Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 269 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 269 provides for a modified open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1216, which amends the Public Health Service Act to convert funding for graduate medical education in qualified teaching health centers from mandatory spending to an authorization of appropriations; H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act; and same-day consideration of a rule to consider extending certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. Mr. Speaker, this is the seventh modified open rule that the House Republican majority has offered this Congress, compared to the liberal Democrats' one modified open rule during the entire 111th Congress.

The first underlying bill today, H.R. 1216, continues the fulfillment of the Republican Pledge to America and illustrates that once again Republicans are keeping our promises to the American people to cut Federal spending. The American people want transparency of Washington's spending of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. In an act of gross irresponsibility, the Federal Government is spending $1 out of $4 of gross domestic product.

We hear the term ``Federal money'' as though it is manna from heaven. Let me dispel that misconception, Mr. Speaker. The Federal Government has only the money it takes away from hardworking American families through taxes or the money it borrows. As a Nation, we are currently borrowing 43 cents for every dollar spent at the Federal level.

Some argue that to balance the Federal Government and pay down our debt, we should raise taxes. As a fiscal conservative, I have to disagree. Raising taxes on hardworking Americans and job creators is simply a way to pass the blame. We must rein in out-of-control Washington spending and put an end to it. The American people are sick and tired of reckless government spending and Washington's disregard for basic budgeting principles of living within its means. This is one of the many reasons I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill before us today, Mr. Speaker.

H.R. 1216 restores congressional oversight to Federal spending by ending the autopilot spending for physician residency programs at teaching health centers and restoring it to the annual appropriations process. When a program is put on autopilot, Congress abdicates its authority to unelected bureaucrats and takes a hands-off approach. House Republicans are committed to ending that approach to Federal spending and ensuring that government programs are accountable for how they are spending money. No longer will we accept politically popular excuses. Each program must prove that it is a wise steward of taxpayer dollars. If Congress will not address out-of-control spending now, we are passing the buck to our children and grandchildren.

Therefore, I commend my Republican colleagues at the House Energy and Commerce Committee for seeking to end mandatory or autopilot funding for programs in the liberal Democrats' government takeover of health care. Because the liberal elites knew their government takeover of health care was unpopular and would likely have consequences at the ballot box, they included $105 billion in mandatory taxpayer spending in the law itself to protect their favorite programs.

Let me take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to explain the difference between discretionary and mandatory government spending. Discretionary spending is appropriated by Congress annually and, therefore, subject to congressional oversight and review. Discretionary spending allows Members of Congress the opportunity to be wise stewards of the taxpayers' money by not funding ineffective or duplicative programs. On the contrary, mandatory spending operates irrespective of congressional appropriations and must be spent whether we have the money or not. The most recognized mandatory spending programs are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security which operate on autopilot and have not been subject to congressional oversight from year to year as funds automatically stream from the Treasury to anyone who qualifies for a particular benefit.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the liberal elites in Washington chose to hastily ram through their government takeover of health care with no regard for the staunch opposition of the American people. The audacity of an elected official or, worse, an unelected bureaucrat basically saying to a taxpayer that he or she knows how to spend the taxpayer's money better than the individual taxpayer is appalling. That is what the ruling liberal elites in Washington did when they chose to forgo the annual appropriations, also known as oversight, process by putting their favorite programs on autopilot under ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, it is my firm belief that Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. During committee consideration of the underlying bill, my Republican colleagues rightly pointed out that the liberal Democrats in control last Congress put the funding for residencies at teaching health centers on autopilot but left residency programs at children's hospitals to fend for themselves in the annual appropriations process. In fact, President Obama's FY 2012 budget proposes eliminating funding for residency programs at children's hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to understand why residencies at teaching health centers should receive special treatment. Why were these residency programs protected while others languished and were eventually proposed to be eliminated?

This is a classic example of Washington bureaucrats deciding which programs will win and which will lose. As I said earlier, every program should be properly scrutinized by Congress

through the appropriations process and be accountable for how it is spending taxpayer money. While this accountability should always be important, it's even more critical because we're facing the third straight year of trillion dollar deficits. This fiscal year our deficit will be $1.6 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, remember the figure I mentioned earlier about our Nation's borrowing habits? We're borrowing 43 cents of every dollar the Federal Government spends. This translates to a national debt that has now reached more than $14 trillion and has gotten the attention of the American people. If you're having a hard time visualizing $14 trillion, let me put it this way: If America was required to pay back its national debt right now, each citizen--man, woman, and child--would owe more than $46,000.

The simple truth is that we have a spending crisis in this town due in large part to mandatory spending that operates on autopilot. House Republicans are committed to bringing government spending under control, and we're continuing to build on our Pledge to America by restoring congressional oversight and accountability for government programs.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bills.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for bringing up some issues that need to be responded to.

First of all, let me say he says that we plan to repeal Medicare. It was the

Democrats who, in voting for the health care act that took over health care in this country to the Federal Government, who cut $500 billion from Medicare--a half a trillion dollars. Republicans have made no recommendations to cut Medicare at all. Only the Democrats have voted to do that. Not Republicans.

Republicans want to save Medicare, Mr. Speaker. That is what we are doing. We're recommending that we save Medicare for the future. The Democrats are the only ones who want to repeal Medicare by cutting that money from it.

Let me mention a couple of other things that my colleague has spoken about in terms of underlying bills.

In terms of the Patriot Act, I believe it is the Attorney General, the Democrat Attorney General, Mr. Holder, who has recommended not only that the Patriot Act be renewed, but that all three of these provisions be made permanent. It is coming from that side of the aisle that they want the Patriot Act renewed. So their President is pushing for this.

