[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 138 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9110-H9123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1461, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE
REFORM ACT OF 2005
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 509 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 509
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1461) to reform the regulation of certain
housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
[[Page H9111]]
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1045
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
This structured rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Financial Services. It waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill, and provides that the amendment in
the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial
Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. It
waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a
substitute and makes in order only those amendments printed in the
Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution.
It provides that the amendments made in order may be offered only in
the order printed in the report, offered only by a Member designated in
the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and opponent. They shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments
printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the
underlying legislation, H.R. 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform
Act of 2005. This bill, cosponsored by my good friend, Chairman Richard
Baker, was accepted at its full committee markup last May and reported
to the House by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 65 to 5. This
balanced rule under debate makes in order a manager's amendment and an
equal number of additional amendments from Members of both sides of the
aisle, with four Republican and four Democrat amendments also made in
order.
The purpose of this legislation is simple: to provide for the
creation of a world-class regulator to oversee the housing government-
sponsored entities that help make America's mortgage and capital
markets the envy of the world.
Currently, approximately 70 percent of American households own their
own home, a fact that is due in no small part to the liquid and strong
capital markets that allow families to achieve the American dream of
homeownership at rates never seen before.
But the same GSEs that help to drive high ownership rates are also
among the largest U.S. financial institutions, with approximately $2.5
billion in assets. Between the two largest GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, nearly half the residential market is either owned or guaranteed.
Because of their size and potential to have a disproportionate impact
on America's capital markets, they require strong and effective
oversight of their operations. The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act,
brought forth by Chairman Mike Oxley and Chairman Richard Baker, will
accomplish this goal.
This bill will provide for the continued strength of our mortgage
markets by creating a new, world-class regulator with strong safety and
soundness and mission powers to oversee these GSEs. It merges the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which currently
regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with the Federal Housing Finance
Board, which currently regulates the Federal home loan banks, into a
single entity. This new entity, the Federal Housing Finance Agency,
will be headed by a Director who is appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate. It will also be comprised of an advisory
board, represented by the Department of the Treasury, HUD, and two
nongovernmental members.
This regulator will be empowered to ensure the safety and soundness
of GSEs through a number of increased powers similar to ones already
given to bank regulators, including the ability to determine minimum
and risk-based capital standards, to review and adjust portfolio
holdings, to approve new programs and business activities, to mandate
prudent management and operational standards, to take prompt corrective
and enforcement actions, and to put critically undercapitalized GSEs
into receivership, to require corporate governance improvements, and,
lastly, to hire examination and accounting experts.
This legislation also establishes an Affordable Housing Fund, based
on the Affordable Housing Program already in place for the Federal home
loan banks. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will now have the opportunity to
manage affordable housing programs funded by a percentage of their
earnings. These funds will be awarded through a competitive application
process to for-profit builders, State housing agencies, and nonprofit
organizations; and, this fund will streamline HUD's current affordable
housing goals for the GSEs to meet pressing needs in low-income and
rural communities.
Under this rule we also have the opportunity to discuss a manager's
amendment to this legislation, which makes a significant number of
improvements to the bill. Chief among these is the recognition that
Congress must provide strong, market-based incentives to rebuild the
devastated gulf coast region in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita. The manager's amendment will ensure that during the first 2
years, additional weight will be given to Hurricane Katrina and Rita
disaster areas and to those families affected by these catastrophes.
Priority will be given for other disaster areas and to areas of
greatest impact and geographic diversity.
The manager's amendment also recognizes the need for fast action in
the gulf region, and speeds up the effective dates of this legislation
from 1 year to 6 months after enactment. Finally, the manager's
amendment sunsets the fund after 5 years, at which point the Director
will report to Congress on whether funds should be extended or modified
to improve its efficiency and effectiveness so that Congress can
exercise appropriate oversight of this new program.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation to reform and
improve oversight of housing GSEs, and I would like to thank Chairman
Richard Baker and Chairman Mike Oxley and their colleagues on the
Financial Services Committee for their hard work on this important
legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this fair and
balanced rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield
myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
restrictive rule and to the manager's amendment made in order under the
rule. H.R. 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, as reported
out of the Committee
[[Page H9112]]
on Financial Services, was a thoughtful, reasonable, bipartisan piece
of legislation. As evidenced by the 65-5 committee vote in favor of the
bill on May 25, H.R. 1461 clearly has the support from both Democrats
and Republicans.
Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank worked together to craft
bipartisan legislation that provides real oversight and a stronger,
more powerful regulator for Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the Federal
home loan banks. The Federal Housing Reform Act, as reported out of the
committee in May, is the kind of legislation that the Framers intended
Congress to pass. Not only is it legislation that will do good and will
improve people's lives, it is legislation that was created out of
bipartisan negotiations and compromise.
I commend Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their actions
on the Financial Services Committee and for producing an excellent
bill.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republican leadership cannot
handle bipartisan success. Despite overwhelming bipartisan support in
committee, the Republican leadership held the bill hostage for 5
months, merely because a radical faction of their party opposes
affordable housing and, specifically, opposes the Affordable Housing
Fund included in the bill.
Unfortunately, after being strong-armed by the Republican Study
Committee, the Republican leadership forced changes that not only
weakened the Affordable Housing Fund provision, but will actually
restrict the ability of low-income people from voting in future
elections. Here is the deal: They have a manager's amendment that has
some very good things in it, but tucked in that manager's amendment
there is included some language that many of us find offensive. And the
gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Financial
Services Committee, wanted to have an amendment made in order to strike
that offensive language and was denied that opportunity last night in
the Rules Committee.
The language that I am talking about specifically denies faith-based
and nonprofit groups from funding simply if they express their first
amendment rights. Under these restrictions, any nonprofit community
group, or church would be ineligible to receive funding if either they
or their ``affiliates'' have engaged in nonpartisan voter registration
and get-out-the-vote activities. Furthermore, affiliation is defined so
broadly that it includes having overlapping board members sharing
physical space or other public communications.
It is worth noting that for-profit companies are exempt from these
restrictions. Why would we protect companies from these restrictions,
and impose them on low-income and faith-based communities, the very
people who this legislation is supposed to empower? I would ask my
colleagues, what do you have against faith-based organizations? We need
to enhance access to affordable housing, not reduce it.
Mr. Speaker, these restrictions are undemocratic. They are part of a
pattern by the extreme right in the Republican Party in an attack on
poor people. They are written with the intent to deny poor people the
access to vote. These provisions are a direct affront on the democratic
principles upon which this country was founded.
It seems clear that these restrictions are unconstitutional. They
would require any organization that wanted to receive funding from the
Affordable Housing Fund to sacrifice their freedom of assembly, which
protects their right to associate with one another in groups for
economic, political, or religious purposes.
We can provide and expand the affordable housing market without
trouncing on the Bill of Rights. Just as easily as these restrictions
were added into the legislation, they can be removed without affecting
the goals of the Affordable Housing Fund or the overall legislation.
A multitude of organizations across the country, ranging from the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to the National Alliance
to End Homelessness, have expressed their strong disapproval of these
egregious provisions. For one reason, these groups realize how harmful
these restrictions would be toward fighting homelessness.
Homelessness cannot be combatted unless our Nation's affordable
housing stock is increased. Affordable housing cannot be expanded if we
bar nonprofits and community organizations from tapping into the
appropriate resources.
Mr. Speaker, affordable housing should not be a partisan issue, but,
unfortunately, the Republican leadership has made it so. The battle
against homelessness and the expansion of affordable housing needs to
be addressed through a coordinated effort between the government and
nonprofit and faith-based communities. This language in this manager's
amendment severely restricts the ability of affordable housing
professionals to fulfill their role.
After Hurricane Katrina, President Bush and the leadership in the
House talked about the need to help poor Americans rise out of poverty.
They talked about improving people's lives. Well, Mr. Speaker, their
actions clearly do not match their rhetoric. When the Republican
leadership had a chance to help the poorest of Americans to receive
affordable housing, they acted to restrict access to a proposed
affordable housing fund. When the Republican leadership had a chance to
stand up for people who do not have a voice, for people who need help
making ends meet, they made a conscious decision to turn their backs on
them.
Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this debate is the ability to provide
affordable housing and access to voting for low-income families. One of
the icons of the civil rights movement, Rosa Parks, died on Sunday. We
all mourn her passing. But it is hard not to see the irony that 2 days
after her death, we are going to debate and vote on a bill that will
restrict the ability of the poor to have access to affordable housing
and to vote in democratic elections in this country.
This is a lousy way to run this Congress. I urge my colleagues to
vote against this undemocratic and restrictive rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is right out there in front of
everybody: Republicans are good on policy and, evidently, the Democrats
do not like the politics. The policy is what this Financial Services
Committee is all about. That is why they produced this great bill.
I am pleased to yield 3 minutes at this time to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Feeney) who serves on that committee.
{time} 1100
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me this time.
I want to speak in favor of the manager's amendment, if it is
adopted, certainly a great and important bill, and the rule itself.
The actual truth of the matter is that housing ownership in America
is at an all time high. This Congress and this President have
established policies that allow virtually every American that has a job
to find a way, if they desire, to own a home.
The GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have played an important part
in that. They provide liquidity in the secondary market so that there
are more opportunities for people to borrow at relatively low rates of
interest. We ought to preserve that system, and we ought to protect
that system.
These are enormous entities. Fannie alone is $1.7 trillion in terms
of assets, and both of these entities had some accounting troubles. The
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Baker) have led the way so that we can reform and have appropriate
oversight for those enormous, but important, entities that help the
housing market in America flourish.
