[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 97 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5874-H5879]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND EXPANSION 
                     OF HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 208) expressing the sense of the 
Congress regarding access to affordable housing and expansion of 
homeownership opportunities.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 208

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the priorities of our Nation should include providing 
     access to affordable housing that is safe, clean, and healthy 
     and expanding homeownership opportunities; and
       (2) these goals should be pursued through policies that--
       (A) promote the ability of the private sector to produce 
     affordable housing without excessive government regulation;
       (B) encourage tax incentives, such as the mortgage interest 
     deduction, at all levels of government; and
       (C) facilitate the availability of capital for 
     homeownership and housing production, including by continuing 
     the essential roles carried out by the Federal National 
     Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
     Corporation, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
  (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, this, I believe, is a non-controversial bill. 
It underscores principles critical to the American family--the 
desirability of achieving the dream of home ownership for as many 
Americans as conceivably possible.
  On this front, there is some good news, and also some challenging 
circumstances. The good news is that home ownership is going up in 
America, almost 1 percent in the last 4 years, until today it reaches 
approximately 66 percent of the American public. The principal reason 
for this relates to lower interest rates caused by restrained monetary 
policy and the movement from a deficit to a surplus fiscal policy.
  It also relates to aspects of tax policy, the importance of quasi-
governmental institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that have 
served as extraordinarily helpful intermediaries in housing finance, 
and to certain housing programs of the Federal Government itself.
  But what this bill, and it is a small bill, does is simply underscore 
what are the great principles of American housing, and underscore it in 
such a way as to make it clear that this Congress is not going to be 
backed down from those principles, particularly the principle that 
relates to the interest deduction for home ownership mortgage loans.
  Mr. Speaker, recognizing that this is an exceptionally modest bill, 
but also one that relates to a subject very important to the heart of 
the American people, I would urge its adoption at this time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have faced repeated requests from communities that I 
represent for action at the Federal level to

[[Page H5875]]

