Middle Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are in charge of the House of Representatives. They control the schedule here. They control when bills get brought up for debate. They make the Calendar. We could be debating a bipartisan bill that actually helps get more people on to healthcare or lowers prescription drug costs and makes coverage more affordable, but instead Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill to chip away at the Affordable Care Act. They are siding with billionaire corporations and insurance companies and actually spending money to kick people off of healthcare.

We could be debating bipartisan legislation that makes it easier for regular middle-class Americans to buy a home, but instead, Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill that literally increases mortgage fees charged to middle-income borrowers.

Time and time again, this majority brings to the floor bills that benefit billionaire corporations, insurance companies, the rich and powerful, Big Oil, Big Pharma, all at the expense of everyday people back home who send us here to fight for them.

We could be debating bipartisan legislation that actually addresses our broken immigration system. Instead, Republicans are bringing to the floor a nonbinding resolution that condemns a nonexistent problem so they can go after immigrants once again.

We had a Member in the Rules Committee last night yelling and screaming and ranting and raving about all he thinks is wrong with our immigration system and the border. It was actually kind of scary.

Listen, I get being passionate about this problem. I am not here to argue that our immigration system doesn't need to be fixed. We all know that it could use a comprehensive overhaul, but we don't need to be screaming at each other about this nonbinding press release of a bill that does literally nothing to help deal with our border. My God.

Republicans want to talk about immigration, so let's talk about immigration.

Let's talk about how the Republican solution to the border is building a stupid wall that even they know won't work.

Let's talk about fentanyl. Let's talk about how most of it is trafficked through legal ports of entry in the United States by U.S. citizens, by the way, and let's talk about how President Joe Biden seizes more fentanyl at the border than Donald Trump did. That is just a fact.

Yet, we had a Member last night have a complete meltdown over this issue. Would Republicans rather the Biden administration not seize fentanyl? I don't get it. Make it make sense.

Let's talk about how, since the end of title 42 on May 11, unlawful entries along the southern border have plummeted. As of June 6, Customs and Border Protection had an average of 3,700

encounters between points of entry or unscheduled encounters per day, a decrease of over 70 percent.

Republicans don't want to talk about any of that. Instead, they are going to try to get people all worked up by scapegoating vulnerable migrants who are fleeing awful circumstances in search of safety.

I can't believe I have to say this, but migrants are not political pawns. They come to our country seeking a better life, often fleeing violence and oppression. They are human beings and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Yet, Republican Governors have treated migrants like they are garbage, busing them across the country like luggage, with no advance notice or coordination, dumping them outside after they call the press to show up and make a scene. I find it disgusting. I find it racist. I find it disrespectful to all that this country stands for.

This nonbinding press release that they are bringing to the floor isn't a serious attempt to solve a problem. They are dropping migrants off in New York City and then attacking New York City for trying to come up with solutions to the problem. This is absurd.

Then, Republicans claim gyms can't be used to house migrants because they want to ``protect students.'' Give me a break. Migrants have never been housed in a facility with kids. That is just a fact. In the Rules Committee last night, we asked the person who was bringing the bill before the committee to give us examples. She couldn't.

If we want to talk about protecting students, let us talk about protecting students. A thousand kids have died from gun violence this year. Where will the next school shooting be? Parents are terrified their kid will be next. Teachers are terrified that their class will be next. Students are terrified they will be next. Republicans are here regulating gyms instead of guns. What the hell is wrong with these people?

This majority is obsessed with demonizing, demeaning, and targeting people who are coming to the United States in desperate search of a better life. Stop appealing to the worst instincts in people. Stop peddling hate. Stop fueling racism.

Here is a contrast I want people to know about. President Biden and the Democrats are working to expand the middle class, to build a strong economy from the bottom up and the middle out. Democrats are lowering costs for working families, helping cut inflation by more than half since last summer.

Democrats have taken on Big Pharma to reduce prescription drug costs, and Democrats continue to fight special interests to lower healthcare costs while making childcare and housing more affordable for working families.

Democrats are investing in America and have created more than 13 million jobs since President Biden took office. Democrats are bringing supply chains back home, fixing our roads and bridges, and delivering clean water and high-speed internet to more communities.

Democrats are making our communities safer. We are committed to building on the gun safety legislation we passed last year by strengthening background checks and keeping dangerous weapons of war off our streets to protect America's kids.

Democrats know that we don't have to choose between an immigration system that reflects our interests and our values, and we don't demonize and attack people who want to come to this country in search of a better life.

You are seeing on the floor today exactly what Republicans have to offer: nothing, not a thing, no plans, no ideas. They are just interested in helping the rich and powerful and using immigrants as political pawns to drive a wedge between people. It is a rotten, shameful thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to get serious about bringing legislation to the floor that will actually make a difference, that will actually help fix some of the challenges that we face in this country. This is a joke.

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

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

I appreciate the gentleman's tirade just now, but the bottom line is that nothing in this bill that his party is championing as somehow this important piece of legislation does anything to provide any assistance to any of these communities. Not one penny goes to offset any of the costs that might be incurred--nothing, not a thing.

I just don't get it. People come onto this floor and speak in sound bites and do press releases and then bring legislation to the floor that is nonbinding, that means nothing, that does nothing. This is ridiculous.

We need to fix our immigration system. We tried to do that when we were in charge. We had challenges in the Senate trying to overcome the filibuster, but we were trying to fix the system. That is a contrast to what we are doing here now, which is a nonbinding resolution.

By the way, a nonbinding resolution, to anybody who is watching, means it is just somebody's opinion. It doesn't do anything--no money, no assistance, no help to anybody. It is just like: ``I want to tell you what my opinion is.'' Big deal.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's duty to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.

We know, because we have heard from my friends, that they have their eyes on these programs. We need to get people on record to make sure that they will not vote for any cuts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen) to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Washington Post article titled: ``House GOP eyes Social Security, Medicare amid spending battle.''

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

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. To lower the national deficit, House Republicans plan to try to cut Social Security and Medicare. This includes potentially ``raising the Social Security retirement age to 70, targeting younger Americans who have yet to obtain Federal benefits.''

We have a number of Members on the Republican side who talk about privatization all the time. That is their favorite word when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. We want to make sure the American people understand who is on their side and who is trying to undercut things that are very meaningful to them.