The question here today is whether the rule ought to be adopted. Some
of our friends on the other side are very upset, because rather than
providing money for bricks and mortar, what they would like to do is to
provide money for politics. They want to allow folks that engage in
political activity, including voter registration, to have access to
money that otherwise would go to low-interest loans or to help
affordable housing builders at the local level actually build bricks
and mortar.
[[Page H9113]]
People that want a home do not need a lobbyist; they do not want a
politician. They want somebody that will actually build them, with the
sticks and the bricks and the mortar, a home to live in. That is what
this fight is about. One of the largest advocates, the groups that the
other side would like to have receive up to 2 or $3 billion this fund
may reach in the next 5 years, is a group called ACORN.
Now, ACORN is an important group. They are a first amendment group.
The gentleman is right. They have every right to participate in first
amendment activity, but not with money that we give them from Congress.
Thomas Jefferson said that to force a man to contribute to a cause in
which he does not believe is the definition of tyranny.
We want to build homes. They want to buy liberal lobbyists and
politicians. That is what this debate is about. ACORN had a game plan
in the year 2003 in Florida. By the way, they do this in many other
competitive States. ACORN wanted to register voters. They argued to the
public that this was about support for a minimum wage constitutional
amendment in Florida.
But their three bottom-line goals here are very important. Increasing
the minimum wage was the least important thing as part of their voter
registration drive. What they argued to contributors, who have the
right to contribute to this activity, who we should not force probably
to contribute to this activity, is they had three goals. And I want to
read these into the Record.
The goals of this campaign are three-fold: To increase voter turnout
of working class, mainly Democratic voters without increasing
opposition turnout; number two, to increase the power of progressive
constituencies by moving a mass agenda, putting together the capacity
to get on the ballot and win and by putting our side on the offensive;
number three, to deliver a wage increase to hundreds of thousands of
Floridians. That was an afterthought.
Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker have fashioned a great compromise.
Let us build homes. Let us pay for bricks and mortar. Let us not pay
for a liberal lobbyist.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following
letter from Catholic Charities USA, which strongly opposes the language
in the manager's amendment.
Catholic Charities USA,
Alexandria, VA, October 25, 2005.
Hon. James P. McGovern,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McGovern: On behalf of Catholic Charities
USA, the national association of Catholic social services
agencies and institutions serving over seven million people
in need every year, I urge you to support H.R. 1461, the
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, and to oppose
amendments that would prevent experienced faith-based and
community-based organizations from successfully competing for
the proposed affordable housing funds.
We strongly support the creation of the housing funds and
are convinced that this initiative would increase the
development of affordable housing, but we have learned that
the Rules Committee will be asked to put in order a managers'
amendment to bar organizations with proven experience in
mobilizing community support and resources.
We applaud efforts to develop additional non-governmental
funding resources to support affordable housing efforts that
will be cost neutral to the federal budget. At the same time,
we oppose limiting language that essentially bars non-profits
whose mission extends beyond the provision of affordable
housing. Not only our Catholic Charities agencies, but many
religious orders and some parishes, whose missions are
serving the poor and vulnerable in their communities, develop
and manage very effective affordable housing programs
alongside programs that provide food, clothing, counseling,
and other health and social services. These agencies should
not be barred from affordable housing funds simply because
their primary purpose goes beyond affordable housing.
In addition, we oppose amendments that restrain non-profits
from receiving these funds if they are engaged in any non-
partisan voter registration activities, even if these
activities are funded by their own resources. One of the
strengths of our democratic system has been the almost
universal involvement of community-based and religious
organizations in encouraging all citizens to register and
vote. National religious bodies, regional bodies, such as
Catholic dioceses, and local congregations throughout the
country organize voter registration efforts and provide
transportation to the polls for isolated seniors and people
with disabilities. Non-profits with expertise in housing
should not have to choose between two equally important
missions: supporting full participation in our democracy and
providing affordable housing.
While this Administration has worked diligently to remove
barriers to full participation in federal programs and
funding by faith-based organizations, these amendments would
bar these very same groups from being considered for this
funding while for-profit agencies remain free to engage in
these same voter activities. We are puzzled and troubled by
the double standard being applied to faith-based and non-
profit organizations.
Existing limits in H.R. 1461 on activities that qualify for
affordable housing funds prevent abuse of this funding. In
addition, Catholic Charities agencies routinely sign
certifications to receive federal, state, and local
government funds that prohibit diversion of program funds for
political and lobbying purposes. There are multiple vehicles
available to ensure that the new Affordable Housing Funds are
protected from inappropriate use by grantees.
The proposed Affordable Housing Fund to be created under
H.R. 1461 is sorely needed, especially in the devastated Gulf
Coast region where hundreds of thousands of families have not
been able to return to their homes. In such challenging
times, it would be unfortunate if experienced faith-based
organizations and non-profits that have performed laudably in
meeting the needs of these survivors would be barred from
participation in funding that would help meet critical
housing needs.
Sincerely,
Rev. Larry Snyder,
President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the problem is, I tell the former Speaker
from the Florida legislature, you do not have the courage of your
convictions on your side. You are not prepared to put your proposition
to a democratic vote on your side.
Mr. Speaker, once again this House majority is resorting to heavy-
handed tactics that are designed to do one thing only, to achieve a
preordained result by shutting down a full and fair debate in this
House.
Let me remind my colleagues what the chairman of the Rules Committee,
Mr. Dreier, said on this floor 12 years ago, in March 1993: ``Frankly,
it seems to me that the process of representative government means that
a person who represents 600,000 people here should have the right to
stand up and put forth an amendment and then have it voted down if it
is not supportable. We are simply asking that we comply with the
standard operating rules of this House.''
Why will you not do that today? Because you do not have the
confidence you have the votes. Again, today, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) and his Republican colleagues are violating
their own promise to allow free and fair debates. It is another stark
example of the arrogance of power and the abuse of power.
This Republican majority has blocked Mr. Frank's amendment, as well
as other Democratic amendments, and thus stifled, shut down, democracy
and stifled debate.
The manager's amendment, among other provisions, will prohibit
nonprofit organizations from using their own funds, I tell the
gentleman from Florida, their own funds, from voter registration drives
or get-out-the-vote activities for a period beginning 12 months before
a grant application until it is over.
Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that this House would take such an
action, any action that would inhibit or prevent anyone from engaging
in nonpartisan voter registration, unless, of course, you fear the
wrath of the voters in response to your abuse of power. Let us be
clear. This provision is nothing more than a transparent attempt to
disenfranchise voters who otherwise may not register to vote.
The gentleman mentioned the Catholic Conference. Let me read just two
sentences, I hope I have the time to do it: ``Proposals that would
limit eligible recipients to organizations that have as their primary
purpose the provision of affordable housing would effectively prevent
Catholic dioceses, parishes and Catholic charity agencies from
participating in affordable housing programs.''
That is the Catholic Conference of Bishops speaking. They say it
would force Catholic agencies, not ACORN, would force Catholic agencies
to choose between participating in affordable housing fund programs, or
engaging in constitutionally protected voter registration and lobbying
activities with their own funds.
[[Page H9114]]
This is Catholic bishops, I tell my friend, speaking. These
provisions are an outrage, and this process is an outrage. As one
Member of this body complained, once again the vast majority of
Americans are having their representatives in Congress gagged by the
closed-rule committee.
That was the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the now-chairman
of the Rules Committee. This undermines democracy in this the People's
House. What a shame.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am very disappointed that the gentleman from Maryland referred to
this as a closed rule, when in fact he knows it is not a closed rule.
The gentleman from Maryland understands that what we have done and
undertaken in this rule is the opportunity that would allow any Member,
but in particular a Member of the minority, a chance to vote on a
manager's amendment, a motion to recommit, and certainly final passage.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, so the public understands and our colleagues
understand, what I indicated was that the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank), the ranking Democrat on this committee, who has been here
over a quarter of a century, wants to offer an amendment that was
supported in the committee; and he has been precluded from offering
that amendment.
To that extent, the Republicans have undermined the free and fair
debate on this floor. That was my point. And I believe I was absolutely
correct.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, so that the gentleman
does understand the facts of the case, the committee had no discussion
on this point. The discussion took place in the Rules Committee,
because a decision was made well after May, at the time that the
committee brought it forward.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman,
it was never discussed in committee. That is precisely the point. The
restrictive language being put forward, which would say no faith-based
group could participate, has never been debated in this committee and
we are not allowed to do an amendment on the floor.
Yes, it is part of the manager's amendment along with a number of
other things such as preference for the gulf. All we asked for was an
ability to vote on some of these specific things. I agree, it was not
brought up in committee. It was brought up in a private session between
the Republican Study Committee and the then-majority leader. That is
not an appropriate forum to be the only place where we discuss things.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my point is that the
gentleman from Maryland referred to this as being a closed rule. It is
not a closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record a campaign plan from ACORN
that is very much a part of this debate today about what organizations
and groups plan to do with politics and money.
Floridians for All--Campaign Plan for a November 2004 Minimum Wage
Constitutional Amendment Initiative
Introduction
A Florida constitutional amendment initiative to create a
minimum wage of $6.15 with indexing will help defeat George
W. Bush and other Republicans by increasing Democratic
turnout in a close election, will deliver wage gains to at
least 300,000 Floridians, and will catalyze the construction
of permanent progressive political infrastructure that will
help redirect Florida politics in a more progressive,
Democratic direction.
The 2004 election in Florida is shaping up to be just as
close as 2000, which Al Gore won by 537 votes. Although there
have been demographic changes and growth throughout Florida
when the 2000 total is adjusted for 2004 it is still-razor
thin: Unofficial NCEC analysis shows that Gore's adjusted
margin is 404, combined with the 2004 adjusted Nader voter--
25,138 (assuming 25 percent stay home, 25 percent vote for
Bush and 50 percent vote for Gore). The 2004 adjusted margin
is 25,542--too close for comfort.