make sure that we have adequate affordable housing in this country. 
Indeed, I have held four forums on this subject in communities in my 
district. It is in this context that I have come to recognize the 
importance of these programs that the Federal Government has sponsored 
over the years, and, as a consequence, I rise in support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 208, introduced by my colleague the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Lazio) of New York.
  All Americans should have an opportunity to obtain decent and 
affordable housing. However, the Nation's housing problems have 
increasingly been concentrated in two segments of the population, first 
time home buyers and low income households.
  A much smaller portion of young households own their own homes today 
than they did in 1980. Shortages of housing resources for both down 
payments and monthly mortgage payments are largely responsible for this 
trend.
  Furthermore, growing numbers of less fortunate citizens are forced to 
spend a very large portion of relatively small budgets to rent 
apartments, and many these housing units suffer from physical 
inadequacies as well. Homelessness can be a ragged-edge consequence of 
formidable social and housing hurdles faced by the most disadvantaged 
portions of our population.
  Mr. Speaker, in order to attain our national housing goals, there is 
a need for a voice for housing in community development at the Federal 
level. We can take the first step today by voicing our support for this 
resolution.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly note that this bill is brought 
to us by the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, who 
has devoted a great deal of time and effort to not only this bill, but 
other housing legislation. I apologize that the gentleman has been 
detained intransit, but I wanted to reference the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Lazio) because of his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Metcalf).
  (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 208. As 
cochair of the Housing Opportunity Caucus, I share the goals of the 
gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) and the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Lazio) of expanding access to affordable housing and home 
ownership opportunities.
  Two years ago, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) 
and I formed a caucus to spotlight the need for housing in this Nation.
  Working cooperatively, we have discovered we can create programs that 
increase the production of affordable housing. For example, the low 
income housing tax credit is one of the few Federal programs that 
encourages the creation of new rental housing without excessive 
government regulations. Since its inception, this program has generated 
thousands of housing units for working parents who are struggling to 
pay the increasing rents.
  To help achieve the American dream, we cannot simply stop at making 
rental housing more affordable. We have to help families own their own 
homes. We can achieve this by continuing the support for the mortgage 
interest deduction, reducing Federal barriers to home ownership, and 
ensuring that financing is available. The mortgage revenue bonds and 
FHA guarantee of loans have helped low income families finance their 
home affordably.
  This Congress can and should do more to increase the access to 
housing. H. Con. Res. 208 is not just a simple statement in support of 
housing as a national priority, it is a statement of our vision to help 
make the American dream a reality for more people. I ask my colleagues 
to support this important resolution.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say that I owe an apology to the supporters of 
this. Having first read it, I was inclined to regard if as fairly 
trivial. It is a resolution with no binding impact. It seemed to me to 
just be sort of cheerleading.
  I was somewhat struck that in the week in which we are passing a 
housing appropriation bill which severely diminishes funds that should 
be available for people at the low brackets, we are celebrating the 
importance of affordable housing. In fact, there is a great 
inconsistency between the legislation we will be adopting, which 
significantly underfunds affordable housing and will allow the gap to 
greatly widen for those who need it.
  But it is not nearly as trivial as I thought. Indeed, there are some 
very interesting things. I notice on page 2, lines 4 through 6, the 
following: ``Encourage tax incentives such as the mortgage interest 
deduction at all levels of government.'' The gentleman from Washington 
also mentioned the low income tax credit.
  I guess, Mr. Speaker, when the House passes this today, the 
appropriate phrase will be, if I may lapse into a little bilingualism, 
``sic transit gloria flat tax.''
  We have heard a lot about the flat tax, and it seemed to be an idea 
that had some support in some Republican circles. But those circles 
appear not to be included in the circle of influence today.
  The mortgage interest deduction is, of course, the biggest bump in 
the flat tax. The mortgage interest deduction is very different than a 
flat tax, and I am struck that the House is today apparently 
repudiating the notion of a flat tax, because it is citing not simply 
the fact of the mortgage interest deduction, which is a major bump in 
that flatness, but it is celebrating the principles of using the Tax 
Code to achieve social purposes. What we are saying here is home 
ownership is a good thing, and let us use tax incentives to change what 
the economy might otherwise do.
  Now, I am for the mortgage interest deduction myself. I supported 
putting a cap on it, but I think it ought to exist. I was not sure 
whether my Republican colleagues remain as loyal to that as they 
apparently are.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to respond to the 
gentleman. As the gentleman knows, there is a lot of controversy within 
the country and some differences of judgment within the party on the 
flat tax, but it is my belief that the majority of Republicans strongly 
support maintaining the mortgage interest deduction, even if there is a 
movement towards a flat or a flatter tax.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would 
thank the gentleman. I would say this is a day for people to come 
together. I was particularly pleased to see the gentleman from Iowa 
expressing his support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and his talk 
about the essentiality of this role.
  I will have to say this though. It seems to me you can be for the 
mortgage interest deduction and a flatter tax, but you cannot be and 
still remain within the confines of the English language for the 
mortgage interest deduction and a flat tax. It is very unflat, and, 
indeed, it is not simply the flatness of the mortgage interest 
deduction, it is the notion that it is legitimate to use the Federal 
Tax Code to achieve policy goals.
  Indeed, not just the Federal Tax Code. I notice this also encourages 
the mortgage interest deduction to be maintained ``at all levels of 
government.'' So apparently this is a case where the Federal government 
is also giving some advice to State and local governments. Apparently 
the people who drafted this believe that State governments, left to 
their own, probably would not get the Tax Code right. So here is a 
little advice to the States to follow the Federal example.
  As I said, I am supportive of this, but I think we ought to note that 
it is very much a deviation from the notion of a flat tax.
  I also noted, because I agree with the gentleman from Washington who 
talked about the low income housing tax credit, another bump, not as 
big,

[[Page H5876]]

because it is the low income people and we would, of course, not do for 
low income people anything of the magnitude of the mortgage interest 
deduction, but it is another deviation from the principles of the flat 
tax.
  So I am in favor of this. The other thing though I do want to stress 
so that no one misunderstands, subparagraph (A), just before 
repudiating the flat tax, it says ``promote the ability of the private 
sector to produce affordable housing without excessive government 
regulation.''
  Now, obviously no one is for more excessive government regulation. I 
am against excessive government regulation.