In terms of borrowing for the war, Mr. Speaker, you know, it is the Federal Government and only the Federal Government that provides for the national defense of this country. That is why we have a Federal Government, Mr. Speaker. It's why we became the United States. No other branch of government can provide for our national security. Every other branch of government, however, can handle health care, can handle education, can handle many of the things that the Federal Government has gotten itself into that it has no business being involved in. So if we had to borrow money, we wouldn't be borrowing money if we weren't in these other things. We would have ample resources to provide for the national defense.

But I would also like to point out to my colleague from Massachusetts that it was a Democratic President who took us into a third war, with no authorization from the Congress. And it is not the Republicans who are creating this problem.

Mr. Speaker, the second bill made in order under this rule is H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend we will all pause to observe Memorial Day, as we should. As we debate this very important bill, we need to keep in mind the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families. We also need to keep in mind those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of all of our freedoms, including this process of freely debating our laws and the idea of the role of government. We could not be here today without the sacrifices of those who served in the military and kept us a free people. I hope that's what everyone keeps on their mind this weekend when they celebrate Memorial Day.

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, ``The operations of the Federal Government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger.'' Our Founding Fathers had a clear view that the primary and central job of the Federal Government was to ``provide for the common defense.'' Providing for the common defense is the mandate of our Constitution. It's not an issue that should divide us in partisan rancor, but unite us as a country that supports our military and provides them with the tools to do their very important job.

One need not look too far back in history to find words that remind us of our responsibility to provide for the common defense. President Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, promised to ``check and reverse the growth of government,'' but also to ``maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we will have the best chance of never having to use that strength.'' That message, Mr. Speaker, still holds true today.

Not only does this bill ensure that our troops are properly equipped, but it also provides the men and women of the military and their families with the resources and support they need, deserve, and have earned. The fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act takes a detailed approach to ensuring that the investments in our national security are in line with our fiscal priorities and realities.

The bill has a clear mandate of fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability within the Department of Defense. It also provides incentives to have competition for every taxpayer dollar associated with funding of defense requirements. The bill addresses a wide range of recent policy changes at the Department of Defense, including the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; reaffirming the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects one man-one woman marriage; as well as ensuring that our military is properly equipped, trained, and staffed for any future threats to our national security.

Just as our men and women in uniform stand ready to defend our country, Congress must also tackle the fiscal crisis facing our Nation. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, is more dangerous to our national security than the crushing debt that our country is in. Many of my colleagues have come to the floor warning that the sky was going to fall and Armageddon would be upon us if we did not raise the debt ceiling. Well, last week we hit the debt ceiling, and guess what? The sky is still up there and we are paying our bills.

History shows that in 1985, 1995, and 2002, Congress delayed raising the debt ceiling for months without an Armageddon-like economic meltdown. Our intent on this side of the aisle is to pay down the debt with fiscally disciplined and responsible budgets that reduce deficit spending. With a system like that in place, there will be no need to continue to raise the debt ceiling and create further financial burdens that could cost each American over $40,000. Imagine a better American future. Imagine what Americans can achieve if we are freed from Washington's debt burden.

On March 16, 2006, a young Senator took the floor in the United States Senate and said, ``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It's a sign we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policy.'' Mr. Speaker, that Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling, and that Senator was Barack Obama, our current President. As far as that statement goes, I agree with the President that our dependency on foreign funds is reckless and a danger to our national security.

Just as dangerous is the failure to achieve energy security. Republicans strongly believe that energy security depends on domestic energy production. Our friends, the liberal Democrats and President Obama, have actively blocked and delayed American energy production, destroying jobs, raising energy prices, and making the U.S. more reliant on unstable foreign countries for energy. This is hurting American families and small businesses, who are vital to creating the new private sector jobs we so desperately need during this time of high unemployment.

The liberal proposals fail to create jobs in America but help create jobs overseas for the citizens of foreign nations. We need policies that allow us to take advantage of our natural resources and our innovative culture to develop new sources of energy and create jobs here at home.

To date, the Obama administration has pursued an anti-energy agenda, rife with policies that block domestic energy production and destroy jobs. The consequences of this agenda are dire. In the short term, it fuels a rise in gas prices and costs for consumers, and in the long term it limits innovation and stifles economic growth and job creation.

Mr. Speaker, we need to approve this rule which we are debating and the underlying bills so that we can stop the funding of abortions and so that we can fund our military. And we need to look at the other policies that are being promoted by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the White House to see that we can become more secure as a Nation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I need to point out to my colleague from Massachusetts, as I do almost every time that we are on the floor together, and I do enjoy being on the floor with him, that he always brings up the fact that we had a surplus when President Clinton left office. Well, the reason we had a surplus, Mr. Speaker, when President Clinton left office had nothing to do with President Clinton. It had all to do with the fact that we had Republicans in charge of the Congress.

And just before the Democrats took over the Congress in 2007, as my colleague from Massachusetts so well knows, the CBO projected that there would be a surplus in the United States. However, the Democrats took over in January of 2007 and immediately we began running deficits because of their profligate spending.

I would also like to point out to my colleague from Massachusetts, as he so well knows, that the Democrats who are in control of the Senate held a vote last week on whether or not to change the Tax Code in order to disallow incentives that are given to the oil companies for securing oil for this country. And as he knows, again, it's controlled by the Democrats. It was turned down by the Senate.

So I would like to point out to him that Republicans are not responsible for the deficit and Republicans are not responsible for denying legal tax exemptions to oil companies. It is the Democrats who are responsible for that.