The 2004 projections indicate addition turnout of 370,000 a
total of 6.4 million, increasing the vote goal by 200,000 in
order to have a winning margin. The other significant change
in preliminary analysis is that the electorate will have 10
percent fewer ticket splitters than 2000. With less
persuadable voters, the need to increase base voters and
turning out more infrequent voters is critical to reach the
vote goal in Florida.
Given that turnout is down when the economy is bad, since
our voters are more discouraged, the need for a exciting
ballot initiative strategy that works to address the needs of
the most economically needy, and also likely Democratic
voters, is a fundamental part of a winning strategy in
Florida.
Florida ACORN is building a coalition, called Floridians
for All, that will unite labor unions, community and civil
rights organizations, the faith community, elected officials,
sectors of the business community, political organizations,
and thousands of grassroots activists behind the proposed
strategy. At the same time, we are building the
infrastructure to carry out the campaign and ensure the
accomplishment of our objectives.
The empirical evidence from other states indicates that
initiatives generally increase voter turnout, and that
minimum wage initiatives can significantly increase the
turnout of supporters without increasing turnout from the
opposition. [ACORN's own experience running municipal and
state minimum wage ballots [Denver, Houston (1996), Missouri
(1996), New Orleans (2002)] supports the conclusion that
these efforts are highly motivating to low-wage voters.] In
2000, 6.1 million voters came to the polls in Florida, a
turnout of approximately 70 percent. A targeted campaign that
works to turn out 1 percent of that electorate, approximately
61,000 voters, would not only make the difference for the
Democratic Presidential candidate but also lend significant
support to Congressional and local races. [As an example,
Congressional District 5 was won by conservative Republican
Ginny Brown-Waite, by little over 4,000 votes. From the top
of the ticket on down, a ballot initiative strategy which
mobilizes infrequent voters and energizes unregistered
Democratic constituency will help defeat George W. Bush
and allow Floridians to vote themselves a raise.]
An estimated 300,000 Florida workers would receive a direct
raise from our proposal. Moreover, thousands more would
receive residual raises because of their wage level just
above the new minimum. Floridians sorely need this proposed
raise. In 2001 over 28 percent of Florida's workers earned
less than the poverty line (approximately $8.70 an hour). A
full 20 percent of those workers earned less that $7.69 an
hour, a result that can be partially explained by the
concentration of workers in the lowest wage job sectors--
retail and service. A whopping 37.3 percent of the state's
workforce is employed in service sector jobs, with another
19.6 percent in the low wage retail sector. The additional
earnings of minimum wage workers, almost $700 mi1lion in the
first year alone, would be directly pumped back into the
economy, helping to stimulate the stagnant economy created
under the watch of Bush's destructive tax cuts. Not only is
this proposal beneficial to Florida's economy, it also helps
to seed a mass constituency for future change.
Because we are starting this campaign early, and because we
have a plan, the Floridians for All Campaign will challenge
the institutional forces for progressive and Democratic
change in the state to build permanent political capacity.
This is particularly important to rehabilitating the long-
term prospects of our side. In a state where Democrats
control only 53 of 160 legislative seats, and zero
Constitutional offices, the need to rebuild infrastructure
and capacity to win, has never been more important. For
example, the signature gathering phase of the campaign wil1
lead to the construction of a vast database of hundreds of
thousands of economic justice activists and voters in the
state. These are the same voters the Democratic Party must
court and win to regain a presence in state politics. The
campaign will also force organizations like ACORN to build
massive field capacity to deliver these necessary signatures
and GOTV. A vast network of activists and voters, combined
with sophisticated field campaign will act as a unifying
force among Democratic electoral forces. The combined
strength of community, labor, and--faith organizations
committed to mobilizing their members and leaders at the
grassroots level, will result in a cohesive strategy to
retake the White House in 2004 and rebuild the Florida
Democratic Party.
Campaign Goals
The goals of this campaign are threefold:
1. To increase voter turnout of working class, mainly
Democratic voters without increasing opposition turnout;
2. To increase the power of progressive constituencies by
moving a mass agenda, putting together the capacity to get on
the ballot and win, and by putting our side on the offensive;
3. To deliver a wage increase to hundreds of thousands of
Floridians.
Increasing turnout is crucial to a successful 2004
electoral strategy from the top of the ticket all the way
down, through the many key races in Florida that include not
only the Presidency, but also a key Senate race,
Congressional seats and also significant turnover in the
Florida Legislature. Given these many key races, exciting
and mobilizing constituency has never been more important,
but in order to do this there must be a compelling issue
on the ballot. Though presidential year elections always
result in
[[Page H9115]]
higber turnout, the 2000 elections demonstrate the
importance of every vote in Florida; and we do not want to
leave turnout to chance. These turnout figures from the
most recent Florida elections demonstrate the overall
decline in voter participation and the need to refocus
efforts on mobilizing and motivating our base.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992.......................................................... 83
1994.......................................................... 66
1996.......................................................... 67
1998.......................................................... 49
2000.......................................................... 70
2002.......................................................... 55
AVG........................................................... 64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Election Turnout Statistics from the Florida Secretary of State
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/online/voterpercent.shtml
Giving our constituency the opportunity to vote themselves
a raise is probably the most compelling reason to go the
ballot box. Candidates will make many promises, but turning
out to vote for a higher minimum wage is a voter's guaranteed
chance to affect real chance at the ballot box.
The process of building a statewide network of progressive
forces can be accelerated greatly through the use of the
minimum wage ballot initiative. Though there are many groups
that represent and advocate for the needs of social justice,
civil liberties, and environmental concerns, the strength of
these forces is limited through a lack of coordination
amongst these groups. While the groups promote diverse
agendas, a coalition of necessity is required in the face of
organized and unilateral support amongst opposition groups.
This ballot initiative will bring together progressive forces
from around the state around a common goal: increasing
turnout in the 2004 election in order to support campaigns
which represent the interests of all our groups.
Approximately 303,000 workers would be directly affected by
a minimum wage increase, putting millions of dollars into the
pockets of working families across Florida. In addition to
the workers who are directly affected, many more will benefit
through the rising tide of wages that results from raising
the baseline wage level. Unlike tax cut policies which
supposedly put money into peoples pockets, but really just
raid state and federal treasuries, a minimum wage increase
will put real in the hands of those who need it the most:
working families.
Campaign Strategy
We define winning here as accomplishing the three campaign
objectives:
1. Driving heightened Democratic turnout;
2. Passing the initiative;
3. Building permanent political capacity for future gains.
Our plan to win centers on a series of strategic premises,
layed out as follows:
1. First, we will divide the electorate into targeted
groups of voters/potential voters, and make a strategic plan
vis-a-vis each group. We are in the process of completing
this plan, but roughly, the categories/plans are as follows:
*African American voters--According to NCEC, there are
440,000 unregistered VAP (Voting Age Population) African-
Americans in Florida. Of the 440,000 unregistered voters
statewide, 176,000 of these voters live in the 475 majority
African-American precincts in Florida. This campaign will
work to register 50,000 of these potential voters through
voter registration drives in the following major metropolitan
areas:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total VAP White Latino Black County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VAP (from 2000)
Miami:
M-Dade..................................... 283,673 32,116 195,859 49,000 1.7M
Orlando:
Orange..................................... 144,987 81,100 23,414 32,563 670K
Tampa:
Hillsborough............................... 228,681 126,387 42,711 50,109 746K
Fort Lauderdale:
Broward.................................... 122,821 77,807 11,282 28,620 1.2M
St. Petersburg:
Pinellas................................... 194,796 141,797 7,618 36,752 744K
Jacksonville:
Duval...................................... 539,278 353,983 20,759 139,700 573,888
Tallahassee:
Leon....................................... 124,431 74,942 5,341 39,327 188,445
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This potential universe of newly registered voters, and highly motivated activists can be the deciding factor in
the 2004 election. Registering 50,000 new African-American voters in these majority precincts can result in a
net vote gain of approximately 21,000 votes (assuming 70 percent turnout of new registrations and 60 percent
approval for the measure).
*Non-Cuban Latino voters--There are 800,000 Hispanic voters
in Florida, 400,000 of whom are non-Cuban, and 345,000 new
potential Hispanic voters of Voting Age Population. The
Hispanic population is the fastest growing population in
Florida, and presents the Democratic Party with an
opportunity to build a new, revitalized constituency within
Florida.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Gillmor).
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas for
yielding. I rise in support of the rule, rise in support of the bill,
and I also want to note that government-sponsored enterprise reform is
way overdue, and it does pose a systemic risk to our financial system.
Also I want to commend Chairman Oxley, Chairman Baker and also
Ranking Member Frank for all of the work they have put into bringing
this bill to this point.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss briefly an amendment that I had
offered that was adopted by the committee by voice vote back in May.
That amendment adds an important disclosure requirement to ensure that
shareholders are fully informed on the charitable giving practices of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The language would authorize the Federal Housing Finance Agency to
require that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac make publicly available each
year the total value of contributions made to nonprofit organizations
during the previous fiscal year, and it would also request specific
disclosures on donations to insider-affiliated charities.
The housing GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were established by
congressional charter and give special privileges to provide a service
to the American people by creating a secondary mortgage market and
increasing liquidity.
Given their unique status and responsibility to improve access to the
housing market, it is both their shareholders' and the public's right
to know how these profits are being spent.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include the following editorial that
appeared in today's New York Times entitled, ``A Ban on Voter
Registration,'' which is very much opposed to the offensive language in
the manager's amendment.