                              {time}  1445

  But lest anyone think that means no government regulation, let us 
remember that last week we celebrated in this House the passage of a 
new government regulation of the private housing market, the bill to 
reform private mortgage insurance. That is private mortgage insurance, 
a part of the private sector, and we passed a Federal bill here which I 
supported, and I thank the chairman for bringing it forward, to 
increase regulation.
  So lest anyone think that there is an objection to excessive 
government regulation, meaning they are opposed to regulation in 
general, let me remind them that this House, which is about to pass 
this resolution, passed the bill reforming private mortgage insurance. 
The House and the Senate did it, and what that was was a new 
regulation. Previously there was no Federal regulation of private 
mortgage insurance that I am aware of, and we now have federally 
regulated private mortgage insurance. I am glad of that. I think people 
should understand that.
  We also, by the way, have decided that the private insurance market 
does not work too well without us, so we are about to pass, and I voted 
for it in full committee, a very significant government intervention 
into the flood insurance field. So once again, I would not want anyone 
to think that just because we say we are against excessive government 
regulation, we think we can leave the private sector to its own 
devices. We reformed the private mortgage insurance; we are going to 
reform flood insurance.
  So I want to note that sometimes, and I say this in defense of my 
Republican colleagues, sometimes they may appear more monochromatic 
than they in fact are. There might be people who just read the 
headlines and listen to the TV news, and they may get the sense that 
this is a group of flat-taxers and people who never want to see any 
kind of regulation. Instead, we have a group that now tells us that the 
mortgage interest deduction is very important, not just at the Federal 
level but at all levels; a group that decided that we better reform 
private mortgage insurance; a group that has decided that the flood 
insurance plan does not work on its own, the private flood insurance, 
and we better get involved.
  So I am delighted to support this resolution, not just because of 
what it says but because it does advance a goal, which is having people 
understand the true diversity ideologically of the Republican Party.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), my distinguished colleague.
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, and I appreciate the distinguished chairman of the 
full committee for yielding me this time.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts recognizing the 
ideological diversity of the Republican Party. Most of the people that 
are in favor of the flat tax, that is to say an unadapted flat tax, are 
would-be Presidents or would-be, frustrated elected officials who 
cannot get elected. But when I speak at my town hall meetings about 
this subject, I warn people about the loss of the mortgage interest 
deduction and about the fact that middle income Americans would pay a 
lot more income taxes, proportionately, under an unadapted flat tax.
  But back to the subject at hand in a direct sense and that is, I rise 
in strong support of H. Con. Res. 208 as a cosponsor of the resolution. 
It expresses a sense of Congress that affordable housing is a national 
priority. I would like to commend the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), for introducing 
this bill.
  I could list a number of reasons for support of this legislation, but 
I will list only three. One, the goals of the Housing Act of 1949 
include among other things, the provision of a decent home and suitable 
living environment for every American, have not yet been met. Much 
still needs to be done to ensure affordable homeownership for American 
families, and H. Con. Res. 208 is a step in the right direction. It 
reminds us of those responsibilities.
  Two, as referenced by the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Leach), our country is in the midst of a booming economy, and 
that has resulted in an impressive 66 percent of all American families 
owning their homes, which is a record rate. However, this economic 
prosperity also increases the overall demand for both existing and new 
construction, which in turn results in a lower supply of affordable 
homes to be purchased. As a result, there is a substantial shortage of 
affordable housing in America.
   I would say a third reason to support H. Con. Res. 208 is to respond 
and assist State programs focused on providing affordable housing. 
Reasons for these legislative actions include the lack of Federal 
emphasis and resources for affordable housing. I think it is fair to 
say that is an accurate criticism. It is a criticism that could well 
have fallen upon previous administrations as much as it falls on this 
one; it could fall on previous Congresses in recent times as well as it 
can fall on this one.
  For those three reasons, among others, this Member endorses H. Con. 
Res. 208. Of course, the private sector is still the main provider of 
affordable housing. However, government should continue to play an 
important role in providing or facilitating affordable housing.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H. Con. Res. 208.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would inform the gentleman 
I have at most one more speaker, so I will reserve the balance of my 
time at this time.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis), our distinguished colleague.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to just once again thank 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), chairman of the full committee, 
and thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) for introducing this 
resolution.
  I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak in favor of H. 
Con. Res. 208, which establishes this body's commitment to making 
housing a national priority. In a couple of minutes I can only begin to 
describe the importance of housing in this country, but housing has 
impacts far greater than can be succinctly described here.
  Let me say that when we take into account not only the economic 
benefits of housing, such as increased job opportunities and tax 
revenues, but the proven positive impact on communities and families 
and homeownership, we cannot afford to deny housing a top spot on our 
national agenda.
  One brief but illustrious example of the impact of housing on our 
economy is an estimate that the construction of 1,000 single family 
homes generates 2,448 jobs in construction and construction-related 
industries, not to mention more than $79 million in wages and more than 
$42.5 million in Federal, State and local tax revenues.
  Housing is an important issue in each and every congressional 
district in this country, and decent shelter is one of the basic 
necessities of this life. We owe it to American people to take this 
issue to heart and help make sure that every citizen's needs are 
considered.
  Yes, we have the VA-HUD appropriation bill on the floor this week, 
but this resolution talks not just about government's direct 
involvement with negotiations but public and private partnerships that 
can result, affecting the costs of land through zoning laws, through 
our own Federal largesse; the