I will allow my colleague to make comments, but I won't allow him to rewrite history.

Mr. Speaker, we have great political unrest in the Middle East, and the growing demand from China threatens our ability to secure long-term reserves of oil from foreign entities. That's why we must pursue an alternative energy policy in this country, one that puts to use our domestic supplies and technologies.

Republicans are going to continue to pursue an all-of-the-above energy plan aimed at increasing our domestic production to bring down energy prices while creating jobs here at home and ending our dependence on foreign sources of oil.

What that means, Mr. Speaker, is we believe in conservation, we believe in alternatives, but we also believe in using the resources that the good Lord gave us here in this country which are being denied to the American people by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, American families cannot wait any longer for relief at the pump. American families cannot wait any longer for increased jobs.

As we head back to our districts for the Memorial Day holiday, it's fitting that we should all give thanks to those who have given their lives in defense of the freedom that we very much cherish. Every day, courageous young men and women from all over America volunteer to serve our country in the military. They do not join for the great pay, luxurious lifestyle and swanky accommodations. They join the military and serve with dignity and honor because they love this country and they love what we stand for. They serve a much higher purpose than themselves. What our troops provide for us can be summarized in one word: America.

We need now to all come together as supporters of the young men and women of the Armed Forces and their families as proud Americans and provide them with the tools and resources that these brave volunteers deserve, which is why my colleagues and I all need to vote for the underlying bill, the Defense authorization bill.

But we also need to vote for the rule, which is going to allow for almost an unlimited number of amendments to be offered, Mr. Speaker, unlike what our colleagues did when they were in charge in the 110th and 111th Congresses.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I want to bring our attention to the upcoming Memorial Day because we are going to be honoring the fallen and praise their service and sacrifice. We need to remember the families of the fallen and reassure them that their sacrifice and the life of that hero was not lost in vain. We are also very proud of our troops who are currently serving, and we want to make sure that they get that message from us in this body, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to point out to my colleague from Massachusetts that the unemployment rate was 5 percent when they took over the Congress, or approximately 5 percent when they took over Congress in January 2007. Under their control and President Obama's, it reached 10 percent, and has stayed at around 9 percent while they were in control. So I want to again make it clear that we have worked hard to make the economy work again, and we are going to continue that.

Mr. Speaker, although I have said it also before, it bears repeating: Americans are sick and tired of reckless government spending, creating only government jobs which hurts our overall economy and creates high unemployment. Americans are deeply concerned about the outrageous level of Federal debt. Our constituents are concerned about the piece of our economy that is now owned by other countries like China. They are very concerned about the fact that so much of our tax dollars, the tax dollars they pay, go toward paying interest on the debt instead of using it for the country's immediate needs.

Mr. Speaker, that is why Americans are looking at the new House Republican majority for real answers to their concerns. After 4 years of a complete lack of leadership in Congress under the Democrats, we have rolled up our sleeves and are making the tough decisions to get our economy and fiscal house back in shape. The Federal Government must learn to live within its means and be accountable for how it spends taxpayer money.

House Republicans are continuing to fulfill our pledge to America and keep the promises we made to the American people before the election last November. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of congressional oversight and against special interests by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bills.

The material referred to previously by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 269 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

964) to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and

other fuels, and for other purposes. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of

order against consideration of the bill are waived. General

debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion

of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee

shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the

Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to

no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day

the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the

Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 4 of this

resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina and my friend, Dr. Foxx, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for the consideration of H.R. 1216, the Graduate Medical Education Direct Spending Repeal Act, and general debate for H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, and this rule also allows for a martial law consideration of the reauthorization of the Patriot Act sometime this week.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this is a disappointing rule. While I have no problem with a rule providing for general debate for the Defense authorization bill, it is disappointing that this rule also includes these two other provisions--especially the martial law rule.

Let me begin with H.R. 1216. This bill is simple--it's another chance for the Republicans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. It's one more part of their repeal agenda.

The funny thing is, Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to push their repeal agenda, but they haven't put any plan forward to replace these new health care provisions that we passed. The truth is that the Republicans are not only trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they are also trying to repeal Medicare. This is outrageous. The American people do not want the House Republicans to dismantle Medicare.

The Affordable Care Act, Mr. Speaker, provides dedicated funding for the training of family doctors through graduate medical education programs at teaching health centers. The Republicans, while they claim they support doctors and training programs, don't believe in this dedicated funding. This bill not only rescinds the direct funding for these programs, it reduces the authorization by nearly $50 million.

Now, everyone knows there is a shortage of primary care physicians in this country. Why, then, do Republicans want to undercut efforts to bring physicians into areas of desperate need?

Making these funds discretionary will jeopardize the 11 programs currently underway across the country--including one program in my home State of Massachusetts. Making these funds discretionary does nothing to help our constituents who are struggling to obtain primary care. Making this program discretionary will deter other entities from making business decisions necessary to expand residency training--decisions like securing commitments from key stakeholders to agree to train new or additional residents, applying for accreditation if not already eligible, and hiring new faculty with funding over the next few years.

Finally, claims that this bill saves hundreds of millions of dollars are just not true. Republicans may claim that this bill will cut nearly $200 million from the deficit, but that's only true if Congress provides no funding for this program. CBO--the nonpartisan budget arbiter that Republicans frequently ignore--estimates that $184 million will be appropriated over 5 years, meaning only $11 million will be saved by H.R. 1216. So claims of this incredible fiscal austerity are simply not true.

