about the White House. This was from an article in the Financial Times. It was by Mr. Oxley. This is an article written and quoted from Mr. Oxley in the Financial Times last September, September 9, 2008, where he fumes against criticism that the House didn't try to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back a few years ago. He says, ``All the hand-wringing and bed-wetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,'' to try to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He said, ``What did we get from the White House?'' A White House that was controlled by the Republicans. ``We got a one-finger salute'' in trying to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Well, unlike under Republican leadership, we've been working on reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and we have been looking for ways to cut costs and expenses of the United States. And one of those places we're already doing something about, which makes their suggestion looks like peanuts, and that's in Iraq.

The Republicans, under the leadership of George Bush and the Republican Congress, cut the taxes for the wealthiest 1 percent, prosecuted two wars without paying for them, left Wall Street in disarray by failing to police Wall Street. And what did we get? We got a financial meltdown and a giant debt, $1.3 trillion, when Barack Obama took office. And now they're complaining about the costs that they left in place based on their way of running the country.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I would just remind the body that we're here on the FHA bill, the reformation of FHA which my friends have applauded, and that's really what we're here to talk about, a savings of $2.5 billion, more accountability from FHA, which has had to fill a vacuum in the housing market because of the loss of so many lenders who got so involved with sub-prime loans.

So I'd also say to my friend Mr. Garrett, Madam Speaker, that I think that sometimes if you take a look at the past actions that we saw under the Republican Party and their failure to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, rein in a Wall Street that was out of control, cut taxes and not pay for wars, that gives you an idea of what they may be doing in the future. And that's what the people of this country want to have an idea of what to expect, and looking back at the past actions, I would say, gives you a good indication.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I would ask the Speaker how much time I have left and how much time Mr. Sessions has left, and I would ask my friend how many speakers he has left.

I would remind my friend from West Virginia--and I do appreciate that $30 billion over 10 years--take a look at their proposition. It is for another bill for another day. We are dealing with FHA, which saves $2.5 billion today.

Also, I would remind her, Madam Speaker, that, over the course of this year and last year, we started drawing down in Iraq, which was costing this country upwards of $100 billion a year, not $30 billion over 10 years, $100 billion a year, not paid for by the Bush administration. So, as we draw down from 160,000 troops to some 50,000 or 40,000 troops this summer, we are going to save far more money than the Republicans and this Fannie Mae proposal project.

I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) to respond to some of the things my friend from West Virginia said.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes you have to remind people from time to time about what happened in the past, because it's important. History is important.

I would remind my friend from Illinois, you know, that there was an effort to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when it was purchasing a lot of lousy loans that have resulted in these losses. But, instead, what did the reformation, the reforming of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get back when you could have stopped these losses? We got the one- finger salute from the White House, a Republican White House that, for some reason or other, did not want to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And I have to tell you, Mr. Oxley, by giving that statement, we got a one-finger salute. When he made his statement on September 9, 2008, he described perfectly what the White House wanted to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The White House, at that point, under the Bush administration, just, ``Let's buy all these lousy loans. Let's just keep it going.''

Well, that bubble burst. And the American people and the Democratic Congress and the Democratic administration are having to pick up the pieces now from that imprudent, improper approach to housing finance.

We want people to have homes that they can afford in this country. If they

can't afford them, then, okay, they don't get them. The FHA bill that is before the House today provides, in a proper and prudent way, insurance for those home purchases to people who can afford and can show their ability to make these payments.

That is the purpose of the bill today. My friends on the other side want to talk about some other thing that they didn't do 3 or 4 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

I would ask the Speaker how much time remains.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the initial comments by Mr. Sessions and a number of the other Republicans about the bill that is before us--or hopefully will be before us, the FHA Reform Act of 2010, which is a bill that provides more accountability to FHA, saves money, $2.5 billion over 5 years with FHA, and FHA has had to fill a vacuum left by a lot of the subprime lenders that made lousy loans and are now out of business. So it is a substantial agency that helps move housing in America, it is done in a prudent fashion, and the reforms in the bill make it even more prudent.