[[Page H5877]]

cost of construction, the cost of money, and the cost of regulations. 
Even local governments, with permitting and processing and moving those 
time periods through, have an effect on housing.
  With every level of government working together with the private 
sector, and of course encouraging the home mortgage interest deduction, 
which I think is critical if we are going to remain the country in the 
world with the highest percentage of homeownership, I think all go into 
this ingredient. I think the resolution addresses all of these.
  For these reasons I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 208.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Lazio), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Housing, who is principally responsible for this legislation, and in 
fact its architect.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I appreciate not just the gentleman yielding to 
me, but the support that he has lent to the concept of boosting 
homeownership in America and our efforts to try to do the same.
  Last year, Mr. Speaker, I had the great pleasure of helping to 
construct a home in Washington, D.C., with Members on both sides of the 
aisle. It was a great bipartisan effort to try and build a home through 
the Habitat for Humanity. One of the great pleasures as we neared the 
end of the day in construction was a statement by the woman who was 
going to go into that house, who said to me, ``I never thought I would 
ever see the day where I would be able to put a key in the door and 
actually own my own home. The more I rented, the less money I had to 
buy a house.'' What a happy day it was for her. That really speaks to 
the essence of homeownership throughout America.
  Every American has the same goal in achieving the American dream, to 
own their own home, a home that is safe, clean and affordable. By 
increasing homeownership, we can bring families closer together.
  This resolution is an important first step in removing the many 
roadblocks that stand in the way of this worthy goal. Quite simply, it 
expresses the sense of Congress that the priorities of the United 
States should include providing access to affordable housing that is 
safe, clean, healthy and affordable, as well as making homeownership 
more accessible.
  This resolution expresses that these goals should be pursued through 
policies that do three things: First, promote the ability of the 
private sector to produce affordable housing without excessive 
government regulations. Secondly, we encourage tax incentives, such as 
mortgage interest deduction, at all levels of government. Lastly, we 
will facilitate the availability of capital for homeownership and 
housing production.
  Owning one's own home means one can take care of one's family and 
achieve a better quality of life. Last year for the first time in 
history the homeownership rate reached 66 percent, largely because of 
moving toward a balanced budget, decreasing pressure on interest rates, 
bringing those interest rates down and making homeownership more 
affordable.
  Through the dedication and the hard work of public-private 
partnerships, communities and individuals, we will accomplish our aim 
of solidifying a strong foundation for sustaining homeownership into 
the next century. These statistics mean that we are making headway in 
the area of providing decent, safe, affordable housing for all 
Americans, but we are not yet there. Even with these important gains, 
however, young households, especially young married couples, are still 
4 to 9 percent below their peak homeownership rates. Shortages of 
household resources for both down payment and monthly mortgage payments 
are largely responsible for this trend.
  I also would mention, Mr. Speaker, that among African-American and 
Hispanic heads of household and female heads of household, while 
overall homeownership rates are up by 66 percent, those numbers are 
down in the 40 percent range, so we have a lot of room to grow.
  Our most pressing housing challenges are increasingly being faced by 
first-time home buyers and low-income households and rental housing. As 
we have seen, fewer young Americans are able to afford their own home 
than in 1980. But what is worse is that growing numbers of less 
fortunate citizens are forced to spend very large portions of small 
budgets to rent apartments that are physically inadequate.
  The struggle of many Americans to buy or rent a home is unnecessary. 
There is an undeniable direct relationship between safe housing and 
positive economic, social and political outcomes that stabilize 
neighborhoods and communities and benefit all members of our society. 
We in Congress need to give Americans the tools they need to be in 
control of their family's housing.
  This resolution must serve as a foundation upon which we build a 
coherent, coordinated national housing policy that represents the 
wealth of individual dedication and community spirit that characterizes 
our great Nation. We cannot be satisfied with an all-time high 
homeownership rate. We cannot be satisfied with anything less than 
providing every available opportunity for all Americans to obtain 
decent, affordable housing for every American citizen.
  This Thursday the Subcommittee on Housing will hear testimony 
regarding H.R. 3899. That is called the American Homeownership Act, 
legislation that I and a number of our colleagues introduced in May. 
The American Homeownership Act represents a continued commitment to 
expanding homeownership opportunities into the next century. It 
recognizes that homeownership helps provide the building blocks for 
family security and stability, a healthy and prosperous community, and 
a strong and vibrant Nation.
  Our proposal will eliminate the bureaucratic red tape and excessive 
regulations that stifle homeownership, will preserve and protect 
opportunities for seniors to remain in their own homes, near families 
and friends, by making FHA-insured reverse mortgage programs permanent. 
We will expand opportunities for low-income families by allowing public 
and assisted housing assistance to be used for down payments and 
monthly mortgage payments. We will give local communities greater 
flexibility to tap into Federal block grants for affordable housing 
development, reclaiming distressed neighborhoods and empowering local 
community development organizations.
  This is what we stand for, Mr. Speaker. The resolution before us 
today is a complement to this proposal and others designed to provide 
all Americans every possible opportunity for achieving the dream of 
owning a home.
  I would ask each Member of this body to think about the importance of 
housing to every single person in our Nation. How else can we directly 
make a positive change in the lives of all Americans than by improving 
their access to safe, clean and affordable housing. Let us pledge here 
today to all Americans that we understand the critical importance of 
housing, and that we in Congress are finally getting things done.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with all the positive programs that the 
gentleman from New York mentioned, and I will be supporting them.