Now, a second part of this rule is the martial law portion for same- day consideration of the Patriot Act extension. The Senate is currently debating this reauthorization, and the Republicans feel it necessary to once again jam this bill through this House as soon as the Senate is done with it. This is no way to debate legislation dealing with our homeland security and basic civil rights and civil liberties. This is an important issue. Members need time to be able to understand all of the implications of the Patriot Act.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me say just a few words about the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act which we will begin general debate on later today.

All Members of this House are strongly committed to protecting our national security--regardless of party, region, or political point of view. It has been the tradition of the House Armed Services Committee, at the staff and Member level, to work in a bipartisan way to carefully craft the annual defense authorizations bill, and I recognize Chairman Buck McKeon and Ranking Member Adam Smith for continuing that collegiality.

But given such a tradition, it comes as a surprise to see so many provisions in H.R. 1540 that attempt to repudiate and attack several of the President's national security policies. From warehousing low-level detainees for an indeterminate amount of time, to delaying the implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to hamstringing the implementation of the bipartisan-supported New START Treaty, to seeking a so-called updated authorization for the use of military force that no longer references the devastating 9/11 attacks against America, but instead gives broad authority to the executive branch to pursue military operations anywhere for any length of time--such changes have all the appearance of a partisan agenda.

This afternoon, the Rules Committee will be reviewing many of the amendments on these and other issues, and I hope that they will be made in order so that a broad range of issues and recommendations might be considered and voted upon by this body.

Now, a number of those amendments will deal with the future of our policy and military operations in Afghanistan.

As most of my colleagues know, I believe that we need to rethink our strategy in Afghanistan. It is bankrupting our Nation. The gentlelady from North Carolina talks about the deficit. I will remind her and others that we are borrowing to pay for the war in Afghanistan. We are borrowing approximately $8.2 billion a month. That's billion with a ``b.''

So if we're going to get serious about deficit reduction, we either need to end these wars--which I think we should do--or if you support them, you ought to pay for them.

This war has already demanded the lives of 1,573 of our service men and women and gravely wounded tens of thousands of our troops. And right now, there is no true end in sight.

The death of Osama bin Laden creates an opportunity for us to reexamine our policy in Afghanistan and ask the President exactly how and when he will bring the last troops home to their families and their communities.

The death of bin Laden provides us with a moment to commend our intelligence and uniformed men and women, and it also allows us to bring fresh eyes to what kind of defense budget and priorities best fit the needs of our Nation and our national security, especially in these difficult economic times.

I hope that the Rules Committee will embrace such a debate, allow a broad range of amendments to be made in order, and support a fresh and critical examination of the policies and priorities put forward in H.R. 1540.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I feel I need to clarify the record on a couple of things.

My friend from North Carolina said that the Republicans want to protect Medicare. I would suggest that she read the bill that she voted for and other Republicans voted for, the so-called

Ryan budget. The way they protect Medicare is by destroying it. They turn it into a voucher system. And it will mean seniors will pay more and they will get less protection. It is outrageous what they're proposing. And more and more Americans are reading the bill, and they are outraged by what they are seeing.

Democrats, and I hope some thoughtful Republicans, will stand firm and protect Medicare. It is the most important, successful program in our history, along with Social Security. And efforts to dismantle it and to put more burden on our senior citizens for their health care, and basically a major giveaway to the insurance companies, is not protecting Medicare.

The gentlelady talks about the reckless spending in Washington. I will remind all of my colleagues that when Bill Clinton left office, we didn't have a deficit; we were paying down our debt. There was a detailed article in The Washington Post not too long ago explaining how we went from no deficit to now a huge deficit. It includes tax giveaways to the wealthiest people in this country that were not paid for, you know.

I find it somewhat sad that one of the first things that was done in terms of addressing some of our economic concerns was to protect the tax cuts for people like Donald Trump but then to go in and cut emergency fuel assistance for poor people and to go after food and nutrition programs and Pell Grants. That's not the way we should be balancing the budget.

But The Washington Post talks about these tax cuts for the wealthy that were not paid for; on top of that, two wars that were not paid for. Now, I am against these wars; but if you are for them, you ought to pay for them. That's the way we have done it throughout our history. World War II, we paid for it. There was a war tax. We had war bonds. The Vietnam War was paid for in part by eroding Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It was paid for. But now we have these wars that are not paid for, $8.2 billion a month in Afghanistan alone.

So I hope this is not a partisan agenda when we talk about the war in Afghanistan, and I am not here to put the blame on one party or another. I hope that we can have these amendments on the floor and have some thoughtful discussion about ways we could bring this war to an end. I think Democrats, and I know a lot of Republicans, feel that we should bring this war to an end.

In terms of energy policy, I think people are horrified that we continue to protect taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil companies while they are gouging us at the gas pump. It is unbelievable that we can't have a debate on this floor about taking away these taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil that are making record profits. So I hope that we will talk a little bit more about that at the end of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

The late great Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And the fact is, Mr. Speaker, when this record surplus was turned into a record deficit, I will remind the gentlelady that the Republicans controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, and they controlled the White House. And that is when we passed these tax cuts for the richest people in the world, and they were not paid for. And that is when we embarked on two wars that were not paid for.

It appears that the gentlelady wants to continue these wars. I want to end them. But if you're going to continue them, then pay for them, because it is not fair to the men and women who are sacrificing their lives and the men and women who are in harm's way and their families to just accumulate all this debt and pass it on to them, their children and their grandchildren. If we are going to go to war, we all ought to take some responsibility.