Mr. Speaker, I also point out that my Republican colleagues have been in disarray since they took the majority, and they have failed to pass meaningful legislation into law on behalf of the American people. As I said, they control this Chamber, the schedule, the committees, and what they bring to the floor.

At this point in the 117th Congress, that is the previous Congress, Democrats had passed 17 bills into law. At this point in the 116th Congress, under divided government, we passed 21 bills into law.

You want to know how much this majority has passed into law?

Six.

They are failing the American people. They are incapable of bringing legislation to the floor that can garner bipartisan support that has any chance in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a comparison of the number of bills passed into law by May 31, which demonstrates how utterly unproductive this Congress has been.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the unproductiveness of my Republican friends and how they are squandering all opportunities to help the American people since they have been in control but let me just talk to you about some of the stuff that we did when we were in charge of this place.

Let me remind people that because of the Affordable Care Act, which I think almost everybody over there voted ``no'' on, 40 million Americans have health coverage under the ACA. Women have access to preventive health services like breast and cervical cancer screening at no cost to them. Prescription drugs are more affordable for older adults.

Americans with disabilities are protected from discrimination on the basis of medical history or preexisting conditions. Lifetime caps on essential health benefits are gone. They are gone.

Since 2010 when the bill became law, Republicans have been obsessed with tearing it apart. Under Republican majorities, we have voted nearly 70 times to repeal and undermine the law. Nearly 70 times Republicans have tried to dismantle a law that provides healthcare coverage to 20 million people and covers preventive health services.

Today, Republicans are continuing this effort to undermine the ACA. It is maddening where their priorities are. It is maddening. Here is the deal. They know that they can't just repeal it outright because everybody doesn't want them to do that. What they are doing is they are going after it bit by bit by bit, trying to chip away at the edges and trying to kill it through a thousand cuts so that maybe people won't notice, that people won't notice when essential benefits are no longer guaranteed.

Healthcare ought to be a right in this country, and we ought to be building on the ACA, not tearing it apart, not tearing it down, not trying to make it more difficult for people to get the essential services they need, not to try to give people plans that don't provide the coverage for whatever may occur to them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to understand--again, the good news here is that all the bills they are bringing to the floor today have no chance in hell of going anywhere in the Senate because they are just over the top and extreme.

Make no mistake about what is happening here. They have a target on healthcare. They have a target on Social Security. They have a target on Medicare. Rather than trying to fix our immigration laws, what are they doing?

They are trying to tear this country apart. They are trying to demonize immigrants. They have no solutions, just a nonbinding resolution that does nothing. It basically addresses a fake problem that was totally ginned up by FOX News. That is where their priorities are. Certainly, we can spend our time doing more productive things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that fentanyl is coming across the southern border because U.S. citizens are bringing it

across through ports of entry. Don't trust me on this. You can look to the conservative think tank CATO that will reinforce what I just said.

By the way, this bill that you are bringing here does nothing to solve the problem. It is a waste of time. There are no more resources; nothing to combat it. It is just a press release. What a joke that we are here debating something like this when we could be debating something that might make a real difference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, what I am a little surprised about today is that nobody has raised the deficit or the debt because the Republicans were obsessed with that when they basically threatened to ruin this economy by not allowing us to move forward to increase the debt ceiling.

We had to have all these cuts from programs that help poor people. Throwing people off of programs like SNAP, the food benefit, that is what they did. I now understand why we are not talking about the deficit or debt today because of the bills that they are bringing to the floor.

One of the bills that we are talking about right now, the CHOICE Arrangement Act, cuts more than $348 million. That is what the CBO says.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the CBO score.

Mr. Speaker, that is just the beginning. House Republicans spent half a billion dollars on their H.R. 1 bill that would gut environmental protections and take tax credits away from people who want to upgrade their homes. Half a billion dollars was added to the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, $6 billion was added to the deficit on their deeply flawed H.R. 2, a bill attacking immigrants and essentially ending asylum as we know it.

Get this, $114 billion--billion with a b--was added through their H.R. 23 to protect the wealthy from paying their fair share of taxes. That was their very first bill on the House floor in this Congress, their top priority adding $114 billion to the deficit.

Over $505 million was added through the Republicans' bill last week to enhance access to firearm stabilizing braces.

Republicans are on a spending spree, all on the backs of real people--not the rich, not billionaire corporations, not by reallocating funding from the bloated Pentagon budget. Maybe some of you saw the ``60 Minutes'' piece a few weeks ago about the cost overruns, where former Pentagon officials said that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a switch that costs a couple hundred dollars.

We can't find a penny, yet they want to increase the Pentagon budget with no questions asked.

They can't touch any of the tax cuts for any of the billionaires or multimillionaires of big corporations. We can't do that, and we all know why. Google where they all spend their money on political campaigns. However, they spend all this money, and they want to balance the budget on the backs of regular, everyday people, and, in particular, the most vulnerable in our country.

Last night everybody was complaining about the CBO score--the CBO score. I guess I understand why my colleagues across the aisle would not want to support the hardworking, nonpartisan people at CBO. Maybe it is because they keep giving them bad news. Maybe it is because they keep saying to my friends that they are spending and spending and spending and it is adding enormously to our deficit and our debt.

Mr. Speaker, I raise this issue because my Republican friends like to come to the floor and talk about the deficit. Today they are not. I think it is because we had this conversation in the Rules Committee last night. I want people to know that they are driving up the deficit and the debt, and then when they want to talk about fiscal responsibility, where do they go?

They go to the middle class, and they go to the people who are poor. That is where their priorities are. So there is a big difference here.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has no other speakers, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised my friend has no further speakers. I thought because these bills were so important and unbelievably essential that there would be lots of speakers on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, we all know how valuable our time is here. We only have 13 scheduled legislative weeks until the end of the year--13 weeks that could be used to improve the lives of everyday Americans.

So how have Republicans in the House decided to use this week?

Are we working to make our communities safer or our educational system better?

No. We are not. Republicans would rather demonize immigrants and peddle hate than regulate guns or invest in schools.

They are in control. They can bring what they want to the floor. Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Look at what they are bringing to the floor.

Are we here to help regular Americans purchase their first home?

No. We are voting on a bill today that will make it easier for those well-off to get even further ahead while making it more difficult on middle-class home buyers.

Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up, but that is what this bill does.

Are we passing legislation that will continue to expand people's access to affordable healthcare?