                              {time}  1500

  My problem is I think there are couple of gaps. Years ago when we had 
the failure in the savings and loan industry, and then in the 
commercial bank area, many less in the commercial bank area, this 
Congress, through the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity 
took the lead in establishing affordable housing programs for both what 
was then the Resolution Trust Corporation, dealing with the S&L crisis, 
and the FDIC's resolution entity as well.
  What they did was to take the houses that had come into the inventory 
of the Federal banking regulators and sell them to low-income people at 
a reduced rate. That is, we did not auction those off. We set them 
aside so that low-income people could buy them. They were not given 
away; they bought them. But they bought them at less than they might 
have to buy at open auction. Unfortunately, when the current majority 
took over the Congress they effectively ended those programs by not 
appropriating for them.

[[Page H5878]]

  So I would hope we would go back to that. I would hope we would say 
to the extent that there is a Federal housing inventory taken over by 
banks or taken over by HUD, we would also reinstitute programs which 
made that available to lower income people, because there is this 
danger that we will increase the difficulty for people at the lower 
end.
  It is obviously important to maximize home ownership across the 
board, but we should not forget people at the low end. Indeed, the one 
question I had, and we will pursue this on Thursday, when the gentleman 
from New York said we would allow people to use some of their rental 
assistance, public housing assistance, to buy housing, I am all for 
that. But it ought not to come at the expense of existing housing. 
There are ways to do that that would not cause problems, but there are 
ways that could cause problems.
  If, in fact, the result is that less money is available for 
maintaining existing assisted and public housing, we will have some 
problems. So, I do want to add to the ability of lower-income people to 
own their own homes, but not in a way that is going to exacerbate the 
problems of the people who rent. Because a certain percentage of the 
people, because of the circumstances they live in, are going to 
continue to be renters.
  And, yes, it is important to promote home ownership. The gentleman 
said, and the language said affordable housing for everyone. Some 
percentage of that is going to be rental housing, and we are not now 
doing nearly enough to help people at the low end live in decent, 
affordable rental housing.
  So I hope that we will not forget that, that we will not go forward 
with home ownership in ways that will exacerbate that. The resolution, 
as it is stated, is a reasonable one. I welcome the repudiation of the 
flat tax that it includes. I think we will be doing people a service by 
making clear that the flat tax is a rhetorical symbol, but the 
presidential campaign of 2000 to the contrary notwithstanding, as the 
gentleman from Nebraska stated, it is not to be a reality and people 
ought not to worry too much about it, and we can go forward with a 
series of programs which would include home ownership.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing let me just stress first that there are 170 
cosponsors of this bill. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation. And, 
secondly, I am pleased that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has offered his support. I believe he has raised a series of 
thoughtful perspectives that do deserve review.
  Let me just stress, this bill underscores that mortgage deductions 
are key to housing and should be protected. Most of us on this side of 
the aisle would like to see the Tax Code simplified and the riddance of 
hundreds of thousands of deductions that currently are in the Tax Code, 
whether in the context of a flat tax or the maintenance of a 
progressive tax. But the majority on this side of the aisle, I believe, 
also insists that whatever happens to the Tax Code, that key deductions 
like mortgage interest deductions, like charitable giving, for instance 
for churches, be maintained.
  Yes, the gentleman has correctly noted that there can be a role for 
regulation, just as there is a role for taxes in American society. But 
too much regulation, just as too much taxation, can be 
counterproductive and constrain economic growth.
  The gentleman has pointed out quite correctly that this House last 
week passed a bill on private mortgage insurance. He joined us and we 
are proud of passage of that legislation. In one sense one can argue 
that it is a governmental intrusion in the markets. In another sense, 