[From the New York Times, Oct. 26, 2005]
A Ban on Voter Registration
Hurricane Katrina made it politically necessary for
Republican Congressional leaders to tone down their effort to
kill off federal programs for affordable housing. But it has
not stopped them from dragging their feet on an important
bill to create a valuable housing fund by tapping into a
small portion of the after-tax profits of the federally
backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fund
would initially be aimed at the hurricane-ravaged gulf
states, but would eventually help to house poor, elderly and
disabled people nationally.
Not satisfied with just delaying the bill, House ideologues
are advocating an outrageous and potentially unconstitutional
provision that would bar the nonprofit groups that build most
affordable housing from participating in the fund if they
also participate in even nonpartisan voter registration. This
would force such nonprofits to choose between their
historically important roles: promoting civic engagement and
providing housing and other services for low-income people.
The provision would conflict with state laws that require
housing grant recipients to do things like register voters
and would put the federal government in the unacceptable
position of actively discouraging political participation.
The long-overdue housing fund contains numerous safeguards
that would prevent grant recipients from using federal
dollars for advocacy. A measure that would bar them from
nonpartisan activities has absolutely no place in a
democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui).
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule,
House Resolution 509. The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act as
reported by the Committee on Financial Services is a strong bipartisan
effort.
[[Page H9116]]
It represents several years of work that will ensure the safety and
soundness of the government-sponsored entities, helping working
Americans achieve the dream of homeownership. Unfortunately, this rule
has a potential to undercut the committee's fine effort and may
severely undermine critical GSE reform.
The availability of affordable housing keeps our communities strong.
So wisely, the committee bill includes a fund to build and preserve
affordable housing and, I would add, support these activities at no
cost to the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the manager's amendment
mars this fund by forcing nonprofit, affordable housing groups to make
a choice. They can work to bring affordable housing to working
families, or they can register voters in the most nonpartisan of ways;
but they cannot do both, not even to drive an elderly person to the
polls.
Over 60 national organizations, many of them faith-based, such as the
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Episcopal Church, the
Presbyterian Church, have come out opposing this provision. These
organizations represent the mainstream values of this Nation, and their
efforts should not be hindered by roll-backs in these constitutionally
protected rights.
I urge my colleagues to maintain the broadly supported language that
came out of the Committee on Financial Services by rejecting the rule
and the manager's amendment.
This rule also provides for consideration of another amendment worthy
of a ``no'' vote. I am referring to the measure by the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) that would strike the bill's conforming loan
limit provision. Like many other metropolitan locations, my
constituents in Sacramento face escalating housing prices that are
making it harder and harder for working families to achieve the dream
of homeownership: firefighters police officers, the teachers in our
schools. They deserve to live in the same communities they work in.
{time} 1115
Increasing the conforming loan limit would bring fairness to the
housing market by giving working families in more expensive parts of
the country the same opportunity as everyone else to own their own
home.
Once again, this commonsense provision was included in the bipartisan
committee bill, and so I urge my colleagues to reject the Garrett
amendment.
In closing, I reiterate to my colleagues the importance of
maintaining the bipartisan version of H.R. 1461 that came out of the
committee. Vote no on this rule which will tar the Affordable Housing
Fund without giving the majority an opportunity to vote on it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
(Mr. CLEAVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, at no time in our Nation's history has the need for
affordable housing been so great. As the price of owning a house has
risen all over America, the poverty level has risen to almost 13
percent, and now Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have left thousands more
Americans, many of limited income, homeless.
The bill we will consider today takes a critical step toward
addressing our Nation's affordable housing crisis. By establishing an
affordable housing fund, we are increasing the supply of affordable
homes to low- and very low-income families. As a member of the
Committee on Financial Services, I was proud to see the inclusion of an
affordable housing fund in the bill and proud to support the bill in
committee.
Seeing this bipartisan support for this bill provided one of those
moments when we can just say, oh, happy days. But this important
provision will be for naught should one amendment made in order by the
Rules Committee pass. The Oxley amendment would disqualify nonprofit
organizations, including faith-based organizations, from participating
in the fund if they engage in voter participation or get-out-the-vote
activities. And it effectively prevents many nonprofits from
participating.
As an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church, I come to
this discussion from a unique perspective. Mr. Speaker, it is the
mission of the United Methodist Church and every denomination and every
faith group in our world to serve the poor and vulnerable. For my
church, the St. James United Methodist Church in Kansas City, an
important part of the mission is to shelter the poor, and that is why
we started in 1985 a section 202 project not far from our church.
Mr. Speaker, I grew up one of those vulnerable citizens. I am not
sure how many Members of the United States Congress lived in public
housing, but I did. My family, including my three sisters and mother
and father, lived in a shack, literally a two-room shack. My mother and
father both worked all day every day, and I can tell you, growing up in
public housing, not one time did we ever see a candidate canvassing our
community, not one time do I remember any kind of effort to get the
citizens to vote.
I do not ever even remember seeing a voting precinct until I was
about 17 years old because the elected officials knew that the poor do
not vote. They knew that if you were poor, you were preoccupied with
survival, and so there was no civic or political involvement. It was,
how can we make it one more day?
We have created a culture in low-income neighborhoods where people do
not participate in the political process, and what we need is to
democratize the low-income neighborhoods of our communities. And if you
go around, I do not care whether you are Republican or Democrat or just
a lazy person, if you go and look at the voting returns, you will find
that people who live in low-income neighborhoods do not vote. And I do
not care who you are, you ought to want to get people to vote.
This is the United States of America. We are strong only if we are
able to get all of our citizens to participate in the political
process.
Someone used the term ``liberal.'' If liberal means that I care, then
color me liberal. And understand this: Caring may hurt, but not caring
hurts more. We can do better than this. America can do better than
this.
Mr. Speaker, at no time in our Nation's history has the need for
affordable housing been so great. As the price of owning a home has
risen all over America, the poverty level has risen to almost 13
percent. And now Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have left thousands more
Americans, many of limited means, homeless.
The bill we will consider today takes a critical step forward toward
addressing our Nation's affordable housing crisis. By establishing an
affordable housing fund, we are increasing the supply of affordable
homes to low- and very low-income families. As a member of the
Financial Services Committee, I was proud to see the inclusion of
affordable housing fund in the bill, and proud to support the bill in
committee. Seeing the bipartisan support for this bill provides one of
those moments when we can say, ``O Happy Day''. But this important
provision will be for naught should one amendment made in order by the
Rules Committee pass. The Oxley amendment would disqualify nonprofit
organizations, including faith-based organizations, from participating
in the fund if they engage in voter registration or get-out the vote
activities, and it effectively prevents many nonprofits from
participating.
As an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church, I come to
this discussion from a unique perspective, Mr. Speaker. It is the
mission of the United Methodist Church, and every denomination and
faith group in our world, as it is of many religious orders and
communities, to serve the poor and vulnerable. For my church, St. James
United Methodist in Kansas City, an important part of that mission is
to shelter the poor by providing affordable housing. But an equally
important part of that mission is empowering the poor and vulnerable by
supporting their full participation in the Democratic process.
I grew up one of those vulnerable citizens--my family, by any
standard of measurement was financially poor. Until the age of 7, I
lived in a shack--literally a two room shack--with my mother, my
father, and my three sisters. We had no indoor plumbing and for a
while, no electricity. My family moved into public housing when I was
7. I can tell you, growing up, no candidates canvassed our community
and few, if any residents in our projects voted. My great-grandfather,
who lived until age 103, never once voted in his life. I say this as a
point of illustration. The poor and vulnerable are often those who need
the most help to fully participate in our democracy. When you
[[Page H9117]]
live in public housing, you are preoccupied with economic survival.
Let me be perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, by forcing faith-based
organizations and other nonprofits to choose between participating in
the Affordable Housing Fund or engaging in constitutionally protected
voter registration and get out the vote activities with their own
funds, the Oxley amendment limits the full participation of our
Nation's most vulnerable citizens in our democracy.
I keep a photograph of the shack where I grew up hanging on the wall
in my office to remind me that I have been given the opportunity to
speak for those who cannot, and represent in this the interests of the
most vulnerable and voiceless American citizens here in the Congress.
Every day when I go to work for the people of my district and the
citizens of our country, I walk out of the front door of that shack.
But whose interests are being served by passing these restrictions?
We're not serving the interests of the faith-based community or the
poor. These restrictions serve only the political purposes of some
study group that should not have the power to derail democracy in our
land. It is an assault on the poor in this country, and it is obscene.
Vote ``no'' on the Rule and vote ``no'' on the Oxley amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kansas City very clearly articulated
the exact reason why this bill is moving forward, and the reason why
Chairman Richard Baker and the chairman of the committee, Chairman Mike
Oxley, have moved forward a bill that is so powerful, that will include
more dollars.
But I believe that the argument that is here is about politics, pure
and simple politics, rather than policy. And this bill is about policy.
It is about getting millions of dollars that will be given to the
source at which we will create more and better housing for really poor
people.
The gentleman referred to him being a member of the United Methodist
Church. I am a member of the United Methodist Church. When you look at
a Web site for Habitat for Humanity, you will see large corporations on
that list who contribute to new houses in this country, not-for-profits
and others; and number four on that list is my church, of the entire
country, my church the Highland Park United Methodist Church of Dallas,
Texas. We build houses in Dallas, Texas, for poor people, people who
are without that ability for their families.
But what we are asking here is the ability to move this bill to
create thousands of more homes. And I think what Mike Oxley wants in
this bill is to make it about policy, not about politics. And I am
proud of how we are doing this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas keeps on saying
this is about policy, not politics; but what would be more political
than the language in here that denies poor people the right to vote?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. We need
to have a strong, independent and world-class regulator for Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks.