And, finally, on the issue of the taxpayer subsidies for oil companies, we have not had a debate on this House floor or a vote on this House floor on this. I don't care what the Senate did or did not do. I'm not a Member of the United States Senate. I'm a Member of the United States House of Representatives. And under this new and open process that we were promised, by the way, not a single open rule yet-- not a single open rule--but under this new and open process, we can't bring an amendment to the floor to be able to debate this issue.

So I would respectfully suggest that maybe my colleague from North Carolina and the Rules Committee will once in a while vote for an open rule so we can bring some of these things to the floor.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

May I ask how much time I have remaining, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the efforts of my colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop). And let me just say the American people are sending a clear message to Republicans: Show us the jobs. After 140 days of the new GOP majority, they keep pursuing their agenda that destroys jobs and stalls our economic growth.

This week is no different. And today, Republicans are only making matters worse, voting to kill graduate medical education in qualified teaching health care centers.

The previous question, as Mr. Bishop referred to it, is based on H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. And it takes a stand for working families facing tough times and paying so much more at the pump. During an international oil crisis, as declared by the President, this legislation makes it illegal to sell gasoline at excessive prices and prevents Big Oil from taking advantage of consumers and engaging in price gouging.

The cost of a barrel of oil and a gallon of gas has reached their highest level in years, with no end in sight, and America's middle class is paying the price.

Republicans must join with Democrats to oppose price gouging and to ease the burden on our middle class. We must work together to create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and responsibly reduce the deficit.

To help consumers at the pump and provide some relief to small businesses and families struggling with high gas prices, this legislation expands the authority of the President to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to combat market manipulation and bring down the price, and makes it a Federal crime to sell gasoline at excessive prices.

The legislation also protects taxpayers, holds Big Oil accountable, repeals the largest tax breaks for the Big Five Oil companies, and ensures that oil companies pay billions of dollars owed to taxpayers for drilling on public lands. This is part of our multifaceted effort to lower the price of gas now, bring relief to consumers and taxpayers, strengthen our energy security, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and hold Big Oil accountable.

Republicans' ``drill-only, oil above all'' plan is really a boon for Big Oil and does nothing to reduce the pain at the pump for America's middle class families who are facing these prices each and every day. Republicans are simply returning to the Bush policies for Big Oil-- continuing to purse ``drill-only'' policies with fewer safeguards and no accountability, that has us sending a billion dollars a day overseas for foreign oil.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act introduced by Representative Tim Bishop of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that actually addresses the price of gas. I have tried, Mr. Speaker, on numerous times in the Rules Committee to bring responsible amendments to the floor that would get at this issue of taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil companies, and every single time my Republicans friends have voted ``no.'' Every time there has been an opportunity to try to address this issue, they have voted ``no.''

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, now more than ever it's critical that we focus our efforts on creating jobs, continuing to stabilize our economy and the housing market, and I am happy to say there's some good news on that front.

Just last month, Mr. Speaker, it was reported that we added 192,000 jobs and that unemployment dipped below 9 percent for the first time in almost 2 years. We're talking about private sector jobs. This was due in part to the recovery efforts that were passed in the 111th Congress and signed by the President.

Now, however, instead of building on the successes of the previous Congress and introducing legislation to continue this economic growth, my colleagues are seeking to pull the plug and return us to policies that got us into this economic mess. Instead of talking about on the floor of the House creating jobs, the Republican leadership is focused on repealing the Patient Bill of Rights; passing H.R. 1, a spending bill that Chairman Bernanke stated will kill 200,000 jobs over the next 2 years; and now removing critical support for homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgages in this tough economic time.

H.R. 830 is more of the same. At a time when housing markets are beginning to show signs of life, signs of recovery, my Republican colleagues want to eliminate programs that keep families in their homes and protect communities from the crippling consequences of foreclosures.

Democrats want to empower homeowners to get their debts under control, not undermine our economic recovery for political gain. It's critical to preserve the American Dream by keeping families in their homes and out of shelters and unemployment lines, and preserving the integrity of neighborhoods that suffer when homes are foreclosed upon.

Repealing the FHA refinance program would empower collection agencies and municipal eviction squads rather than empower hardworking American families who are suffering in this difficult economic climate or are victims of lenders that created financial products through the housing crisis that led to reckless lending.

The bill we have before us today would be harmful to middle class families who are struggling to stay in their homes. Middle class Americans hurt by this bill are exactly the people we should be protecting in this Congress as we start to build a stronger and more stable economic future for our country. Instead, we saw that this House has raised their taxes with the passage of H.R. 4, and now the Republicans are threatening to remove working families from their homes.

Mr. Speaker, we do all agree that this Nation needs to get its fiscal house in order and resolve the housing crisis. But this bill, an outright repeal of the FHA program, is not the right approach. A strong rebound in the housing market is critical to our economic recovery, creating jobs and ensuring that our banks remain stable.

A good indication of the housing market is the amount of delinquencies or the number of mortgages that are at least 30 days late on their payment. According to Jay Brinkmann, the chief economist for the Mortgage Bankers Association, the latest delinquency numbers represent significant across-the-board decreases in mortgage delinquency rates in the U.S. More importantly, loans that are past due by 90 days or more fell 28 percent.

It's clear that through programs like the FHA short refinance option, which the Republicans are trying to eliminate, we have begun to stabilize the housing market while helping Americans pay their mortgages and stay in their homes. These numbers coincide with signs of a recovery in the job market, and now is not the time to abandon the program.

The FHA refinance program allows people who have mortgages that are worth more than their homes to refinance to a more affordable FHA- insured mortgage. This program allows lenders to write down at least 10 percent of the outstanding principal to help bring monthly payments down to affordable levels. According to CoreLogic, in December of last year, about 22\1/2\ percent of all residential properties with mortgages were underwater. We are no stranger to that in Colorado. Many homes in Adams County and Boulder County are underwater. These distressed mortgages pose a threat to our economy and the integrity of the banking system. We can't risk another housing crisis and banking crisis by removing programs that help keep families in their homes and keep the homes out of foreclosure.