No. Republicans want to chip away at popular policy that provides quality coverage to millions.

There are very real issues that regular people in this country face every day, and I wish House Republicans could wise up and address them.

This is such a colossal waste of time. One of the bills is nonbinding, but the other bills aren't going anywhere. This is a waste of time. Rather than working across the aisle trying to find common ground, they continue to bring these messaging bills. These are bills that demonize immigrants and that continue to chip away at the Affordable Care Act. These are bills that continue to screw people in the middle class, and they continue to bring these bills to the floor.

I don't know who their base is, but apparently it is popular amongst their base.

This is not about legislating. It is not about making law, and it is not about improving the lives of anybody in this country.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation and a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3564, the MAGA housing scam act, which follows the blueprint of the GOP tax scam by helping the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

Homeownership is a quintessential part of the American Dream, and it is the single most important way that households today can build wealth. That is why expanding access to homeownership is one of the best ways that we can grow the middle class.

Unfortunately, the dream of homeownership is becoming further out of reach for a growing number of households due to a worsening storm of rising interest rates and home prices, fueled by an undersupply of new housing.

In fact, house prices have skyrocketed by 40 percent since 2020, and first-time homeownership rates have plummeted to an all-time low.

Moreover, housing costs are a primary driver of inflation, which is hurting every household in America. It is against this backdrop that Republicans are actually working to make homeownership more expensive for everyone, especially the middle class.

The MAGA housing scam act would affect two different types of fees that apply to mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which make up the vast majority of mortgages today.

First, this bill would extend a guarantee fee of 10 basis points for another year, costing all future home buyers an additional $5 billion.

Second, this bill would reverse recent changes to loan level price adjustments, better known as LLPAs, which are another type of fee on mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie. The amount of this fee is risk- based, meaning that it varies depending on characteristics of the borrower and loan, such as income and downpayment; whether the loan has a fixed or a variable rate of interest; and whether the loan is a cash- out refinance.

FHFA, which is the agency that regulates Fannie and Freddie, is responsible for determining the amount of the LLPAs and recently made changes to this fee to help middle-class borrowers.

To illustrate, a middle-class borrower, say, with excellent credit, who makes maybe a 5 percent downpayment on a median-priced home would have their LLPA reduced by nearly half under FHFA's changes.

This bill would reverse the recent changes made by FHFA, resulting in higher fees for middle-class borrowers. Again, the LLPAs, are only one of two fees affected by this bill. Altogether, this bill would hit middle-class borrowers with a double whammy of both an extension of a 10-basis point guarantee fee, and an increase in the LLPAs.

During the debate in the Rules Committee on this bill, I pointed out how this bill hurts middle-class borrowers who have worked hard to build excellent credit but can't afford a 20 percent downpayment.

Republicans doubled down, insisting that those with lower downpayments are riskier borrowers and deserve to pay more. What they failed to understand is that middle-class borrowers who can't afford a 20 percent downpayment are already required to purchase private mortgage insurance, which can add hundreds of dollars to a borrower's monthly mortgage cost. Private mortgage insurance protects Fannie and Freddie from the risks associated with the lower downpayment.

Charging a higher LLPA for risks that are already covered by an insurance policy is simply unfair.

During the Rules Committee debate, Republicans called FHFA's changes redistributive. Let's be clear: FHFA made changes to ensure that middle-class home buyers are not unfairly charged more for risks that are already covered by private mortgage insurance.

This is hardly redistribution. It is ensuring that middle-class borrowers have a fair shot at homeownership. Mr. Davidson's bill, on the other hand, would absolutely redistribute costs from the middle class to the wealthy.

Let me break this down for the Record.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined that this bill would cost $1.8 billion before the addition of the manager's amendment. That represents $1.8 billion in fees that otherwise would have primarily affected the wealthiest home buyers who could barely notice such a nominal fee increase.

In order to pay for this cost, Republicans added a 10-basis point guarantee fee that would increase costs for all home buyers to the tune of $5 billion.

Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons and more, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3564, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

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

Mr. Chairman, before I delve into additional remarks, the Congressional Budget Office deemed this bill to cost $1.8 billion. Why then would Mr. Davidson, with his amendments, create more money than even the Congressional Budget Office said his bill would cost?

He has raised it $5 billion more. Who pays for that? I don't care how you put it. Whether it is paid for tomorrow, next month, next year, 10 years from now, who pays for that? The home buyers pay for that and that must be noted.

The bill is increased by $5 billion by Mr. Davidson, even more than the Congressional Budget Office said the bill would cost at $1.8 billion. Why would he do that? Why would he charge home buyers more money than even the Congressional Budget Office said the bill would cost?

Accordingly, I will explain further. Currently, middle-class borrowers who cannot make a 20 percent downpayment are charged higher LLPAs and must purchase private mortgage insurance.

I am going to say it again. If you are paying less than 20 percent, you have to get private mortgage insurance to

cover the risks that may be posed to the enterprises.

This is an unfair double charge on middle-class borrowers for the same risks. Don't forget, they have paid their g-fees. Everybody has to pay the g-fees to help write the undercosts of the operation of FHFA. They pay those, and it is determined on each individual loan. It depends on the characteristics of that loan.

You build in the question of risk in those fees and then you pay private mortgage insurance, which means the middle-class borrowers are paying more than the wealthy borrowers.

In fact, borrowers with PMI also have excellent credit, with median FICO scores of 754 as of December 2020, and are more likely to be first-time home buyers. They also pose less loss severity to the enterprises than borrowers who have the means to make a downpayment of 20 percent or more.

FHFA's mortgage pricing changes that reduce this unfair double charge on borrowers with PMI is a critical step to making the dream of homeownership attainable for the middle class in America.

I oppose this bill, and I oppose my Republican colleague, who is part of the message going out from FOX News.

I oppose this bill because, first of all, the $5 billion is an increase. The Republicans are forever saying that they are trying to cut budgets. They don't want to increase the amount of taxes. Yet, here he is increasing the amount that he claims he is charging homeowners, when even the Congressional Budget Office says it costs $1.8 billion, and now, he is asking for $5 billion. Well, I don't quite understand that, and nobody else should understand that. It is not needed.