The committee I serve on, the Committee on Financial Services, has
labored for 6 years, 20 hearings, hundreds and hundreds of hours, and
hundreds of witnesses to put together what I think is probably one of
the best examples of bipartisan activity this House has seen in many
years. It is unfortunate that we come here today with the manager's
amendment excluding faith-based entities from participating in the
Affordable Housing Fund.
I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of our friends on the
other side of the aisle, if they understood the restrictions in the
manager's amendment and the denial by the Committee on Rules of a right
to vote on the issue, that is all we asked, it was never considered in
the subcommittee. It was never considered in the full committee. It has
never had an up-and-down vote or any consideration of this issue. It
appeared at the 11th hour to satisfy some political fears of some of
the majority party's members, and they felt this was a way of solving
it. Maybe it was directed at one entity, but in fact it has encompassed
in its grasp the faith-based entities of this country which provide
most of the affordable housing.
I have to say that with this we are making our religious institutions
choose between a joint mission of serving God their number one mission,
and then helping the poor. They are going to have to give up helping
the poor because if they were to do so, they will be restricted from
spending their own funds, not these affordable housing funds, but their
own funds, to bring out the vote, to have voter education, and to have
even carrying a voter to the polls for people who do not have a ride.
We have taken 15 protections in the bill to see that the intended
purposes were not abused. We did not need these additional
restrictions. They are there, I think, probably for political reaction
purposes, and it is unfortunate. As a result, we are going to
compromise an otherwise perfectly bipartisan bill that could have shone
with great favor in this House at this particular time in our history.
I find it unfortunate that we are denied this right to have an up and
down vote, and, as a result, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the
rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
the Fifth Congressional District of Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time, and I rise in support today of this rule.
I have been listening with great interest to some of the debate,
which I must admit is a little bit confusing to me. I hear some of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that essentially this
is a closed rule; yet I look at the fact that we will be voting on a
number of amendments later today, a number of which were offered by
Democratic Members.
I understand there is an accusation that somehow language dealing
with the Affordable Housing Fund, that Members do not have an ability
to weigh in on that. As I look at the manager's amendment,
substantially all of it has to do with the Affordable Housing Fund
issue. So if for some reason you do not like this language, you have an
opportunity to vote on it. So it seems to me that the process and
procedures dealing with this very important issue are quite open. If
you do not like it, vote against the manager's amendment. Vote for the
underlying bill.
Now, let us move to the substance of the arguments as far as the
creation of the so-called Affordable Housing Fund. I for one am not
convinced of the need for yet another government so-called affordable
housing program. Already we have over 80 different government programs
ostensibly aimed at affordable housing. We have got Community
Development Block Grant for Insular Areas; Shelter Plus Care, S Plus C
Emergency Shelter Grant. We have housing opportunities, the HOPWA
program, One- to Four-Family Mortgage Insurance, section 203(b). We
have got counseling for home buyers, Supporting Housing for the
Elderly, and the list goes on and on and on.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is there is no greater housing program than
the American free enterprise system, which is created by the creation
of jobs, which, under the economic policies of this administration and
this Republican Congress, are working. Over 4 million new jobs have
been created. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? We now have achieved the
highest rate of homeownership in the entire history of the United
States of America. That is astounding. We have the highest rate of
homeownership in the entire history of America.
The question or the debate is not how much money we are going to
spend on housing; the question is who is going to do the spending? Is
it going to be American families, or is it going to be government
bureaucracies?
Now, I know this fund is included in the bill, and so be it, I
support the legislation. But the question is, going forward, if we are
going to have yet another housing fund, should not it be used for
housing? Why open up the opportunity for it to be subverted into things
like political activities? I do not understand if those who have
advocated on behalf of the funds truly want to help the low-income,
then why do we not simply increase the section 8 voucher program? Why
do we not cut out the middleman? That is what we need to do.
[[Page H9118]]
{time} 1130
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule on
H.R. 1461. It adds an anti-minority, anti-family provision that was not
included in any of the sections of the legislation I supported in
committee.
The rule will prohibit nonprofit groups involved in voter
registration and get-out-the-vote activities from receiving money from
the affordable housing fund created by the bill.
It will negatively impact good civic organizations in my district
such as Amigos del Valle, National Council of La Raza, and Catholic and
faith-based organizations.
This rule is strongly opposed by large Latino groups, including
NALEO, LULAC, NCLR, and others.
The newly added provision is included in the manager's amendment and
appears to be aimed at suppressing the civic engagement of low- and
moderate-income and minority families. I respectfully urge that these
provisions be removed before the amendment and bill come to the House
floor for a vote.
I will insert at this point in the Record two letters to Speaker
Hastert. One is dated October 24, 2005, by NCLR, LULAC, and the League
of United Latin American Citizens. The second letter is from the Jesuit
Conference, and that letter is signed by the Reverend Bradley
Schaeffer.
October 24, 2005.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: It has come to our attention that the
House Leadership has forged a compromise with members of the
House Financial Services Committee regarding the Federal
Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461). The newly-
added provision is included in the Manager's amendment and
appears to be aimed at suppressing the civic engagement of
low- and moderate-income and minority families. We urge that
these provisions be removed before the amendment and bill
come to the House floor for a vote.
With strong bipartisan support, H.R. 1461 (Federal Housing
Finance Reform Act of 2005) passed the House Financial
Services Committee. The bill contained a measure that would
create an affordable housing fund, potentially generating
billions of dollars for development. As you know, with
housing prices continuing to rise, many communities suffer
from a lack of affordable rental and homeownership
opportunities for hard-working families.
Unfortunately, after passage, a compromise was struck
between the House Leadership and the Financial Services
committee that would preclude most nonprofits from accessing
the funds. Many of the organizations that would be left out
are uniquely positioned to develop the affordable housing
needed in their communities. Specifically, nonprofit
applicants would be restricted from participating in voter
registration and many classic civic engagement activities in
the twelve months before the time of application. In
addition, the nonprofit applicants would be deemed ineligible
if they are affiliated with an organization that engages in
these activities. Notably, for-profit organizations would not
have the same restrictions.
As representatives of diverse Hispanic constituencies, we
have the following concerns:
Minority Voter Suppression. The Latino community has
experienced a long history of voter suppression. Nonprofit
community-based organizations have played a critical role in
fighting against those who would limit the voice of Latinos.
The groups often serve as the main point of contact in
Hispanic communities and, in many cases, they are the only
local organization addressing their social, civic, and
educational needs. The proposed Manager's amendment to H.R.
1461 wi11 force these trusted community centers to choose
between providing civic education and affordable housing.
For-Profit Double Standard. Inexplicably, under this
provision, for-profit developers would not face similar
restrictions and would likely become the majority of fund
recipients. Even for-profits with a dubious track record
would be eligible to receive funds while public interest
social service providers would not.
We urge you to preserve the integrity of H.R. 1461 by
fighting to remove the restrictions on nonprofits.
Sincerely,
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials.
National Council of La Raza.
National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc.
League of United Latin American Citizens.
____
Jesuit Conference,
Office of the President,
Washington, DC, October 25, 2005.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to you on behalf of the
Jesuit Conference board of the Society of Jesus in the United
States to express our concern regarding an amendment to H.R.
1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, that
concerns the Affordable Housing Fund. We support the Fund but
strongly oppose a manager's amendment that would severely
restrict the organizations eligible to build much needed
affordable housing and would be an affront to the promotion
of civic engagement.
Today there are approximately 3,300 Jesuit priests and
brothers working in our domestic programs and abroad which
include: over 100 parishes, various social works throughout
the country, 28 Jesuit-affiliated colleges and universities,
and around 60 Jesuit-affiliated secondary and middle schools.
Many of our projects put us in direct contact with low-income
people that benefit from affordable housing programs, or that
suffer from a lack of housing.
Our nation desperately needs more housing that is
affordable to those struggling to get by. The U.S. Catholic
bishops, in their statement, Putting Children and Families
First, comment that, ``Many families cannot find or afford
decent housing, or must spend so much of their income for
shelter that they forego other necessities, such as food and
medicine . . . [The Catholic bishops] support housing
policies which seek to preserve and increase the supply of
affordable housing and help families pay for it.'' The
Affordable Housing Fund would address some of this great need
by increasing the supply of affordable homes for very low and
extremely low-income families. We applaud the effort to
increase the affordable housing stock in the country.
However, the manager's amendment that will be introduced
would disqualify any nonprofit organization, including faith-
based groups, from using resources from the Fund to build
affordable housing if that organization has engaged in voter
registration, get-out-the-vote, and other nonpartisan voter
participation activities. Furthermore, language in the
amendment also disqualifies organizations that are
``affiliated,'' a term broadly defined, with any organization
that engages in such activities.
Concerns that the Affordable Housing Fund would finance
partisan grassroots lobbying are unfounded. Current law, and
language in H.R. 1461, already contains sufficient
restrictions to ensure that funds are used solely for
affordable housing and not for other activities. However, the
manager's amendment will prevent even those groups that both
build housing and that conduct constitutionally protected
voter registration activities from receiving funds.
We strongly urge you to allow a vote on an amendment to
delete the harmful provisions of the manager's amendment
described above. H.R. 1461 and the Affordable Housing Fund
present Congress with an opportunity to provide housing
relief to the families that need it most. Don't let the
unconstitutional manager's amendment get in the way.
In the Lord,
Very Reverend Bradley M. Schaeffer, S.J.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Baton Rouge (Mr. Baker), the author of the bill.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time and
wish to express my appreciation to him and members of the Rules
Committee who have delivered a rule enabling consideration by the House
today of significant legislation relative to the reform in the
regulatory structure of government-sponsored enterprises.