however, it should be stressed that what we did in that legislation is 
take the effect of cost of regulation off of the American consumer at 
such a point in time that a given percentage of the mortgage deduction 
had been paid.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I know we are trying to 
reach common ground here, but that simply defies the English language. 
What we did with PMI was a government regulation of a private 
operation.
  Now, I agree it was beneficial. I had always been for it. But it was 
not undoing of regulation as we used the word. What we did was to pass 
a government regulation establishing new rules for what has heretofore 
been an entirely private set of transactions. I am glad we did, but 
that is what we did.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is odd to be in an 
argument about an issue which we both support. But I would simply say 
it took a burden off the American people and that was a very 
appropriate thing to do.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would again 
yield, yes, I agree. Government regulation often has the effect of 
unburdening people who should not be burdened.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, fair enough. If I could proceed on my own 
time, let me point out that in a broad macroeconomic way, this 
Congress, in less than 3\1/2\ years, has moved from a fiscal deficit to 
a fiscal surplus, something absolutely disbelieved by the American 
public, disbelieved or doubted, I think, by many in this body, 
including some in the party who helped to achieve this.
  At this point we have three options. One of those options is to put 
forth a tax cut, because we are in a surplus circumstance. This is a 
credible option. Another option is to keep the status quo and continue 
to pay back some of the enormous debts that have been built up over the 
last several decades. This. also, is a credible option.
  The third option is to increase spending because we are in a surplus 
situation. That is an option that this side of the aisle thinks is less 
credible. And so, I would suggest to my colleagues, as we move forth in 
all areas of Federal spending, we are going to have to be very careful 
to restrain the budget.
  In this regard, we are talking this afternoon about housing. One of 
the great reasons that there is more private home ownership in America 
is that there are more jobs because of a growing economy and there is 
lower cost to finance because of a more restrained fiscal and monetary 
policy. This side of the aisle is very, very concerned that we do not 
upset this mix of fiscal and monetary policy that has turned around our 
economy.
  So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would just like to stress that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is entirely correct that we 
still have a problem of affordable housing in this country especially 
for lower income levels of America. We have just passed a housing bill 
that is largely the framework, in a budget sense, of what the 
administration has suggested, although spending is not as high as the 
gentleman from Massachusetts would like. But we have tried to work with 
the administration in a responsible way.
  In fact, we have authorized higher dollars for spending on senior 
housing and for housing for people with disabilities than proposed by 
the administration. We are proud both of the spending and the tax 
restraints that have been put into place and we are proud of the 
principle undergirding this piece of legislation. I would urge my 
colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of homeownership. 
That is a simple, but extremely important, statement.
  Homeownership cuts across party lines, Mr. Speaker. It gives all 
Americans hope that they too can reach the American dream.
  I can't imagine a member here today who does not believe that 
homeownership should be a national priority. It is important that the 
House keep this priority for all Americans in mind when considering 
this legislation.
  We must remove unnecessary regulatory barriers that drive up the cost 
of homeownership. Housing accounts for 12% of our nation's economy and 
even modest decreases in the cost of a new home will open the door to 
homeownership for families who are now priced out of the market.
  We must never push out of sight the need to focus on raising the 
nation's homeownership rate and allowing our nation's families and 
communities to be strengthened. Please join me in supporting H. Con. 
Res. 208.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well today to commend my 
friend from New York, Chairman Lazio for moving this important 
resolution to demonstrate the federal governments' commitment to safe 
and affordable housing.