Again, they keep talking about credit scores. These middle-class homeowners, who could not afford to pay maybe 20 percent down, have good credit scores, equal credit scores to the wealthy home buyers. I don't get why he keeps talking about these credit scores.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I will take a minute to say that the representation that middle-class home buyers who may not have 20 percent down also have bad credit is not true. The record should reflect that that is not true. That is made up by someone who would like to throw credit scores into this argument and argue that these middle-class buyers, who can't pay 20 percent down, all have bad credit. They do not. They have good credit, and they are eligible for a loan. The only thing they don't have is 20 percent down, and they get mortgage insurance in order to cover that.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

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

Mr. Chair, the MAGA housing scam act would reverse critical cost savings for middle-class borrowers as provided by FHFA.

Before FHFA's May 1 changes, a middle-class borrower with a high credit score and a 5 percent downpayment on a medium-priced home would have paid an LLPA fee of $81 in addition to private mortgage insurance. Today, this borrower would pay half of that fee, allowing them to access affordable homeownership.

Similarly, a borrower with the same credit score and a 40 percent downpayment on the same priced home would have paid only $27 before May 1 and today pays just $20. These are cost savings that Republicans not only want to eliminate but now they want to add an additional $5 billion in fees for everyone.

This is a scam, not a protection for the middle class. This is messaging by FOX News.

What is that $5 billion for? Why is it that Mr. Davidson is wanting to raise more money than even the Congressional Budget Office says the bill costs? This is not to be understood.

I know that there is an attempt to try to make the argument that somebody wealthier is paying for those who have less income, less money, less resources. It is not true.

Don't eliminate private mortgage insurance. If you pay less than 20 percent, you pay for private mortgage insurance in addition to the GSE fees. Middle-class borrowers were paying more than even the wealthier borrowers, so it had nothing to do with the credit score because the credit score of that home buyer who only paid less than 20 percent is as good as the credit score of the wealthier buyer. It had nothing to do with that at all.

Again, I don't know why this argument is being made by the other side. It is an attempt, I think, to message in a way that goes directly to constituents who they make angrier because their government is making them do something they should not be making them do.

Don't politicize this. This is about homeownership. This is about the American Dream. This is about making sure that those people who can afford to buy a home are able to do so.

The idea that anybody would say that, if you can't make a 20 percent downpayment but can pay for private mortgage insurance, you must not have good credit scores, that is an absolute untruth. As a matter of fact, you would not be able to get that loan if you had bad credit scores.

I wish the opposition would stop making that argument because it does not fly. That person who is paying, again, private mortgage insurance also has a good credit score. They didn't have the 20 percent down, but they are paying for it with their private mortgage insurance.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 3564, which harms middle-class home buyers and their ability to access homeownership on fair and affordable terms.

This bill responds to a misinformation campaign, again initiated by a friend of the Republicans, FOX News, and propagated by extreme MAGA Republicans. It protects wealthy home buyers and imposes billions in new fees on all home buyers.

Mr. Chair, I also oppose this bill because it completely ignores our Nation's worsening housing crisis, which is locking millions out of the dream of homeownership. MAGA Republicans are instead focused on a minuscule fee in the home-buying process that does nothing to address our Nation's housing shortage and rising housing costs that are driving inflation.

We have a shortage of 14 million homes nationwide and more than 582,500 people experiencing homelessness on any given night, with homelessness rising faster in rural communities than anywhere else in the country. Meanwhile, U.S. renters are paying more of their income on rent today than ever before. These are the real problems that Republicans should be working to solve, not increasing fees by billions of dollars according to the CBO.

In fact, this bill is opposed by Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Responsible Lending, the National Fair Housing Alliance, the National Housing Law Project, and the National Housing Resource Center. Industry groups such as the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National Association of Realtors are also very concerned about this.

Republicans are forever worried about the fact that we are not making enough cuts. Yet, in the negotiations that just occurred on raising the debt limit, they wanted to cut, cut, cut, cut. They are not only jeopardizing middle-class homeowners, but they are increasing the amount of money--more than even needed--than the Congressional Budget Office has said the bill would cost.

Why $5 billion? I don't get it. I don't understand, but I am through with it.

Mr. Chair, I simply ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Well, actually, I don't even want to waste another minute on this pointless and redundant amendment.

Anyone who pays attention to government oversight knows that the GAO already makes all of its reports resulting from legislative mandates publicly available on the GAO's website as soon as they are issued to Congress.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters: one from Americans for Financial Reform and one from Public Citizen.

Americans for Financial Reform,

May 23, 2023.

Hon. Patrick McHenry,

Chairman, House Committee on Financial Service, Washington,

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters of opposition to H.R. 3564 from the Center for Responsible Lending, the National Housing Resource Center, the National Housing Law Project, and the National Fair Housing Alliance.

[From the Center for Responsible Lending, Sept. 2020]

More Harm and No Good--So-Called ``Middle Class Borrower Protection Act

of 2023'' Leaves Borrowers and Taxpayers Less Financially Secure

The Center for Responsible Lending OPPOSES H.R. 3654, the

so-called ``Middle Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023,''

and urges Members of Congress to do the same. As written, the

bill would: (1) undo the Federal Housing Finance Agency's

recent cost changes for mortgages under the loan-level-

pricing-adjustment framework used by Fannie Mae and Freddie

Mac and (2) subject any future framework changes to the

Administrative Procedure Act. Yet. rather than protecting

America's middle class, these proposals would make it more

expensive for middle-class consumers to become homeowners

using conventional mortgage loans and more difficult for many

consumers to enter America's middle class by obtaining

affordable, conventional mortgage credit. Here is what

policymakers, advocates, and consumers need to know:

(1) H.R. 3654 Undermines Middle Class Borrowers By Undoing

The Pricing Reductions That Were Recently Made For Them. This

bill would eliminate the reductions in loan-level-pricing

adjustments (LLPAs) that the Federal Housing Finance Agency

(FHFA) recently established. Those reductions were targeted

to the lower wealth, credit-worthy borrowers who

disproportionately make up or seek to enter America's middle

class.

(2) H.R. 3654 Makes it Harder for More Americans to Enter

the Middle Class by Raising the Cost of a Conventional Home

Loan for First-Time And Working-Class Borrowers.