For many years, that has been the subject of discussion by the
Committee on Financial Services and, prior to that, the Committee on
Banking. I cannot express enough appreciation to Chairman Oxley for his
long-standing tolerance on this matter, the many hours of agony I am
sure I have caused all Members on this subject matter; and I am very
appreciative for his courtesies extended in bringing to the floor a
bill which has been over many months hammered into the shape we
currently find it.
As to the current issue before the House in the consideration of the
rule now pending, I wish to make clear that the manner in which the
manager's amendment was constructed is no different from the
construction of hundreds of manager's amendments over the years in this
body. From the time at which a matter leaves committee until it arrives
on the House floor can be a matter of days, weeks, or months.
Circumstances change.
In this case, one element of that manager's amendment is the
establishment of assistance for victims of the significant hurricanes
the country has experienced, a highly appropriate utilization of a new
fund. I think it important to understand this is the first time such
fund has been constructed. The entity which will manage and distribute
the funds does not now exist; and so, for some Members, constraining
the utilization of the fund in its beginning stages was a logical
precaution.
It is about restoration of housing in the case of hurricane victims,
many of whom do not live in my district, but
[[Page H9119]]
certainly reside in my State. At the moment, they are without a home.
They are living in a FEMA trailer or a tent or with family and friends
or in any number of circumstances around the country. They are
desperate for the opportunity to come home, to live in that structure
that they call their own.
The bill now provides resources to construct homes. It was never
intended that the bill would become the basis for political activism.
The choice is clear: If we have limited resources to meet overwhelming
need, should we not ensure that those resources are used as intended
for the construction, for affording opportunity for low-income
individuals and those who are requiring homeownership opportunities for
the first time to have every cent go for that utilization? Of course it
does.
It is regrettable, of course, that there would be those to say the
amendment is flawed and that you should oppose it because we will not
allow a voter registration campaign or political activism. I think in
light of the concerns expressed, the overwhelming need for housing
inventory, the fact that this is a 5-year program which will end at the
end of 5 years, that we do not have yet an entity to manage, supervise
or distribute the funds, it is highly appropriate that the constraints
adopted in the manager's amendment be favorably considered by this
House and adopted.
More broadly, I think the rule has made in order a number of
amendments that were not discussed in committee, which the House will
consider and vote on accordingly; and I think at the end of the day, no
matter the construct of the final bill, it is important to understand
that a government-sponsored enterprise reform is absolutely essential.
I will speak more to that matter during general debate; but I think
those who only listen to the debate on the rule should understand, a
government-sponsored enterprise is created by an act of Congress. It is
given a privileged position in the marketplace. They utilize taxpayer-
guaranteed debt in order to make a profit for their shareholders. They
are unique in their construct in that they are authorized by the
Congress, but are shareholder-driven institutions. They take on great
risk and, accordingly, deserve the highest standard of regulatory
oversight possible. This bill achieves that.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for the underlying
bipartisan bill on GSEs, but in strong opposition to the rule that was
put in at the last minute, a provision that prevents any nonprofit
recipient of a housing grant from conducting nonpartisan civic voter
registration.
This is an outrageous, undemocratic provision that imposes
restrictions on promoting the most fundamental of our civil liberties,
the right to vote. Of all our rights, this is the one that our Founding
Fathers held most dear. What in the world are we doing today in this
Congress in an attempt to limit this great right on which our country
was founded?
Restricting the right of nonprofits in this way violates these
organizations' first amendment rights. Voter ID, civic awareness, civic
activities are protected by the first amendment. Yet this provision
forbids any nonprofits from even applying for a grant if they have
encouraged voting in the recent past.
There is absolutely no justification for preventing nonprofits'
efforts to encourage civic activities such as voting. Many faith-based
organizations, including the Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church,
the American Jesuit Conference, have come out in opposition to this
provision; and I will place in the Record at this point a list of these
organizations that have come out in opposition to this provision.
The Episcopal Church,
Office of Government Relations,
Washington, DC, October 20, 2005.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Hastert. The Episcopal Church supports the
Affordable Housing Fund as part of the Federal Housing
Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461). However, we are
strongly opposed to the inclusion of language in H.R. 1461
that restricts non-profits--including religious
organizations--from receiving Affordable Housing Funds if
they have engaged in any voter registration, voter
identification, get-out-the-vote, and other nonpartisan voter
participation activities or voter encouragement efforts
within 12 months of the application. They very people in need
of affordable housing are those who often need the most help
in fully participating in our democracy as voters. It is
highly ironic that at the very moment when we have seen in
the starkest of terms the great need for affordable housing,
important legislation to meet that need is encumbered with
language that undermines our democracy.
The Episcopal Church, through Jubilee Ministries and
Episcopal service providers, offers housing assistance to
many of our nation's poor. Jubilee Ministries administers
grants to over 70 Jubilee Centers throughout the United
States as well as the wider Anglican Communion. Including a
provision that would prohibit Episcopal organizations that
encourage democratic engagement from participating in
Affordable Housing Fund programs would limit our response to
God's call to serve the least among us and severely restrict
our efforts to provide safe, decent, and affordable housing.
In supporting the Affordable Housing Fund in H.R. 1461, we
are acting upon a resolution passed at our 2003 General
Convention that reaffirmed our commitment to providing
affordable housing for the poor. The resolution calls for the
legislative branches of the federal government to provide
``rental and owner-occupied housing that is safe, accessible,
and affordable for low-income and moderate-income persons and
their families including persons with disabilities'' and ``to
ensure that housing assistance programs are adequately funded
to address the growing gap between the number of affordable
housing units available and the number of renter households
in the bottom quartile of income in this nation.''
As a church we have also acknowledged ``the use of the
political process as an act of Christian stewardship'' and
recognized that a ``faithful commitment to voting is an
extension of our baptismal covenant to `strive for justice
and peace and the dignity of every human being.' '' We have
asked ``all Episcopalians to actively engage in advocating
for voter rights, encouraging voter registration, getting out
the vote, and volunteering to assist voters at the polls.''
Mr. Speaker, we ask that you do all in your power to see
that the provisions related to voter participation are
removed from H.R. 1461. No organization should be asked to
choose between providing homes for those in need or enabling
citizens to fully participate fully in our democracy.
Sincerely,
Rev. Kwasi A. Thornell,
Chair, National Concerns Committee of the Executive
Council.
Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane, D.D.,
Bishop of Washington.
____
National Organizations Opposed to Voter Restrictions in
H.R. 1461,
Washington, DC, October 19, 2005.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker, The undersigned national organizations
have learned that the compromise reached by House Leadership
on H.R 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005,
includes provisions that would restrict the ability of
American citizens to engage in our democratic process. We
urge that these provisions be removed before the bill comes
to the House floor for a vote probably during the week of
October 24.
Specifically, we object to the restrictions on non-profit
organizations that apply for grants through the Affordable
Housing Fund established in H.R. 1461. The egregious
provisions, which we strongly oppose, disqualify any
nonprofit organization that has engaged in voter
registration, voter identification, get-out-the-vote, and
other nonpartisan voter participation activities in the 12
months prior to application from eligibility for the
Affordable Housing Fund grants. It further prohibits non-
profit organizations that receive grant funds from engaging
in these activities.
These grants are to be used solely to produce and preserve
housing that is affordable to extremely low and very low
income families. For the first two years, the funds will be
prioritized to rebuild housing in the areas devastated by
Hurricane Katrina. The anti-democratic provisions do not just
prohibit the use of Affordable Housing Fund dollars from
being used for these purposes. The prohibition applies to any
resources of a grantee, including funds specifically for
civic engagement activities.
Moreover, even if a particular non-profit organization does
not itself engage in any of these activities itself,
``affiliation'' with an organization that does would
disqualify the nonprofit from applying for Affordable Housing
Fund grants. Notably, for-profit companies are exempt from
these restrictions.
These provisions are blatantly undemocratic and raise
substantial constitutional questions in the attempt to limit
the rights of affiliation. They are intended for no other
purpose than to reduce access to voting by low income people.
People of color are overrepresented in the low income
population, making this a civil rights issue. Moreover, these
provisions have serious implications for the broader
nonprofit community by setting a very dangerous precedent.
The low income housing community has worked tirelessly to
establish the Affordable
[[Page H9120]]
Housing Fund in H.R. 1461, because we know the dire need for
funds to increase the nation's affordable housing stock. But
nothing is worth compromising the right of all Americans to
participate in our precious democracy.
Sincerely,
Alliance for Healthy Homes.
Alliance for Justice.
American Counseling Association.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees.
American Network of Community Options and Resources.
Americans for Democratic Action.
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
(ACORN).
Campaign for America's Future.
Center for Community Change.
Center for Law and Social Policy.
Child Welfare League of America.
Children's Defense Fund.
Cities for Progress at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Coalition on Human Needs.
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities.
Corporation for Supportive Housing.
Enterprise Foundation.
Environmental Working Group.
Episcopal Church.
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Local Initiatives Support Corporation.
Lutheran Services in America.
Mercy Housing.
National AIDS Housing Coalition.
National Alliance of HUD Tenants.
National Alliance on Mental Illness.
National Alliance to End Homelessness.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP).
National Association of Housing Cooperatives.
National Coalition for the Homeless.
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
National Community Reinvestment Coalition.
National Council on the Aging.
National Council of Nonprofit Associations.
National Council on Independent Living.
National Fair Housing Alliance.
National Head Start Association.
National Health Care for the Homeless Council.
National Housing Conference.
National Housing Law Project.
National Housing Trust.
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.
National Low Income Housing Coalition.
National Neighborhood Coalition.
National Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness.
National Urban League.
OMB Watch.