Now, my friends on the other side want to turn it into a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bill, but that's not what is before us. Apparently, they want to do it because they have a lot of guilt that they didn't do it 5 years ago when we could have saved this country $100 billion or more, but it wasn't done. Even the chairman, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services at that time, wanted to see some reforms, but the Republican Senate and the Republican administration under Mr. Bush didn't want to. And you can't be more descriptive than Mr. Oxley was when he spoke of the reception that the reforms got from the White House when he said we got a one-finger salute. I mean, that's about as descriptive as it gets. They didn't want to reform it. Now they want to reform it, and they want to forget about history.

We're here, though, on the FHA bill. We're here to help turn this economy around. You want to talk about cuts? Well, let's look at Iraq. Let's look at some other things that--there may be savings in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a period of time, there are bigger savings elsewhere, and we should be looking at those things. But we've got to get this country back to work, and that's what Democrats are doing.

Under the Bush administration to January 2009, we lost 780,000 jobs in that month alone. In April of this year, we gained 290,000 jobs, a swing of well over 1 million jobs per month. We've got to get people back to work. We've got to watch spending. But we've got to get the revenue side, and we've got to get people back to work. We've got to help them with their homes. This FHA insurance bill provides a reasonable and prudent insurer to assist with the purchase and sale of homes.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Colorado, for giving me such time as the Republicans may have, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this will be the 31st time that I have handled a rule on this House floor in this Congress, and this is the 31st time that I have yet to handle an open rule. In fact, out of the over 120 rules of this Congress, we have not debated one open rule. Not one open rule this Congress.

I don't believe that closing debate, limiting amendments, and shutting Democrats and Republicans out of thoughtful ideas is a good way to run this House. And I know and you know, and I say this often, that our Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, promised when she told the American people that she would run the most open, honest, and ethical Congress, I don't think she had this in mind, and I know we didn't as Republicans; and I don't think the American people did, not to have one open rule this Congress.

I know we are getting ready to finish this Congress in a couple months. But one would think that when the Speaker spoke those words, she had something in mind other than closed rules or some modified rules. Open, honest, ethical. Not one open rule this Congress.

One thing that I do have the opportunity to say today, however, Madam Speaker, is that the call for a vote on the previous question to allow for this week's YouCut winner will be good. YouCut is the new Republican online voting tool for Americans to pick what wasteful government spending they would like to see cut every week and which should be an agenda on this floor every week.

I admire the majority for finally having a bill that saves the taxpayer money. Don't know how many times that's happened in this Congress or under this Speaker. But what I can tell you is hundreds of thousands of Americans this week have been on the YouCut site, and they came up with lots of answers. So I applaud the Democrat majority for coming up with, finally, a bill which will save taxpayers money.

Additionally, today we are here to discuss an important step in providing the Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known as HUD, with the tools it needs to supervise and monitor the single- family mortgage insurance program run through the Federal Housing Administration, known as FHA. That's what we are here for, and I am glad that this bill is here. Saving money and running the government more efficiently, and providing the tools, is what Congress should be for.

It is necessary to understand why these changes are important. And in my opinion, my colleagues, who really work across party lines, need to do more of this kind of work of helping rather than providing more rules and regulations. The continued importance of protecting the taxpayer is primary and important to people who are paying the taxes. They want to know that there should be more work like this being done in Washington.

As the housing market collapsed over the last 2 years, private lenders have scaled back their activities, with the FHA significantly increasing its share of the single-family mortgage market from less than 5 percent to now more than 30 percent. With higher mortgage share comes increased taxpayer exposure. The elevated levels of delinquencies and foreclosures across this Nation have had a detrimental effect on the financial health of the FHA, which is why reforms in this legislation are an essential piece of fixing and addressing this problem today.

I applaud the gentleman, Mr. Frank, and I applaud the gentlewoman, Mrs. Capito, for working together, for essentially bringing a huge part of Mrs. Capito's bill to the floor today. The taxpayers have already paid their fair share for bailouts and failed stimulus programs, resulting in record debts and record deficits. It's important to bring some stability and to recognize problems before they happen.