Homeownership continues to be the single most important

factor in determining the ability of an American household to

build wealth and enter or maintain middle-class status. Yet,

by eliminating the pricing reductions FHFA recently

implemented for lower-wealth and first-time homebuyers, the

proposed bill reinforces a two-tier housing finance system

where the conventional mortgage market continues to

prioritize wealthier borrowers while first-time, underserved

or rural borrowers with less wealth are dependent upon

government-backed loans from federal agencies. That result is

inconsistent with the statutory purpose and mandate of Fannie

Mae and Freddie Mac. As the FHFA has noted, ``[a]chieving a

liquid, resilient housing finance market throughout the

country requires improved access to responsible mortgage

credit across different market segments of creditworthy

borrowers.

(3) H.R. 3654 Makes All Taxpayers More Vulnerable by

Disrupting Safety And Soundness Regulation of for Fannie Mae

and Freddie Mac. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission stated unequivocally that

the primary cause of the crisis was a failure on the part of

the government to regulate the financial industry,

particularly in the secondary mortgage market. Based on its

own experience in that regard, Congress created an

independent FHFA, empowered it to assume conservator

responsibilities for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ensured

that it would have the ability to act swiftly and

independently from the political process to manage each

government-sponsored enterprise's safety and soundness

considerations. Under H.R. 3654, FHFA would Jose the ability

to act swiftly on pricing considerations tied to safety and

soundness by being subjected to the Administrative Procedure

Act. That result would require the Agency to delay

implementation of pricing changes for an extended period that

often does not match changing dynamics in the financial

markets. As a result, taxpayers would be a greater risk for,

once again, having to bail out the enterprises.

@ Making homeownership more expensive for moderate income

borrowers and less accessible for first-time, workingclass,

rural and other underserved borrowers is not protecting

America's middle class. Likewise, depriving the enterprises'

conservator of the tools needed to swiftly respond to safety

and soundness considerations raised by pricing and, in the

process, increasing the likelihood of another taxpayer funded

bail out is not protecting American taxpayers. For each of

these reasons, H.R. 3654, the ``Middle Class Borrower

Protection Act of 2023,'' is bad public policy and should not

be enacted. CRL urges Members of Congress to vote against the

measure.

Mr. Chair, these organizations all fight hard for homeownership, especially for middle-class Americans. They are absolutely opposed to this bill.

Again, I don't understand why we are spending time on this amendment. It does not accomplish anything at all. It would require GAO to do something it already does.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Ms. Pettersen's amendment which is simply holding Republicans accountable for their claims about the impacts of the bill.

They claim that this bill will help middle-class home buyers, so I don't see why there should be any objection to this amendment which would make the implementation of the bill contingent on the truth of its claims.

Republicans held hearings on this topic where their own witnesses repeatedly debunked MAGA Republicans' claims that these changes would result in higher credit score borrowers paying higher mortgage fees than lower credit borrowers.

If we agree that the goal of this bill is to help middle-class borrowers, then I think we should be able to agree on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3564.

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

H.R. 3564, the Middle Class Borrower Protection Act, will undo a bad policy implemented at the worst time. Americans are struggling to afford housing. I am talking about the loan level price adjustments that the Federal Housing Finance Agency, FHFA, put into effect on May 1 of this year. This policy essentially implemented a cross-subsidy to individuals with lower down payments and lower credit scores.

Loan level pricing adjustments are up-front fees which adjust the final interest rate charged on mortgage loans based on different risk characteristics associated with individual loans. The most notable characteristics would be the mortgage's underlying loan-to-value ratio and the buyer's credit score.

While such fees may be necessary for Fannie and Freddie Mac, collectively known as the GSEs, to raise capital and adequately hedge against credit risk, the adjustments announced by FHFA would disproportionately hurt individuals with credit scores of 680 or greater.

To put that into perspective, the average credit score is around 710, and nearly 19 out of 20 Americans have credit scores above 680. The other thing is credit scores alone aren't a proxy for wealth or income. Therefore, most Americans would likely be hurt by these fees.

However, those with a credit score below 680 will benefit from lower rates than the prior LLPA assessments. This fee change violates the fundamental principle of risk-based pricing: Lower-risk borrowers should pay lower prices than higher-risk borrowers for access to the same credit.

Despite the FHFA's opaque approach to assessing LLPAs, the result of their new policies speak for themselves. The Middle Class Borrower Protection Act would reinstate the old LLPA prices that were in effect prior to May 1, while also directing the Government Accounting Office to complete an independent study of the processes and data used by FHFA to change the prices, including the impact of those changes on the safety and soundness of the GSEs, which, I will add, have been in conservatorship under the Federal Government for 15 years. Then GAO would report to Congress within 1 year of the study.

FHFA would be prohibited from changing the LLPAs until 90 days after the report, after which it would be required to: one, follow the basic agency notice-and-comment procedure for making any new changes to the LLPA fee; and two, ensure that future fee adjustments be made based on the actual risk posed by the mortgage.

FHFA would also be prohibited from imposing any new fee on borrowers based on their debt-to-income ratio, which was an idea they considered implementing effective August 1.

Finally, I will acknowledge that over the past weekend, the Congressional Budget Office scored this bill, and they assessed a cost of $1.8 billion for implementing this bill. I believe the fact that CBO says this bill costs a single penny is absurd and exposes a glaring flaw within our legislative process.

Perhaps CBO has a rebuttal, but that would require them to show their work, which they have not. This is why I have long advocated for another bill of mine, the CBO Show Your Work Act.

This past week exemplified just why we need transparent processes when legislating. The reality is these fees aren't even going directly to the Treasury. While the GSEs are in conservatorship, the money is supposed to go to the balance sheet of Freddie and Fannie so that they can accumulate capital.

As this rule is announced, the explicit purpose was to grow capital on the balance sheets of Fannie and Freddie. These were taken over by the Federal Government in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. They have remained in the conservatorship of the Federal Government. The revenue isn't coming in directly to the Treasury, it is meant to actually free the GSEs from control of the Federal Government.

These revenues were not imposed by Congress, so there really isn't a need

for us to replace the revenue that the administration imposed with a really misguided rule. There was no revenue coming in on April 30. On May 1, they implement this policy change, and somehow, we are supposed to come up with the revenue to offset it.

Now, I argued against doing that. I asked the Rules Committee to ignore the misguided advice of the Congressional Budget Office and to not implement a pay-for because it is not our--we didn't cause this expense to occur. Frankly, it is not even a real expense. It is essentially a tax imposed by the administration.