Poverty and Race Research Action Council.
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office.
Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA).
RESULTS.
Smart Growth America.
Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future.
Technical Assistance Collaborative.
The Arc of the U.S.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), National
Association of State PIRGs.
United Cerebral Palsy.
United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.
Women's Committee of 100.
YWCA USA.
Mr. Speaker, clearly, these organizations recognize an attack on
faith-based values when they see one.
These restrictions force faith-based organizations to make a decision
between providing low-income housing or promoting civic activities, and
that choice is not one Congress should be forcing.
It goes against our deepest principles and strikes at those who can
least protect themselves, and I feel that it is particularly
inappropriate that the majority is trying to limit the rights of the
disadvantaged this week in the wake of the death of Rosa Parks, who
stood up for the right to vote in so many courageous ways.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule which did not permit a
vote on Congressman Frank's amendment to strike from this bill the
provision that prevents any nonprofit recipient of a housing grant from
conducting nonpartisan civic voter registration.
This is an outrageously bad provision that imposes unconstitutional
restrictions on promoting the most fundamental of our civil liberties:
The right to vote.
Of all our rights, this is the right that our Founding Fathers held
most dear; that thousands have come to this great democracy to hold;
and that right now our men and women are dying to protect in Iraq.
What are we doing here limiting this great right on which our Nation
is founded?
Restricting the rights of nonprofits in this way violates these
organizations' fundamental First Amendment rights. Voter registration,
voter identification, and get-out-the vote activities are protected by
the First Amendment. Yet this provision forbids nonprofits from even
applying for grants if they have encouraged voting in the recent past.
There is just no justification for preventing nonpartisan civic efforts
to encourage voting.
Many faith based organizations strongly oppose these restrictions.
The Catholic Church is just one of many organizations whose faith-based
mission to serve the disadvantaged leads them to both provide low-cost
housing and help the disadvantaged exercise their right to vote.
Indeed, faith based organizations are strongly united in their
opposition. Among them are the Lutheran Church, the United Church of
Christ, the Presbyterian Church, the U.S. Jesuit Conference, and the
American Jewish Congress, just to name a few.
Clearly these organizations recognize an attack on faith-based values
when they see one.
These restrictions force faith based organizations to make a choice:
Provide low-income housing or promote the ability to vote. That choice
is not one Congress should be forcing. It goes against our deepest
principles and strikes at those who can least protect themselves.
It is particularly inappropriate that the majority is trying to limit
the rights of the disadvantaged to vote this week, in the wake of the
death of Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks was a national icon, a symbol of what
one courageous person can do to achieve civil rights and liberties.
This amendment to preserve nonpartisan voter registration could be
called the Rosa Parks Amendment--to remind us that she co-founded the
Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development to help young
people register to vote, and I am confident that she would have
supported it with the quiet dignity and faith that she demonstrated in
her own life.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to repudiate these
provisions that strike all faith-based organizations.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I find it rather embarrassing to have to
come to the floor of the Congress of the United States to protect the
constitutional rights of the citizens of this country when, in fact,
that is what we were all elected for, to make sure that this democracy
works.
I am opposed to this rule, and I cannot believe that my colleagues on
the opposite side of the aisle would jeopardize the opportunity for us
to provide housing for people who are victims of these hurricanes that
have hit this country because they have interjected politics into this
bill.
This is absolutely outrageous. There is nothing in this bill that
would allow any nonprofit or profit-making organization who wished to
produce housing for low- and moderate-income people to use this money
for any political activity. It is not fair. My colleagues are making it
up, and it is absolutely outrageous.
As a matter of fact, we were so concerned about making sure that
everybody had an opportunity to provide housing, to produce housing, we
put in an amendment that would make sure that this money would not go
to one or two big organizations; that it would be available in rural
communities; it would be available to the faith-based communities; it
would be available all over this country to small- and medium-sized
organizations, not just a few large ones.
So we have been very democratic. We know that there are some people
on the opposite side of the aisle that did not like the idea of
providing funds for low- and moderate-income housing; but we also know,
because of the leadership of some people on the other side of the aisle
who understood the homelessness and the crisis that we have in America,
lack of housing, the low-income people, that they were able to prevail,
and we came out with a good bill.
Do not get up here and fuss and talk about closed rule, modified
rule, manager's amendment. It has nothing to do with that. My
colleagues either want to provide low-income housing and not put
politics in it and prevent people from exercising their constitutional
rights or they do not want anything for anybody.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member on the
committee.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first, as to the rule, let
us be very clear. This is democracy denied squared. Substantively, this
imposes restraints on getting lower income people to vote.
[[Page H9121]]
One of the Members of the majority, one of the authors of this
restruction, the gentleman from Florida, talked about ACORN. In fact,
under provisions of the bill which are agreed upon unanimously, what
ACORN proposed would have disqualified them from getting funds. There
is agreement that if groups are engaging in partisan activity they
should be excluded.
One thing that the majority forgot to mention, one of the pieces of
their amendment to which we object is the piece that says you can only
participate in this program if housing is your principal purpose. The
faith-based initiative, rest in peace. Apparently, it did not last very
long.
The primary purpose of faith-based organizations is faith. It is not
housing. They would like to do housing. It is part of their mission,
but it is not their primary purpose. That is why not just Catholic
charities but the Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States
has asked that this be amended, because this provision that only if
your primary purpose is housing can you participate denies any faith-
based group the right to participate. Apparently, the fear of low-
income people voting outweighs the support for faith-based groups.
What are the substantive restrictions? We agree that there should be
no partisanship. There would be a lot of restrictions if my very small,
specific amendment were to pass. You could do not electioneering. You
could not do lobbying beyond a very limited amount, but you could get
out the vote. You know what that means? We had the Episcopalians, the
Methodist, the Orthodox Jews, all of which do a lot of housing. You are
the Methodists and you run an elderly housing project, under the
Republican provision, you cannot do get-out-the-vote activity if you
help build housing. So you cannot hire a bus to go take the old people
to vote. You cannot have somebody come in and get them to register.
That is what we are talking about. There is an extremism here that is
not comprehensively accepted in the history.
The committee voted on this bill. It is contentious as anything I
would write, as anybody would write. It is a good bill which sets up a
world-class regulator. Much of what has been said on that side I agree
with.
Then the Republican Study Committee, the most conservative Members of
the House who appear to be able to run the House by using their
influence with the majority leadership, an influence which does not
seem to have changed since the majority leadership changed, they were
able to take this bill hostage.
{time} 1145
They tried to kill this whole thing. Members on their side now say,
we are for doing this affordable housing. Well, then why did they try
to kill it?
There was an amendment to kill the whole affordable housing fund, not
restricted. It lost 53 to 17, and so then they went to the majority
leader and said we cannot win a fair fight. Hijack the bill. So now it
comes to the rules situation. Here it is. Yes, we will get the vote on
the manager's amendment. The manager's amendment includes what the
gentleman from Ohio, the gentleman from Louisiana, myself, and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania all agree to, along with the gentlewoman
from California, to give a preference for those areas affected by the
hurricane.
So what the gentleman from Texas would have Members believe, both
gentlemen from Texas, it is an open rule on this issue because if you
are willing to vote not to give a preference to the hurricane areas,
you can also vote to let the Catholic Church participate in low-income
housing. They come as a package. If you think the Catholic Church and
the Episcopal Church and the Methodist Church and other churches ought
to be able to participate in this, then you have to vote not to give
preference to the hurricane areas. That is their idea of a fair rule.
All I asked for was a chance to agree to everything in the manager's
amendment except for three things: Allow faith-based groups to
participate. Let it be one of their primary purposes. Let them do
nonpartisan voter registration and let them do nonpartisan get-out-the-
vote. We are not given a chance to vote on that.
I hope Members will vote against the manager's amendment. It is a
tough vote for Members in the hurricane areas because they will be
demagogued.
If the manager's amendment is defeated, let me announce now, I will
then offer a motion to recommit which will be everything in the
manager's amendment except these three things. So Members over there
who have told these low-income groups, as often happens, I do not like
what these people have done, I do not want to exclude the Catholic
Church, but my hands are tied, we will untie your hands. We will give
you a chance to vote on it, but it is still not a fair vote.
I think it is very clear that there is one reason why the Members are
not allowed to vote on a specific amendment that says let us take all
of the restrictions on the groups, and when people say we do not want
the money spent on other things, it has always been clear that the
money can only be spent on affordable housing. We are talking about
whether groups with their own money can do other things. People have
said the money is fungible. Well, when we were debating faith-based
groups, when we said if you give money for day care, is that going to
go to religious activities, we were told, no, they will be segregated.
I agreed with that. So the argument about fungibility, apparently,
appears to be itself very fungible.
Mr. Speaker, all we are asking for is a chance for an up-or-down vote
on three provisions which have never been voted on which were inserted
here because the most conservative elements in the Republican Party,
the Republican Study Committee, got the majority leader to make them a
condition of the bill coming to the floor. I guess if the rest of the
Republicans want to be held hostage by that group, they will show us by
their votes today.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for conducting a worthwhile debate on this issue and the
rule.
While we will have plenty of time to debate the merits of the
legislation, and there are a great deal of those out there, and I think
both sides would agree, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Baker) for his excellent work, as well as the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member.
The approach that we took, beginning with the need, the glaring need
for a world-class regulator for the GSEs, became quite evident with the
revelations of some of the accounting scandals that took place in both
of those institutions and to a lesser extent with the Home Loan banks.
Looking back in the past when Chairman Baker was a lone voice in
trying to get changes in the regulatory structure to where we are now
is quite extraordinary. It is quite extraordinary that we are actually
debating a rule that would bring up a major piece of legislation
totally changing the way we look at GSEs and their role in the housing
market and the secondary market, particularly as it relates to their
regulation and how they are regulated. I do not think anybody can argue
that the structure we set up is less than superlative and provides a
world-class regulator.