H.R. 5072 incorporates a majority of the provisions from my friend, Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito's, legislation, H.R. 4811, the FHA Safety and Soundness and Taxpayer Protection Act. This legislation from Representative Capito provides additional enforcement, the financial and risk assessment tools necessary to adequately administer the program, to detect fraud and abuse, and to strengthen underwriting standards and, perhaps best of all, to protect the taxpayer.

While the legislation is a step in the right direction, it is important to note that the benefits of using government subsidies to promote homeownership to be more balanced against the potential risk of insuring less creditworthiness with borrowers, and exposing the taxpayer to additional risk, is perhaps the best part of this bill. It is extremely important to have proper underwriting, and to ensure that potential home buyers have the appropriate amount of personal funds invested in the transaction to make sure that the housing market does not collapse again.

Madam Speaker, while this legislation is an important step, Congress should do more to protect the taxpayer from having to suffer the consequences of bailouts in another government housing program.

Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey, also on the Financial Services Committee, offered several amendments which were not made in order by the Rules Committee, and so they will not be voted on today on the floor.

These amendments, however, are worthy of speaking about it. They would have protected taxpayers from yet another government bailout as we were setting the rules for the future to say the Federal Government should not be in the bailout business.

My friends on the other side of the aisle once again continued to shut out not just Scott Garrett but taxpayers and people who had ideas, that are called Members of Congress, and not allow a debate on commonsense solutions that save the taxpayer money.

Once again, I applaud the gentleman, Mr. Frank, for bringing this bill to the floor, but we need more and more discussion about how we limit taxpayer exposure.

I believe that Congress and the administration must be extremely cautious and always vigilant in their oversight of this program and others to make certain that the program is adequately capitalized and is run in a safe and sound manner that protects the taxpayer from the need not only for another bailout but wasteful government spending.

Additionally, as the housing market begins to stabilize, we must begin to look for ways to decrease reliance on the Federal Government guarantees and encourage the reentry of private capital and investment in the mortgage market.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) to discuss his ideas on this bill.

Madam Speaker, a couple times ago when I was on the floor and we were doing the rule, we got into this debate about blaming George Bush for everything, and I would simply remind my colleague, as I did that day, I'd pin the tail on the donkey. We know who controls the spending and taxing around here.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the favorite son from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman was forthright that he tried to kill the bill that passed the House, went to the Senate and died, the GSE reform bill. The gentleman did say he voted against it, and he did.

I would also remind the gentleman, today is today, and where's the budget? Where's the budget for the House to vote on? Where's the budget? Deafening silence. We should be doing the budget, the budget where the people of the United States find out what the glide path and direction should be for this country for all this spending. Deafening silence, Madam Speaker. Where's

the leadership there? We were talking about a small FHA bill. How about for the United States, all the spending that's going to happen? So, once again, pin the tail on the donkey.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

If I could answer the gentleman's question, Madam Speaker, of how many more speakers, I've got three or four more speakers.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Charleston, West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), former mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, now a Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wheaton, Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I gather that the gentleman from Colorado is now, by shaking his head, through with other speakers, and I will go ahead and offer my close. And I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's interesting that we blame George Bush, and yet he never got a bill to sign. It's a pretty interesting concept when we blame the President for something that never came to his desk.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to offer commonsense solutions to rein in the current spending spree by our Democratic colleagues. We, like the American people, would like to see some transparency and accountability from our elected leaders.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to vote on the previous question.

The legislation before us today brings some stability to the currently wavering housing market; but Americans are still concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the Democratic agenda, the Democratic agenda of taxing and spending, the Democratic agenda that the three largest political items by this Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and President Barack Obama will lose 10 million American jobs, ten million American jobs that still hang in the balance based upon the whims of this majority party.