Because of the rules, we offered a manager's amendment which was ultimately incorporated into this bill. We add 1 year to a 10-basis point fee that is assessed on every Fannie and Freddie loan, regardless of your credit, just as a cover. That rule has been in place since the bill passed in 1992. It was set to expire in 2032. Now it will expire in 2033.

I hope between now and then we can change that, and we can also liberate Fannie and Freddie from their ongoing conservatorship which, I will note, has lasted longer than Britney Spears' conservatorship. The only way that it would cost the Federal Government money is if the conservator is actually raking money out of it and funding their own operation, which is not what is supposed to happen. It is supposed to stay with Fannie and Freddie, so it shouldn't be costing the Federal Government a dime to implement the Middle Class Borrower Protection Act.

Nevertheless, Fannie and Freddie will benefit from one extra year of money being collected under this manager's amendment that was adopted and incorporated in the bill.

Let me return and focus on the bill at hand, the Middle Class Borrowers Protection Act. Let's think about this: A Federal agency acting under its own purview and not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act implemented a politically motivated cross-subsidy through a clear money grab on unsuspecting credit-worthy borrowers. This wasn't a decision by Congress. This was simply the FHFA using its position as conservator of the GSEs to increase the government's baseline.

Now Congress is trying to undo the changes and re-implement a policy that was in place just 8 weeks ago.

However, Congress, as I said, had to pay for this fake shortfall. Like we see time and again, only in Washington, D.C., would math like this make sense.

It is imperative for this body to protect the cornerstone of the American Dream by promoting housing affordability, and H.R. 3564 does just that.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman points out things that just aren't so. The idea that a loan that has less equity in it isn't riskier than a loan with more equity in it is completely false.

Every business school in the country will teach it, but most people don't need to go to business school to understand that a loan with a lot of equity in it is at much less risk of default. It is rational to price risk, and that is what the market should be doing. Plus, people who have low income and have high credit scores are punished by this foolish policy. This simply will undo it.

The last thing I will say is, right now, there is money that is being taken away from consumers in the marketplace--$1.8 billion over the next 2 years. Once this bill passes, that stops getting taken away. The 10-basis point pay-for that is in this bill is still in effect right now.

In fact, it is scheduled to go out in 2032. In the near term, nothing changes in this bill. It is in 2033 that the pay-for comes in, again, only with the false accounting at the Congressional Budget Office would that even be necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri is accurate. This does cost money. It costs the 19 out of 20 Americans with 680 credit scores or better who choose to get a Fannie or Freddie mortgage, it costs them money. It takes it out of their hard-earned dollars and transfers it to the GSEs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for recognizing that low-income people do have high credit scores. That is why it is unjust to implement this rule and charge them a higher fee than maybe wealthy people who have low credit scores.

This is an interesting observation. The ranking member on the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, Mr. Cleaver, just pointed out that it would be dangerous to require the FHFA to use the Administrative Procedure Act, i.e., to give notice and get comment, before they implement policies that impose costs on the American public. In July 2020, Ms. Waters and the majority at the time sent a letter to Director Calabria--at the time the Director of FHFA--saying: ``Moreover, we urge you to use your powers under title 5 U.S.C. 551- 559, the Administrative Procedure Act, to engage meaningfully with all stakeholders.''

It seems they are not opposed to FHFA using the Administrative Procedure Act. In fact, they asked them to do it, so I wonder why it is selectively.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Chair, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the American people should be angry. They should be upset because the Biden administration did impose a socialist redistribution scheme. The most egregious and obvious part is that they withdrew as we uncovered this and exposed what they were trying to do.

On August 1, their plan was to say that if you have a lot of income and very little debt, then you should pay more, even more than this scheme that took effect on May 1, and you should subsidize the people that have little income and more debt. Now, to be sure, they still would qualify for a mortgage, or they wouldn't get the loan, but that is patently obvious redistribution of wealth.

The component that took effect on May 1 isn't really a redistribution of wealth per se, but it does hit the average credit score of 710. Everyone with a credit score of 680 or above, 19 out of 20 Americans is being hit by a higher fee since May 1 for their mortgages.

It is a redistribution of credit scores, and that is even worse than an idea of redistribution of wealth, in a sense. Because you have responsible people who live within their means, might live just a little bit above paycheck to paycheck, save, scrape together, build up a downpayment, have a mortgage in place, and they are going to pay more now since May 1.

We have to fix this injustice. That is what this bill does. It is time to just move forward in a commonsense way.

First, you study the problem before you implement it. This bill requires the GAO to complete the study, and then it requires FHFA to look at the study, to take 90 days of notice before they implement something else. The part that it bans after the study is over is the real redistribution of wealth, the debt-to-income scheme.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense Middle Class Borrower Protection Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, while there has been broad discussion about the fundamental unfairness associated with the Biden administration's new tax on creditworthy borrowers, Congress' oversight role also extends to the process and impact these changes will have on home buyers and the housing market.

Members on both sides share policy concerns regarding this new tax, and it is equally imperative that we promote transparency to the American people on this flawed effort.

The GAO study does just that as the amendment Mrs. Boebert proposed would simply make the GAO study public. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and in no area is this more relevant than the opaque process with which the FHFA has enacted these and other changes.

This amendment would add to the GAO study included in H.R. 3564 which will play a critical factor toward furthering both Congress' and the public's understanding of this issue that impacts millions of home buyers.

Americans deserve a thorough accounting of the process and deserve to know the significant impact of FHFA'S actions. An agency that virtually controls U.S. housing markets should not operate without appropriate congressional oversight.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to restore fairness, transparency, and accountability to this process and policy that impacts millions of Americans. Amidst economic uncertainty and a housing affordability crisis, the American people deserve nothing less.

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

Mr. Chair, I urge all of our colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, this is a commonsense amendment to the GAO study, and I applaud the gentlewoman from Nevada for including this comprehensive view on the impact of housing affordability.

It furthers the work of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee, and I think it is an important addition.

Mr. Chair, I encourage all of our colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of our colleagues to support the amendment. I support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, and I am opposed to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment introduced by Ms. Pettersen which would make it impossible to repeal the Federal Housing Finance Agency's damaging price increases on creditworthy home buyers. In fact, it will undo the entire point of the bill.

The legislation before us, the Middle Class Borrower Protection Act, would repeal these increases and would require the Government Accountability Office to assess the FHFA's fee structure. That is the point of the GAO's study.