Some of the issues we debated that were so contentious, I think of
receivership, and all of the debates that we had about the necessity
for including receivership language in it so in case one or both of the
GSEs, that the regulator could actually put them in receivership,
essentially became a nonissue just a few months ago. I think that
points out the kind of progress we made in the committee. The 65-5 vote
that we had on final passage was quite extraordinary.
We also needed to look at the whole issue of affordable housing. The
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and his subcommittee really deserve a lot
of credit for putting together, I think, a very solid plan borrowed
from the Home Loan bank system from which they set aside 10 percent of
their profits towards affordable housing. Let me point out that program
has been incredibly successful over the years, borrowing a page from
the Home Loan
[[Page H9122]]
banks, in this case, to set aside 5 percent from Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac that would potentially provide hundreds of millions of dollars
towards affordable housing. Again, I think Members agreed with that,
and the concern was always, I think, in the back of everybody's mind to
make certain that this money was accountable and it was used for bricks
and mortar, actually building the homes instead of political advocacy
and the like. Indeed, I think we came to a reasonable conclusion on
that.
We have differences as to the application of that. It was always our
goal to make those funds available only to groups that had housing as a
function and that they had a track record. I am thinking of Habitat for
Humanity as a good example, but also State housing agencies and for-
profit companies that would compete for those funds and would have to
be approved by the board we set up in the legislation, again, providing
accountability where that money goes because it is technically,
certainly, not government funds, taxpayer funds, but private sector
funds. We want to make certain that every dollar that was made
available went into building affordable housing.
And then, of course, along came Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita,
and now Wilma; and those events provided another glaring need for
affordable housing in those heavily struck areas. That is why we wanted
to include those and provide them with the opportunity to essentially
be first in line for those funds because of the enormous complications
that have developed down there in terms of housing and exacerbated an
already difficult situation. That is where we are now.
I am proud of the committee and the work we have been able to do. I
think we are in a position where we can debate the manager's amendment
under the rule. There are several Democrat amendments made in order,
Republican amendments made in order, four on each side. I think the
Rules Committee has done a superb job in doing that. I know the
gentleman from Massachusetts will probably offer a motion to recommit
based on the issue of fund availability. That is precisely within his
rights, and I would expect that.
But this vote on the rule that I support is moving us forward to get
to legislation passing to help the hurricane victims and to better
regulate the GSEs. I think there is a broad bipartisan consensus for
that. Let us vote up the rule and get on with the debate.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, over the past 5 years, we have seen 100,000 Federal
housing units lost. We are down 50 percent in real terms in elderly and
disabled housing at a time when the leadership on the other side of the
aisle has tried to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant
Program. They have significantly cut back on the number of section 8
vouchers for low-income housing assistance, and they have tried to
limit housing assistance overall, so it is important that this
underlying bill pass and at the same time that this reprehensible
provision, this attack on poor people, be struck from the bill.
Mr. Speaker, to prohibit organizations from receiving funding for
housing, many of these organizations, faith-based organizations, that
participate in nonpartisan activities, as the New York Times said
today, has no place in our democracy. We can do so much better. The
fact of the matter is that many of these faith-based organizations that
do an incredible job in housing will be barred from participating
because of this provision. Vote down the rule. Let us fix this
provision.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts refer to his 25
years of service in this distinguished body, and I have great respect
for that; but I want him to know, and I am certain he remembers this,
that the Democrats when they were in the majority, many times denied
Republicans an opportunity in the legislative and rulemaking process to
have motions to recommit. In fact, the Republican majority has given
the minority that under this rule, as we have the entire time we have
been in the majority.
This vote today is simply on the rule. The committee voted for the
bill 65-5. Members are going to have an opportunity during
consideration of these amendments to voice their disapproval of the
manager's amendment and vote it down if that is what they choose to do.
The purpose of these changes that we are talking about in the
manager's amendment is to prevent nonprofits from receiving these funds
and engaging in political activity, to ensure that the scarce and
available funds for housing resources are allocated effectively and for
their intended purpose, pure and simple. We want to make sure that they
are used for rebuilding houses with the primary emphasis in the gulf
region.
This legislation does not prevent nonprofit organizations from
pursuing a political agenda if they so choose. It simply prevents them
from accepting these funds if they put politics first. It is their
choice.
Hurricanes do not take party affiliation into account, and these
funds are being contributed by the housing GSEs to rebuild this
important region of our country. It should not be done on a political
basis. I am very proud of this bill and the underlying legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.
Res. 509 as reported out of the Committee on Rules last night relative
to our debate of the GSE legislation, H.R. 1461. While many substantive
amendments were made in order, the committee blocked what we
undoubtedly consider one of the most substantive amendments that was
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, the ranking
member of the body from which the underlying measure was discharged.
The gentleman's amendment would have removed language contained in
the current manager's amendment that bars organizations with proven
experience in mobilizing community support and resources--a nonpartisan
initiative. In addition, the manager's amendment would constrain the
ability of experienced faith-based and community-based organizations to
successfully compete for the affordable housing funds that are proposed
in the underlying bill.
My district of Houston, TX, has a plethora of faith-based
organizations that have plans that would provide much-needed affordable
housing for the surrounding community. Our affordable housing stock has
suffered for a long time, and I have been working steadfastly with the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to facilitate the obtainment
of opportunities by these groups. The nugatory provisions in the
manager's amendment will contravene the hard work that I and many other
Members have done to this end.
While I applaud the effort made by the administration to remove
barriers to full participation in Federal programs and funding faith-
based entities, proposals such as the manager's amendment will bar
these groups from access to this funding while for-profit agencies
remain free to engage in the democratic process which is every
American's birthright. This double-standard must be removed. It
contravenes the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose an outrageous provision
attached to previously strong legislation. I am shocked and
disappointed that the majority has chosen to destroy what was an
effective, responsible, and bipartisan bill by including an
indefensible provision to restrict nonpartisan civic activity of
nonprofit organizations.
This legislation started out as an example of how the legislative
process should work. The Financial Services Committee reported a bill
to reform Government Sponsored Enterprises, GSEs, and establish an
Affordable Housing Fund, AHF. The bill would increase home ownership
among low-income families, increase investment in housing in low income
and economically distressed areas, and in general increase the Nation's
supply of affordable housing. The bill received broad bipartisan
support, reported by a vote of 65-5.
It is unfortunate that the majority has chosen to mandate
consideration of a bill that includes a provision restricting
nonpartisan civic activities of nonprofit organizations, even if they
use their own funds to conduct such activities. Nonprofit organizations
(and any affiliate of the nonprofit) would be prohibited from engaging
in nonpartisan voter registration or get-out-the-vote activities. These
restrictions would force low-income housing groups and faith-based
groups to choose between obtaining funding for low-income housing and
using other funds to engage in nonpartisan voter registration and get-
out-the-vote activities.
In my home State of New Jersey, organizations like Catholic Charities
provide vital social services to vulnerable people in need, such as
food, clothing, counseling, and health services. They also routinely
hold voter registration drives before elections and provide elderly and
[[Page H9123]]
disabled voters with transportation to the polls. Their activities are
nonpartisan and play a vital role in ensuring that people are able to
vote if they so desire. Under this legislation, they would no longer be
able to fulfill this function. This body should not prohibit social
service organizations from conducting nonpartisan civic activities.
The majority protests loudly when its actions are judged to be
motivated by a desire to suppress voter turnout and civic participation
in urban or low-income areas. From the inclusion of this discriminatory
provision, it is difficult to reach any other conclusion. Today this
rule blocks an amendment by Representative Barney Frank that would
remove this provision.
It is disheartening to see that, at a time when the majority and the
administration claims to support removing barriers for faith-based
organizations, this provision has been included to restrict the
activities they are permitted to conduct. Inclusion of the provision
has sunk the prospects of passing strong and bipartisan legislation
that will help the most vulnerable obtain affordable housing. I urge my
colleagues to reject this rule.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to lament the wrecking of a solid,
bipartisan bill that, at one time, both established a tough new
regulator for our Nation's secondary mortgage market and created a new
national housing trust to build affordable housing.
Our Nation's economic security and the housing opportunity of
millions of Americans is being played with on the floor today.
But more than this particular bill, I also lament the fact that this
Congress is held hostage to the extreme right wing agenda of the
majority. A small cabal of 50 or so Members who, though small in
number, loud in voice, threaten this Republican Majority and hold this
Congress and our country hostage.
They claim they want smaller government but they are saddling our
children with trillions in the notorious birth tax--yes, every child
born in America today comes into this world with a $30,000 debt to the
Government thanks to the skewed economic policies of the so-called
fiscally conservative Republican Party.
They claim to help people but want to strip away student loans from
college kids, Medicaid from the poor, and aid to farmers, for bigger
tax cuts for the richest Americans.
They claim they support families, but they are robbing the basic
tenet of the American Dream--home ownership--right here in this very
bill.
They claim to represent people of faith, but they are stripping away
the ability of groups like Catholic Charities, Baptists and other
people of faith to use this new funding to benefit their communities
and make America stronger.
If this rule passes the Republicans will have done what they do best,
stripping away the American Dream of owning a home for millions of
Americans. As well as continuing on their path to destroying what this
country stands for, religious freedom, home ownership and the ability
of child to live a better life than his or her parents.
This debate is bigger than this rule, bigger than this bill. It goes
to the heart of who the Republican Party is today, and it is a party
that does not stand for working people.
This rule demonstrates this fact. Vote down this anti-religion, anti-
American rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________