[[Page H5879]]

  I believe that home ownership is a key part of achieving the American 
Dream. Increased homeownership leads to stronger families stronger 
communities and local economic growth development. That is why we must 
work to reverse the decline in homeownership among those of us under 40 
years of age. Making homeownership more affordable is a critical factor 
in our effort to turn this trend around.
  I am happy to report that the 104th Congress made great strides in 
making homeownership more affordable. For example, I offered an 
amendment that would reduce the cost of homeownership by $200 a year 
for first time buyers using the FHA program. This provision was part of 
the FY 1998 VA-HUD Appropriations.
  While we all recognize the need to make government smaller, smarter 
and more effective, I am committed to saving and improving programs 
that provide an indispensable service. That is why I authored 
legislation to make the FHA Single Family Program a government 
corporation. My legislation ensures that FHA's mission will continue 
and that the program will be given the latitude to create new products 
to meet market changes. It will remain independent of federal 
bureaucracy and will have to remain self sufficient. This format will 
keep FHA mortgages affordable and will remove taxpayer liability. FHA 
has made the dream of homeownership a reality for 250,000 families and 
individuals each year who would not otherwise have been able to afford 
a home; primarily first time buyers, minorities and those with low and 
moderate incomes. We must do everything we can to preserve and improve 
upon this success story.
  FHA's Title One program is yet another success story that has been 
under utilized in recent years. The program provides opportunities for 
families to buy older homes, rehabilitate them and breathe new life 
into tired communities. While the Title One program increased its 
volume by 73% from 1994 to 1995 for a total of $1.324 billion, there 
were only $273.3 million in Illinois. Many former industrial 
communities that spread across this region could be revitalized with an 
infusion of additional Title One loans.
  There also remains a national need for affordable rental units. Each 
year 100,000 units are lost to demolition, abandonment or a higher use 
of income going to meet non-housing expenses such as food and health 
care. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit has been responsible for 
financing the construction of units to replace that are lost each year. 
In addition to providing affordable housing, the success of this credit 
can be seen in the thousands of jobs it has helped create. This credit 
is a fine model of the public private partnership that we want to 
foster. It empowers local communities to address housing needs with 
minimal federal bureaucracy.
  My Colleagues and I have founded a housing opportunity caucus to 
promote programs like the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, FHA Single 
Family and Title One Programs and other as building blocks for creating 
sound and compassionate housing opportunity policy that fosters 
homeownership as an opportunity for all Americans.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
bill, which expresses the sense of Congress, that we must work towards 
providing access to safe, healthy and clean accommodations for all 
Americans.
  The goals of this resolution are admirable. Adequate housing is an 
issue which has been unjustly ignored for too long by this Congress. I 
have always sought to ensure that the children of this great National 
all have access to safe and secure shelter, and this resolution, in my 
opinion, is a step in ensuring just that.
  My district, which lies in the City of Houston, is suffering from a 
housing crisis. Thousands of families are currently on waiting lists 
for public housing. In fact, a recent report had this figure at over 
6,000 people. For those families who have already endured the wait and 
are currently living in public housing, many have found the 
accommodations, unsafe, hazardous, and woefully inadequate. Public 
Housing has merit, but it is not the best solution for every family 
with a housing deficiency.
  Not all government action has been fruitless, however. We have had 
remarkable success with Federal programs which work in partnership with 
private entities. One example is the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's Section 8 Housing Program. Under this program, 
certificates or vouchers are issued to needy families who pay too large 
a part of portion of their income in rent. The voucher that they 
receive is for a modest amount, and just brings the rent down to a 
manageable level.
  One of the reasons that this program is so successful is because 
Section 8 families are allowed to stay in private housing. That not 
only means that Section 8 landlords get a fair shake in the deal, but 
it also means that the individual families who use the vouchers have 
some choice in where they live, work, and raise their children.
  Just within the last few weeks, I have worked closely with the people 
at Fannie Mae in my district. They recently undertook the 
responsibility of funding a study that would look closely at how their 
corporation, and other mortgage financiers, can enter the urban market 
in a successful and lucrative manner. I look forward to the results of 
that study, and to the benefits I believe it will bring to my 
community, in the form of more options for prospective homeowners who 
have typically been excluded from the American dream.
  We must work closely together here in the House in order to find 
viable and workable solutions for our housing deficiencies. This 
problem afflicts all of our districts, and we must take a pro-active 
stance if we are going to bring some sort of relief to our 
constituents. I hope that this resolution signals a step in that 
direction.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Leach) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 
208.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________