It would also require that any future loan-level fees implemented by the agency adopt a risk-based price framework.

Ms. Pettersen's amendment would set up a sham test so that FHFA would have to keep those unfair fees in place even at the expense of the majority of middle-class borrowers.

So while the gentlewoman's amendment is designed to sound fair, the reality is that it would actually have the opposite effect of what it advertises. Instead of lowering fees for middle-income families, it would doom many of them to higher fees. In other words, a vote for Ms. Pettersen's amendment is a vote against the Middle Class Borrower Protection Act.

I also find it interesting that our friends on the other side of the aisle would support an amendment that essentially says: Don't do this if it makes fees go up, which is exactly what our bill does. It stops the fees from going up or staying up, as the case is on part of the plan that they implemented.

We should be united in saying that deliberately making mortgages more expensive for creditworthy borrowers is a foolish policy. The sting of inflation and higher interest rates are already hurting middle-income families, and this adjustment by FHFA is not fair.

While I cannot support this amendment, I am glad to see the recognition that we need to protect middle-income families looking to purchase a home from unfair pricing. It makes it harder for some borrowers to afford because they pay more just because they have high credit scores.

Ms. Pettersen's amendment would, unfortunately, lock in that unfair system.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I urge all of our colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 524 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 may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 524, providing for consideration of three measures: H. Res. 461, H.R. 3799, and H.R. 3564.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3564 under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designee.

The rule makes in order four amendments and provides one motion to recommit. The rule additionally provides for consideration of H.R. 3799 under a structured rule with 80 minutes of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committees on Education and the Workforce or their respective designees and Ways and Means or their respective designees. The rule makes in order three amendments and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 461 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled and by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their respective designees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in support of the underlying bills.

Today, the Republican majority continues its long process of reversing and repairing the damages inflicted on the American people by the Biden administration and the previous Democrat majority.

Mr. Speaker, included in the rule is H.R. 3799, the Custom Health Option and Individual Care Expense Arrangement Act, or the CHOICE Arrangement Act, introduced by my friend from Oklahoma, Kevin Hern.

This legislation includes commonsense changes to help lower health insurance costs, increase competition in the healthcare market, and ensure access to high-quality, low-cost plans for Americans and small business owners and their employees.

In 2021, almost 55 percent of Americans were covered by employer- based health coverage. Employer-based health coverage is easily the most popular option for Americans to receive health insurance coverage. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, of small employers

that did not offer health insurance coverage to their employees, two- thirds reported that the reason they do not offer the health insurance is because it is simply too expensive.

In 2019, President Trump and his administration published regulations allowing employers to provide their employees with a fixed amount of money each year in tax-preferred individual health coverage reimbursement accounts that an employee could use to buy coverage in the individual market.

Current regulations allow employers to establish individual coverage health reimbursement accounts which employees can use to purchase individual market coverage and pay for their out-of-pocket medical expenses.

The CHOICE Arrangement Act seeks to codify these regulations to provide tax-advantaged funds for employees to buy portable health insurance plans and requires notification to employers of the availability of these tax-advantaged health insurance benefits.

The CHOICE Arrangement Act also includes provisions codifying the right of small businesses to band together and form association health plans to offer pooled health insurance coverage to their employees.

This legislation will give employers maximum flexibility in how they provide coverage options for their employees by providing CHOICE arrangements while also providing expected benefits like dental plans, vision plans, accident, disability benefits, and more.

This legislation will also ensure that stop-loss coverage is not subject to Federal regulation under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act. These commonsense changes will stop the Biden administration from administratively making healthcare more expensive by regulating stop-loss coverage and ensuring that small businesses can, in fact, remain competitive.

Mr. Speaker, also included in this rule is H. Res. 461. This condemns the practice of retrofitting our children's schools to house illegal immigrants. President Biden and the Democrats' failures at the southern border are so comprehensive, so overwhelming that municipalities are now co-opting the schools where we educate our children because President Biden refuses to secure the southern border.

Because President Biden cannot or will not secure our southern border, Mr. Speaker, our local communities and municipalities are now casualties of President Biden's border crisis.

The American people rightfully demand that President Biden and Democrats in Congress acknowledge this crisis. They demand that they not only acknowledge the crisis, Mr. Speaker, they demand that their Federal Government solve this self-inflicted crisis that is pushing our communities well past the breaking point.

New York City and its mayor, Eric Adams, are the first to cry uncle. Mr. Speaker, 2 months is how long Mayor Adams and New York City lasted, suffering under conditions of a size and scale not even comparable to the conditions that Texans have been enduring these past 2\1/2\ years under an administration that has only now started to pay attention to this humanitarian crisis when it started to affect their constituents.

Over and over again, we have pleaded with the Biden administration to take this crisis seriously, only to be rebuffed time and again. This humanitarian catastrophe can be laid squarely at the feet of the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Mayorkas, and, of course, President Biden who have chosen to do nothing rather than be labeled xenophobes by their progressive colleagues for actually enforcing existing immigration law and securing our southern border.

Mr. Speaker, the temptation for the Biden administration has been to bury their heads in the sand and hope that these waves of illegal immigrants coming across our border will, in fact, magically disappear. They will not, Mr. Speaker, not until President Biden finally gets serious about the border crisis by demanding that the Secretary of Homeland Security do his job and secure our southern border, or maybe find someone else who can do that job.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3564, the Middle Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023. This bill would repeal the Federal Housing Finance Agency's recalibrated single-family pricing framework to guarantee mortgages which would charge borrowers with higher credit scores larger fees to subsidize borrowers with lower credit scores.

If not for our Republican majority, Mr. Speaker, one out of every two borrowers with higher credit scores would be assessed higher mortgage fees in President Biden's radical equity agenda.

President Biden is telling the American people that if you work hard, if you are responsible with your finances, if you pay your bills on time, you are going to get to subsidize the mortgages of those who did not make the same sacrifices that you did in order to attain a higher credit score. This sends a terrible message to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Davidson for bringing us this final piece of legislation that underscores that the Republican majority stands with those middle-class families who have done the right thing and should not be pushed by a radical administration that is obsessed with radical wealth distribution schemes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), a valuable new member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the only entity cutting Social Security or Medicare right now is the White House, the Biden administration. Over the last 2\1/2\ years, cuts to Medicare have totaled probably $40 billion in the part B drugs administered in physician's offices and $300 billion in Medicare Advantage, all done through the Inflation Reduction Act last year. The only people talking about cutting Medicare right now is the administration, and that is really what ought to be stopped.