My friends on the other side of the aisle will argue that this program has fallen short of its original goals. I

agree that this program is not perfect. Instead of scrapping it entirely, we should work to strengthen it, build on success, and figure out how best to resolve the housing crisis this Nation faces. We need to mend it, not end it.

Until just recently, many homeowners weren't even able to partake in this program. Borrowers had difficulty finding banks that had the capacity to refinance under the stringent guidelines of this program. But recently, we've had some good news. Two major banks who underwrite many loans in Colorado, Wells Fargo and Allied Financial, announced pilot projects that would allow underwater borrowers to refinance under this FHA program. By adding these two giants to the mix, the FHA Refinance Program will begin to grow and prosper while it continues to add more banks and increase accessibility. Terminating this project now would result in many families losing their homes and would be a tragic mistake.

Mr. Speaker, banks support this program; homeowners support this program. It's critical that we all allow this program the chance to succeed, rather than make arbitrary budget cuts rather than help struggling families.

This program does not bail out individuals who made mistakes, who made poor decisions, who bought houses they couldn't afford or are looking for a way out of foreclosure. It's not a program to protect vacation homes or mega-mansions. It's not a free line of credit for anybody. This program is a helping hand to the many hardworking Americans who are in a difficult spot, individuals with good credit scores who can help themselves and the banks who hold their mortgages by participating in this program.

In my home State of Colorado, almost 20 percent of all homes were in negative equity. This means about 220,000 families in Colorado are stuck with mortgages that are worth more than their homes. According to The New York Times, ending this program would squander an important chance to prevent foreclosures. In addition, Mark Fleming, the chief economist at CoreLogic, stated, ``Negative equity is a primary factor holding back the housing market and broader economy.'' With so many families underwater, it would be irresponsible of us to eliminate this program and unnecessarily put more Americans at risk of foreclosure.

Mr. Speaker, to date, not a single mortgage that has been refinanced through this program has gone into default. The majority of costs associated with this program occur if these FHA-insured mortgages go into default.

Now, there's no way my friends on the other side of the aisle can call this a waste of taxpayer money because it has yet to spend $1 of the funds it was allocated. In fact, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that Congress passed and the President signed last year requires all unused funds from the program to be returned to the Treasury.

By strengthening this program, improving this program, we can continue to keep Americans in their homes at a minimal cost to taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, we must improve this program so we can keep families from defaulting, strengthen the economy, save taxpayer dollars, and stabilize the real estate market.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

It is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can offer an amendment to bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act.

I am honored to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, while it has been over 2 months, we have yet to pass a single piece of legislation that promotes job growth in this country. My friends across the aisle repeatedly speak of their mandate to create jobs; and yet instead of listening, the Republicans have focused on bills that will hurt the middle class, disempower the middle class, and, in this case, force more Americans into losing their home.

The Republicans have been talking about repeal and replace. Yet so far all we've seen is repeal, no replace. It's not as if there aren't many viable alternatives when we discuss health care reform. There was discussion, well, what do we do with people that have preexisting conditions? There was an enormous leap of faith with regard to repeal. Oh, we'll get to it someday. Oh, we'll get to it someday.

We're hearing the same thing here. It's not as if these viable alternatives, the replace part, are a mystery. In fact, in the 111th Congress I introduced H.R. 4877, which would have provided a capital gains tax waiver for private investment in community banks, giving local banks sorely needed capital to lend to homeowners who needed to be rescued, to shore up their balance sheets, to encourage primary offerings of equity in the private sector.

My bill would allow Americans to invest directly and profit directly from the economic recovery. I plan shortly to reintroduce this bipartisan bill, and I hope to see an outpouring of support from those who have called for repeal so that there is a replace component to what we actually do need to do as a country to mitigate the housing crisis and stabilize real estate. Republicans and Democrats alike should be interested in free market alternatives that don't just reduce taxes to revitalize the housing market, but can eliminate them.

Mr. Speaker, instead of scrapping this program, we need to have a solid response to the housing crisis in this country. We welcome suggestions from Republicans, independents, all Americans to improve this program to make it accessible to more families. No program is perfect when it's created. And the FHA refinance program has shown that it can successfully keep families in their homes when given the chance. Our recovery is just beginning and it's fragile. We need to provide stability and predictability with regard to the Federal policies in this area.

This is just another example of a broken promise, a repeal without a replace. And it is leaving what is fundamentally a critical public policy issue, on which Democrats and Republicans agree, namely, the stabilization of the housing market, without any answer. And even a partially correct answer, Mr. Speaker, is better than no answer. So I hope that the work proceeds to replace; but in the meantime, repealing without knowing what comes next is an enormous leap of faith that could cost too many middle class families their home, which is why I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. This bill, introduced today by my colleague, Mr. Bishop of New York, who we just heard from, would crack down on gas price gouging during international crises affecting oil markets, preventing sellers from taking unfair advantages of circumstances with prices that are unconscionably high.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with the extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can take up a bill that will help, rather than hurt, struggling families. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 570 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

This resolution provides for a modified open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2842, succinctly titled the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources and makes in order all amendments which were preprinted in the Congressional Record and which otherwise comply with the rules of the House.