Mr. Speaker, I think that increasing deficits, increasing spending, more taxes on business, shrinking job numbers, it's a sad day if we want to look back and blame everything on George Bush, and yet we know why this is happening. For that reason, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question to bring some fiscal sanity and restraint to this body and a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 1178, directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to ensure that cost estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office are available to the public. Shouldn't we be spending our time perhaps having the Budget Committee meet and giving us a budget this year? I mean, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt, whom I hold in

tremendous regard, said a number of years ago when the Republicans were in charge, If you can't set a budget, you can't govern. So instead of us giving meat, we're giving what? I don't know what you would call this? It's not even broth.

While I approve of measures that will help the American people know where their money is being spent, that really is the definition of a budget: a budget is the blueprint. In the mid-1970s, we passed the Budget and Impoundment Act for the purpose, purportedly, of making sure that Congress was required to come up with a blueprint that would guide it. Now, it's supposed to be a concurrent resolution, meaning that both Houses pass it. It doesn't go to the President for a signature, so it's an internal document to this institution, that is, the Congress of the United States. And its purpose is to set out markers that will establish the guidelines for spending for the year.

That's one of the reasons we have a Rules Committee that would be required to give a waiver on a budget if an appropriations bill came here in violation of the budget. Well, we're not going to have that this year because we're not going to have a budget. Maybe what we're going to do is we're going to deem things. Remember that from the health care bill: we're going to deem it passed. And when the American people heard about that, they said, well, you can't do that. And finally the majority fell off on that one. But I suppose that's what we're going to do when we bring appropriation bills to the floor. They're going to be deemed to meet the budget that doesn't exist. So instead of us giving us meat like that, we're going to bring up this bill.

What does it do? What does it do? It requires the Clerk of the House to have on her Web site a link to the CBO analysis. Well, that would be important if they weren't available already, but they're available both through Thomas.gov and the CBO Web site. So I thought maybe it's because the Clerk has some responsibility over the Congressional Budget Office, but that's not the case. If you look at all of the obligations that the Clerk of the House has, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Congressional Budget Office.

So what are we doing here? We're bringing a bill to the floor which pretends, it seems to me, to do something about the budget; and it's nothing more than a distraction. The fact of the matter is we do not have a budget this year; we will not have a budget this year. The majority has said they don't want to bring a budget forward. Now, certain news reports have suggested the reason why we will not have a budget is that it will be too embarrassing for us to bring a budget to the floor, particularly before an election. Now, I don't know whether that's true or not, but that has been cited in the public press.

We've been hearing a lot lately from our friends on the other side about the importance of disclosure. Section 301 of their highly touted DISCLOSE Act requires reporting organizations to post a link from their home page to the page where its financial disclosure information is available; yet in this bill there is no requirement for a CBO link for the House's home page or for the Members' home page or from the committee's home page or for Members who voted for the spending that will impact the budget, but just from the Clerk's. I really don't understand what this is really going to do.

It is telling, while the majority attempts to pass measures like this, we're doing nothing to actually take less of the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people. I was home for the last 10 days in my district, or at least preceding yesterday, and I didn't hear a single person beg me to put a link on the Clerk's Web site for this information. They demanded that we do something about the budget. And when I told them at home we're doing nothing about the budget because the majority has decided we're not even going to bring a budget up-- this will be the first time since we passed that law in the seventies that the House has not passed a budget. Now I hear them say, When the Republicans were in charge we didn't have a budget. That is true. Sometimes the Senate and the House weren't able to reconcile it, but we always passed a budget document from the House of Representatives.

So we will be making history this year: no budget for the American people. But they can get on a link and they can go to CBO and they can find out what it costs for a particular bill, but they can't tell whether it's in the budget or not because we don't have a budget. We don't even have to have budget waivers this year from the Rules Committee because there's nothing to waive. Where are the points of order against excessive spending? That's what this House is built on, rules that are supposed to protect the taxpayer. We now are exempting ourselves from our own rules.