Right now, that is not the business at hand. What we are discussing today are three important bills that are going to be considered on the floor. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, there are hearings going on right now in the Energy and Commerce Committee for the reauthorization of the SUPPORT Act.

The SUPPORT Act passed in 2017-2018 in that Congress. It was a broadly bipartisan bill. It was geared toward dealing with the problems that were occurring in this country because of an opiate crisis.

Largely, the source of these opiates were prescription drugs that were diverted to other uses, and the consequence was people taking a good overdose and in fact dying from prescription drugs that were actually diverted from their intended use.

Five years later, we are in the process of reauthorizing the SUPPORT Act. The SUPPORT Act actually functioned as intended, it did reduce some of those overdose deaths downward until we were hit with the pandemic, and obviously that changed a lot of things.

In that 5-year interval, this disease has changed. It is no longer prescription opiates that are diverted, it is fentanyl. It is fentanyl that is poisoning our young people. It is fentanyl that is pouring in from the southern border.

Look, I get it. You want to say it is only coming in at the ports of entry--that is what you catch. Our Customs and Border Protection are so overwhelmed with the numbers of people who are coming in at the invitation of the President and the Vice President, people are pouring across our border.

Customs and Border Protection cannot do their normal job. They are doing housekeeping chores, taking care of people who are ill, children who are arriving at their doorstep, and they have no choice but to take care of them.

In the meantime, all other areas of the surveillance are non vis because Customs and Border Protection are tied up with this vast increase of humanity that is coming in. The bottom line is as we reauthorize the SUPPORT Act now, we are actually dealing with a different disease because fentanyl poisoning has replaced opiate overdose.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting that thanks to House Republicans and their investigative efforts there was a settlement yesterday where a member of the President's family has agreed to pay his taxes that he hasn't been paying.

So that is a good thing that delivers money to the Treasury.

Oh, yes, about those background checks, it turns out a member of the President's family wasn't adhering to the background checks and the proper handling of a firearm.

So maybe we all learned something in that exchange over the last 24 hours.

I also want to correct a few things on the underlying bills. Association health plans, like all large employer plans, are required to cover preventative healthcare. This requirement includes covering women's preventative health services without cost sharing. In addition, all AHPs are required to cover pregnancy-related conditions and coverage of a minimal hospital stay after childbirth as mandated by the Affordable Care Act.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires the plans to cover pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions in the same manner as they cover other medical conditions under the association health plan.

The Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996--that was about 10 years before the ACA--the Health Protection Act of 1996 requires large group association health plans to cover a hospital stay of at least 48 hours for a childbirth and at least 96 hours for a birth by caesarean delivery.

These are all requirements placed on large group employer-sponsored health plans. Expanding AHPs does not change these requirements. What it changes is making that valuable insurance available to more employees.

The CBO score that the gentleman referenced also had within it the notation that 200,000 people would be covered if this bill, the CHOICE Act, is enacted because insurance would not be as expensive for employers to provide and would give them more possibilities.

Here is probably the crux of that matter: 40,000 of these people have no insurance currently. So there will be 40,000 people moved from uninsured to insured by passing the CHOICE Act. I would say that is a good thing, and I think people would be supportive of that.

I do want to stress that it is important to support the rule and the underlying measures. I thank my colleagues for their diligence and hard work in bringing these important pieces of legislation to the floor today. The Republican majority has demonstrated, yet again, that we are putting forward a legislative agenda that works for all Americans and not just the well-connected few.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in order by the rule.

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

Mr. Chair, we are in the middle of a housing crisis across the U.S. and in Colorado, especially in the Seventh District. The housing supply is lagging significantly behind the demand in our State which has led to skyrocketing prices pushing far too many people out of the communities that they have lived in their entire lives, as well as creating significant challenges to hire and retain workers for small businesses and public servants.

Some communities in the rural part of our district have seen property increase threefold in just a couple of years. While so many people are struggling to get their first home, there are far too many people who are buying up real estate for their third, fourth, and even fifth homes, which has also contributed to the challenges our communities are facing.

While I am very concerned about the rising costs of housing, this bill does not address the problem.

For a little bit of background, the Federal Housing Finance Agency serves as the chief regulator of the enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Essentially, the FHFA oversees the majority of all mortgages in the United States. Earlier this year, the Financial Services Committee heard from the director, Sandra Thompson, about how the agency is working to help Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet capital requirements and promote increased access to homeownership for creditworthy home buyers.

The underlying bill that we are considering today would reverse changes made by the Federal Housing Financing Agency to loan-level price adjustments which are fees charged to originate a loan. The fee matrix has not been updated since 2008 and is woefully out of date.

There was some controversy surrounding a debt-to-income ratio rule, but that rule has already been repealed. The remaining fee matrix will see fee increases only on wealthy individuals, people purchasing a second home, or individuals who are purchasing an investment property while reducing the cost for first-time buyers and low- to middle-income families.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree that fees should not be increased on those in the middle class who are already struggling to make ends meet, then they should support my amendment.

It would ensure that this legislation would not be implemented until the director certifies that it would not result in increased fees on middle-class home buyers.

If the bill does what they are saying it does, then my amendment would not create a barrier to implementation.

We must come together in a bipartisan way to address affordable housing. I look forward to getting back to work with the chairman and ranking member when we return in July.

Unfortunately, this legislation won't reduce costs for the middle class and would tie the hands of the FHFA to address changing needs, which is why this amendment is necessary.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who is the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Waters for her remarks in support of the amendment.

Once again, ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable housing is a priority of mine and the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee.

We must ensure that middle-class home buyers have access to our housing market. Unfortunately, this legislation will not reduce costs for the middle-class and first-time home buyers.

Not only are we focusing on a narrow subset of fee increases that are supposed to target wealthy home buyers, individuals purchasing a second home, and people buying investment homes, they are tying the hands of the FHFA in moving forward in changing their fee structures on a more regular basis to address changing needs.

This will make Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac less available to support the housing market if there is a future fiscal crisis, and it only threatens our housing market.

Once again, Mr. Chair, if you want to make sure that fees are not increased for the middle class, then you should support my commonsense amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.