So this modified open rule is a very fair and generous rule--a continuation of the work of Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee-- and will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule, as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 2842. I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, Mr. Tipton of Colorado, as well as Mr. Gosar of Arizona, one of the cosponsors, Representative McClintock of California, who is the chairman of the subcommittee that held the hearings on this bill, and of course Chairman Hastings of the Resource Committee, who brought this bill forward as one of the companion pieces of the myriad of pieces of legislation which, if enacted, would greatly improve our Nation's energy policy and provide for a responsible and balanced approach to further energy development.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who is the chair of the subcommittee that heard this particular bill.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this particular bill, who will talk about how to create real power using water resources that we have.

(Mr. TIPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I reserve the balance of my time.

I advise my colleague that I am prepared to close.

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

I am grateful that we have found new sources of energy, specifically oil and natural gas, on private property because it has not allowed the Federal Government to stop the development of those, and that is the growth that we have seen in recent times.

However, it is interesting to note that the bill before us, which deals with hydropower and development of more hydropower, is a bipartisan bill and for just cause. We can both agree, on both sides of the aisle, that there is a great need for more energy, and that greater, cheaper energy is vital to the growth of the economy and the growth of jobs. That's what this bill tries to do.

Frequently in this House, we have brought bills that have tried to increase our offshore drilling on Federal property. We have talked about the Keystone pipeline and the ability of 20,000 high-paying jobs if it were just permitted. We have talked about trying to increase domestic energy production on public lands that have been put off- limits by this particular administration. Those efforts we have dealt with. We have passed through this House. They're over sitting in the Senate waiting for action. And today we add to that effort with a significant bill that will add to our hydropower and hydroenergy that once again comes along with this.

But the problem that we have and the reason why this bill is here before us, if I can summarize, is, simply, our efforts to add this kind of energy to our portfolio are being stopped by special interest groups and, unfortunately, layers of bureaucracy.

It was Nelson Rockefeller who came up with the great line of calling the deadening hand of bureaucracy on proposals and programs; and, indeed, we see that and we feel it today as we are having a harder time trying to be energy independent, and we are feeling the results of the Federal Government's program to stop energy production on Federal lands and Federal property every time we fill up our cars and, unfortunately, every time we pay our electrical bills.

Now, it is bureaucratic manipulation that is causing this problem and why this bill is here. Look, it was the energy debate and the energy bill of 2005 that told the Federal Government to move forward in this area with making sure that we had a master plan for hydrological development of energy. Seven years later, now the Federal Government and our Department of the Interior is starting to move forward in that direction, which is either the old cliche of paralysis by analysis or the fact that Rockefeller was right when he called the bureaucracy a deadening hand on programs and progress.

One particular program, the Klamath River, took 5 years for government to decide who actually had the authority to move forward on the project. That is the kind of bureaucratic analysis, that's the kind of red tape that is slowing back our efforts to develop this type of energy, and we need it desperately.

That's why H.R. 2842 is here, to develop small projects that will add to our total energy portfolio and add to our independence. It stops and simplifies a regulatory process which unfortunately costs these small efforts, these small entities trying to make these efforts tens of thousands of dollars just to do the paperwork. It's ridiculous.

It clarifies the role of the Bureau of Reclamation on this area. This only

deals with Bureau of Reclamation projects on manmade facilities, but the jurisdictions are not clear. Some jurisdictions have been mandated by Congress; some are administrative; some are questions on whether FERC has responsibility, the Bureau of Reclamation has responsibility. That is causing our slowing in developing these projects. This bill clarifies what that role is.

It also clarifies NEPA, that you don't have to do a second NEPA on these small jobs. Anything greater than 1.5 megawatts of production, you do the analysis again. But for small projects, on man-made property where the land has already been disturbed and already has had an analysis done and the mitigation has already taken place, we move on and do the job.

The Bureau of Reclamation does have a right of categorical exclusion, but they won't do it. All they're saying is, We may start thinking about it some time in the future.

Let me give you an example. There are three specific projects in the neighboring State of mine. One was mandated by Congress in 1990. They are still starting the process because of that administrative red tape. Two other projects took a full year for them to decide to actually start going through a process, and when they did it, they realized there was no change; it had already been done before. All you did is take a year to check off the box and do the expense with it. We had somebody from Arizona come in and testify that the administrator review cost more than the actual construction of the project. That's silly. That is ridiculous,

H.R. 795 deals with this same issue on non-Federal land. This bills deals with this same issue on existing Bureau of Reclamation projects. It's a commonsense development to get an untapped resource that we need to develop. It would not significantly enlarge the environmental footprint because these are already man-made entities who have already gone through the NEPA process once, and there is no rational reason to reinvent the wheel and do it a second time only to find out they were right the first time.

What would be the benefit from this bill?

First of all, new sources of clean energy to add to our portfolio.

Second, we can facilitate small projects to help offset carbon-based irrigation pumping in the West.

Third, it would help reduce the cost of energy. It would produce a cash flow to irrigation districts so they could actually increase and pay for and improve their aging infrastructure and modernize these water facilities.

Fourth, it does create jobs, and for once we have a bill that actually increases revenue coming into the government from this. CBO has estimated, the Congressional Budget Office, that this will generate $5 million in additional revenue coming into the government. So not only can we create more energy, we can do the right thing, we can fix our infrastructure, but we actually make money that comes into the government to help with other issues.

There is a reason this is a bipartisan bill: because it's the right thing to do.

There is a reason why we should move forward with this bill: because it taps a valuable resource that will go to waste if we do not do it.

There is a reason that this bill is here: to speed up the regulatory red tape, to cut through the cost, to make things happen and help us move forward as a Nation with better energy development and energy independence.