When I go home, people say, Why doesn't Congress work under the same rules that the rest of the world works under? And I have to agree with them. Now, when I go back to my district and I talk to folks, they talk about the budget for their household. I met with a number of small business people, all the way from a small community in my district called Copperopolis, which celebrated its 150th anniversary, to Folsom, where we celebrated the 150th reenactment of the Pony Express-- actually, they may have the Pony Express there, they also have Intel there--down to Citrus Heights in my district, talking to people all the time, and they kept saying, Why are you taxing so much? Why are you spending so much? Why are you busting the budget? Why are you putting all of this heavy debt burden on our kids? And I said, Those are the same questions I'm asking. When I go back, I'll ask them again. So I'm asking right here, Why are we doing it? And instead of us getting serious, we're going to have this: give you a link to the Clerk's office so that somehow you can find the estimate that's already available on two other Web sites.

Now, what are we doing? Have we run out of post offices to name? We have rid the world of the scourge of unnamed post offices in this Congress, and now maybe we're going to start going link by link by link by link. I've been in this Congress for a number of years. I didn't realize it took us to pass a resolution to allow the Clerk to do this. Maybe that's something we have to do from now on.

Madam Speaker, instead of wasting the time of this House, maybe we should actually lower the cost estimates produced by the CBO. That would be a good thing; we'll actually take an effort to try and lower them. But the first way you do that is adopt a budget where you debate it and we come to the floor and we say this is what we can afford and this is what we can't afford. We're not even doing that.

It would be irresponsible for any family in my district to not have a budget. It would be irresponsible for any business in my district to not have a budget. It would be irresponsible for any local government in my district to not have a budget, yet we don't have a budget. So instead of dealing with that, we are here dealing with this bill.

I don't question the gentleman's sincerity in offering this bill. I don't suggest he doesn't want more transparency. But, frankly, transparency over a system that doesn't have the essential foundation of a budget is really a wisp in the wind.

Madam Speaker, I reluctantly oppose this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman said. However, the CBO scores are already linked for the public to view through Thomas.gov as well as a large number of other House, Senate, and other private Web sites.

To find out how many, we went and we did a Google search. It reveals over 1,180 Web sites which link to the CBO home page. 1,180 Web sites are already linked to the CBO home page. In addition, the estimates are already publicly available on the CBO Web site, so adding a link there from the Clerk's Web page doesn't make it any more available than it already is.

Again, I would just say this: When I was home, not a single person said the way to solve the problem is to put a link on the Clerk's Web site to the CBO estimates that are already available on 1,180 Web sites. What people back home said is, Get a grip on reality. Stop spending too much. Stop taxing too much. Stop putting us into debt--and for God's sake, can't you at least spend time coming up with a budget?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

If the gentleman would yield, frankly, I don't know. That has not been presented to us at all.

If the gentleman has no more speakers, I will yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again, the point is that there are 1,180 Web sites already linking to the CBO. If anything would add to the frustration of the American people, it would be in response to their complaint that we are spending too much, taxing too much, putting them in too much debt, and we don't even have a budget, but we're going to give them a link. Maybe Patrick Henry said, ``Give me a link or give me death,'' or something like that. I don't know.

All I'm saying is we almost make ourselves silly here. I know that's not the intent of the gentleman, and I wouldn't suggest so, but back home, this would be considered laughable.

With that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

My good friend is absolutely right. We're here today to talk about the reform of FHA and to really give relief to the borrowers who will have the ability to see the current cap on mortgage insurance premiums increase and generally give opportunity for Americans to make whole and make good on the home buyers market to get back into the market.

The sub-prime debacle, the whole foreclosure devastation, tragedy happened on the last administration's clock, the Republican administration's clock. So I wonder now when we stand here to try to help new home buyers get into the market, work with the real estate industry, and make people whole, there seems to be an opposition.

The whole GSE reform was something that could have been done under the last administration's clock, but they wanted to take a sledge hammer and axe and destroy the opportunity for individuals to be able to access the kind of moneys and resources so you could get into a home.

I support this legislation, H.R. 5072, the FHA Reform Act, because what it will do is to give Americans back their wealth again, allow them to buy homes, give them the insurance premiums that they need, and to get us back on track. This is the right direction. Let's keep going forward to help America stay strong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5072--``FHA Reform Act of 2010''. The Chair of the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, Chairwoman Maxine Waters of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, and the co-sponsors of this bill must be applauded for moving this important legislation to the floor. This legislation amends the National Housing Act to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to increase the maximum annual premium payments for mortgage insurance, and makes the charging of the premiums discretionary instead of mandatory.

The Federal Housing Administration, FHA, has its origins in the post- depression era. However, in the last several years, FHA has been a major force in breathing life into the depressed housing market. With 51 percent of African Americans homebuyers and 45 percent of Hispanic families who purchased homes in 2008, using FHA financing, FHA is far and away the leader in helping minorities purchase and maintain their homes.

Subprime mortgage loans, which were at the heart of the housing crisis, were disproportionately made to blacks and other minorities. For example, Wells Fargo loan officers described the high interest rate mortgages targeted at Black homeowners as ``ghetto loans,'' an unacceptable and terribly offensive reference. As a result, a disproportionate number of blacks and minorities have been forced into foreclosure. In predominantly Black neighborhoods, 1 in every 8 loans dispersed by the large lender, Wells Fargo, resulted in foreclosure, while in predominantly White neighborhoods, only 1 of every 59 Wells Fargo loans resulted in foreclosure.

With the increase in foreclosures, foreclosure rescue and loan modification scams have been on the rise. The Internet has been flooded with schemes by fraudulent organizations and individuals who are charging fees for counseling services, a service that HUD provides free of charge. Some of these scams go as far as to require homeowners to sign over or transfer the deeds to their homes, and many are simply absconding with the mortgage payments that homeowners are struggling to make.

Something must be done to protect these hard working Americans, who are already facing financial distress and the potential loss of their home, from these predatory schemes. The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was implemented just over a year ago to aide homeowners in modifying their loans as opposed to turning to these fraudulent schemes. Unfortunately, the program has been unable to keep pace with the quickening pace of foreclosures.

In 2010, over 40 years since the Federal Housing Administration was established, FHA is playing an increasingly important role in stabilizing economically disadvantaged communities, while providing assistance to families across a wide-range of incomes. As John Taylor testified before the Financial Services Subcommittee Housing and Community Opportunity, ``research by Dan Immergluck shows that FHA lending is more likely in communities experiencing high unemployment, smaller metropolitan areas, metropolitan areas experiencing large home price declines, and Zip codes with lower median home values. In other words, FHA lending has increased while conventional lending has decreased in communities hardest hit by the current severe recession.''

Despite this, more must be done to protect home owners and enable prospective homebuyers. This reform bill is a vital step toward that end. Section 4 of this legislation authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to terminate approval of a mortgagee to originate or underwrite single family mortgages if the mortgagee's rate of early defaults and claims is excessive. This will help to reverse the damage caused by predatory lending, and help families keep their homes. This will have a ripple effect throughout countless cities because entire neighborhoods are currently at risk of being abandoned due to foreclosures. Saving these neighborhoods will keep communities intact, and will preserve neighborhoods for revitalization that is vital to the nation's economic recovery efforts.

Section 14 of this legislation authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to reimburse servicers of HUD-insured residential mortgages for the costs of obtaining the services of specified independent third parties, including a HUD-approved housing counseling agency, to make in-person contact, at no charge, with mortgagors whose payments are 60 or more days past due, solely to provide information regarding: (1) HUD-approved housing counseling agencies; and (2) mortgage loan modification, refinance, and assistance programs. During these trying economic times, this HUD-approved counseling must be a vital tool for families at risk of defaulting on their mortgagees, as they decide on the best financial course of action at no cost to them.

It is my hope that this legislation will help to enable these disadvantaged groups, as well as struggling homeowners to retain their homes if they own one, or to buy homes for the first time if they do not. As Graciela Aponte of the National Council of La Raza testified before the Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, ``communities of color, low-income families, and first time homebuyers--FHA's target market--have been disproportionally impacted by the toxic subprime mortgages on the housing market.''

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the FHA Reform Act of 2010, H.R. 5072. Legislation this important to the American homeowner and to our economy must be passed immediately.