There's a whole bunch of good reasons for this bill, and that's why I support the bill, and I also support the rule that will make it possible to give a good and fair open balance to this debate.

With that, this is a good bill and an incredibly fair rule. I urge the adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 150 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a modified open rule for the consideration of H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, and for consideration of any amendments proposed by Members that conform to House rules and which were preprinted in the Congressional Record no later than March 9, today.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act.

I appreciate the hard work of the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Bachus, as well as the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold), in creating this piece of legislation which will help this Congress continue to take concrete steps to rein in the out-of-control Federal mandatory spending.

The FHA Refinance Program was originally promoted by the current administration as a way to bail out the so-called underwater borrowers who for whatever reason found themselves in over their heads in personal and mortgage debt and unable to pay their mortgages.

The 110th Congress passed TARP, which was enabling legislation for this new program, thereby effectively allowing lenders to transfer high-risk mortgages, through the FHA, onto the backs of taxpayers in the case of likely default. The $8 billion in TARP funds was originally identified for this new expansive program.

While no one likes to see homeowners in distress and at risk of losing their homes, the fact of the matter is that this new program, no matter how well intentioned, is expensive and has also proven to be a woefully ineffective program at its best.

Originally it was asserted by the administration that this program would allow up to 1\1/2\ million homeowners or, as some reports in the papers said, 3 million to 4 million distressed homeowners to obtain more favorable mortgage terms, all guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers in case of ultimate default.

However, Mr. Speaker, there are several problems with this new mortgage bailout program.

First, in some and perhaps in many cases, this program would subsidize irresponsible lenders and borrowers and insulate them from the consequences of bad choices and, in some cases, intentionally speculative financial choices that were made during the housing boom, thus shifting the economic impact of those bad choices and decisions onto the backs of responsible homeowners and the taxpayers. This is troubling, for this should not be the role of the Federal Government-- to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.

While homeownership in this country is certainly to be encouraged, this program is exactly the wrong way to go about it. The program basically tells a lender, Don't worry, it's okay. So what if you knowingly encouraged or lent more than you knew the borrower could afford? We'll bail you out of your predicament so you don't have to feel any of the economic consequences of your actions. The program tells borrowers, So what if you took out the maximum loan and got the most expensive house that you could buy even though you knew it was highly unlikely that you would be able to afford those payments in the future. We will bail you out too and insulate you from the consequences of actions as well, and we'll shift all the costs and send the bill, via the FHA, onto the backs of the already overburdened taxpayers.

That's apparently where the buck stops in this program. It stops on the back of already burdened taxpayers and the Nation that itself is $14 trillion underwater in a crushing and unprecedented debt.

Second, it appears that in spite of the urgent housing crisis, this so-called emergency program to bail out underwater mortgages hasn't actually helped anyone. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development statistics, as of February 3, only 44 refinancing applications have been processed by the agency. That's 44 homeowners out of the potentially 3 million to 4 million as originally asserted by the program's sponsors. Mr. Lamar Wooley, a spokesman for HUD, was quoted in a National Journal Daily article last week as saying ``the department has not yet spent any of the money for the FHA program.''

Even the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program testified before the Financial Services Committee last week that it was ``somewhat shameful'' how the administration has mishandled this program. Those are his words, not mine. And, finally, FHA Administrator Stevens also testified before that committee last week that ``these new loans may perform worse than refinanced loans that were not previously underwater.'' In other words, Mr. Stevens' statement indicates that many new loans made under this program for underwater loans are far less likely to be repaid, which will weaken the FHA Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, hurting other taxpayers and other potential homeowners and exposing them to an even higher risk.

As a result, this program privatizes profit, socializes losses, and at its foundation, this program appears to be built on a misguided economic principle of income redistribution, leaving other taxpayers and future generations to hold the bag with interest.

In testimony before the Rules Committee yesterday, it was mentioned that the private sector, the private mortgage industry, has on its own and without any interference by the Federal Government worked with troubled borrowers to refinance over 3 million loans in order to keep these homes from foreclosure.

So there clearly appears to be a far more effective private sector solution to this crisis than to inject a layer of Federal Government regulation and spending through this expensive program.

We must have the courage to admit when a program is ineffective or too expensive or based on wrong-headed principles of subsidizing personal greed and irresponsibility. With our Nation itself underwater with monstrous debt, passage of this bill to terminate this expensive and ineffective program is a step in the right direction.

It's a good and fair rule. It opens it up for anyone to have access to this bill, and a good underlying bill, and I urge their adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the sponsor of this bill who has found a program that flat-out doesn't work, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

I appreciate listening to the gentlewoman's discussion of the bill actually at hand, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I close with some trepidation, as I heard the debate today about continuing resolutions, health programs, teachers, gas prices, and capital gains. But let me risk something and actually talk about the bill at hand.

First of all, it's an impeccably good rule, which allows an open amendment process for anyone who wants to think through an amendment and prefile it. Not a gotcha amendment, but a real amendment to this bill. It's a good way of handling the situation on the floor. I am very proud of the Rules Committee for presenting this type of a rule.

Secondly, you have heard from the sponsor of this piece of legislation the details that are required of this particular program, which discourages those from actually using it. So that the CBO would say that if we continue this program, which is not actually attracting any takers, it would cost the Federal Government at least $175 million in failed mortgages, defaulted mortgages.

In addition, this is one of the programs that we are talking about mandatory spending, not discretionary, but actually doing something about mandatory spending. And in the terms of the Inspector General, this program has failed. We can do better. And as a government we ought to do better than this poorly planned, poorly executed, underutilized, and very, very expensive failed program.

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