[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 82 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5338-H5343]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1427, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE 
                           REFORM ACT OF 2007

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 404 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 404

       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. 1427) 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 except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. 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, modified by the 
     amendment

[[Page H5339]]

     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered by title rather than by section. Each 
     title shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII 
     before the beginning of consideration of the bill and except 
     pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each 
     amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who 
     caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be 
     considered as read. 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. 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.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1427 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). The gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Welch) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for 
debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. WELCH of Vermont asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)


                             General Leave

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that 
all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks on House Resolution 404.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, as the Clerk just described, H. 
Res. 404 provides for consideration of H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing 
Finance Reform Act of 2007, under an open rule with a preprinting 
requirement. As of the date required for filing, 36 proposed amendments 
have been printed and met the preprinting requirement.
  Mr. Speaker, affordable housing is absolutely critical as an issue to 
many Americans and certainly to folks in my State of Vermont, as well 
as yours. Along with food, health care and energy costs, affordable 
housing can make all the difference in economic survival, and we must 
begin to take seriously the challenge of affordable housing for renters 
and perspective homeowners.
  In Vermont, just to give an example, affordable rental units, we have 
a shortage of about 20,891 rental units, short of what we need for 
working families in Vermont. They need in Vermont an annual income of 
$29,000 to afford a statewide average two-bedroom apartment.
  The challenge of home ownership, in addition to renting, is daunting. 
While many low- and moderate-income households aspire to own their own 
home, limited supply, rising costs and other significant barriers can 
make that dream out of reach. Beginning in 2005, the new construction 
of 12,300 owner-occupied homes in Vermont was needed to meet the demand 
expected in 2010, not something that most Vermonters think will be 
possible.
  The average purchase price for an average single-family home in 
Vermont in 2000 was $144,000, a lot less than it might be in the City 
of Washington, but beyond the reach of many Vermonters. But 5 years 
later, in 2005, the average price had increased a staggering 60 percent 
to $232,000, and very few families have seen their paychecks rise 60 
percent in the past 5 years.
  More than 1 million low-income households across New England, 
including the elderly, disabled and families, live in federally 
assisted housing. Most of these households have annual incomes of less 
than $8,000, well below the poverty line. They are at serious risk of 
homelessness. Even larger numbers of households are struggling to 
survive in the private housing market and are paying more than 50 
percent of their income for rent.
  In 1995, the housing community started facing dramatic changes in 
Federal housing policy, including funding cutbacks, program reforms and 
the devolution of responsibilities to State agencies who lack the funds 
to meet the need. Budget cuts aimed primarily at low income people 
presented an enormous challenge for communities across the country. 
Vermont and the whole of New England region, due to its high housing 
cost and large stock of subsidized housing, was one of the most heavily 
impacted regions in the country, but by no means unique. In the past 
few years, we have witnessed even more dramatic cuts to the important 
Federal housing programs, such as section 8, again imposing enormous 
burdens on our local communities.
  The crisis of affordability is not just a well-crafted political 
phrase. It is a fundamental fact in Vermont and around the country, and 
it is a problem we must begin to address, as this bill, H.R. 1427, 
does.
  What H.R. 1427 does is ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operate 
in a safe and sound financial manner and they fulfill the 
responsibilities assigned under their charters given to them by 
Congress. These government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs as they are 
called, support the mortgage market, and this bill establishes strong 
independent regulation and enhances GSE responsibilities under their 
mission.
  The bill also creates the first new funding source for affordable 
housing since the HOME program was created in the early 1990s, and it 
does it without asking the taxpayers to pick up the tab. The $500 
million affordable housing fund, which housing advocates in Vermont and 
around the country are very excited about, will be used for the badly 
needed construction and preservation of affordable housing.
  Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and several of the Federal Home Loan Banks 
have experienced considerable accounting, financial reporting and 
managerial problems in recent years. Unacceptable. Significant 
operational safety and soundness issues have arisen since 2001 that 
highlight the need to fortify the supervisory structure for all the 
regulated GSEs. This bill will do that.
  The Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, and the 
Federal Home Loan Corporation, Freddie Mac, were chartered, as you 
know, by Congress in 1934 and 1970, respectively, in order to create a 
secondary market for mortgages and increase liquidity.
  Through their charters, GSEs are granted special privileges not 
available to other private sector firms. For example, the Secretary of 
the Treasury is authorized to purchase up to $2.25 billion of the 
enterprises' obligations. Additionally, GSEs are exempt from State 
regulation, State income tax and SEC registration, substantial benefits 
conferred to meet a public need of providing affordable housing.
  In January 2003, Freddie Mac announced that it needed to revise its 
financial statements, resulting in a special review by the Office of 
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, known as OFHEO.
  In November of the same year, following the discovery of accounting 
irregularities and a reorganization of its management, Freddie Mac 
announced that it had overstated its earnings by $1 billion in 2001. An 
investigation into that is ongoing. The company said that the error, 
restating its earnings by that $1 billion, stemmed from failure to 
properly account for derivatives activity.
  In December 2003, OFHEO reported that Freddie Mac disregarded 
accounting rules, internal controls and disclosure standards, again all 
completely unacceptable. Furthermore, the report found that the company 
had misstated its earnings overall by $5 billion between 2001 and 2003, 
and that the Board of Directors had failed to exercise its oversight 
responsibility. This has got to be corrected.
  This bipartisan bill takes an important first step to provide 
effective oversight of GSEs in response to the lack of affordable 
housing that plagues so many of our communities.

[[Page H5340]]

  Specifically, H.R. 1427 does the following:
  Federal Housing Finance Agency: It establishes this as an independent 
regulator that oversees the safe and sound operation and mission 
function of the housing GSEs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 
Federal Home Loan Banks.
  Director and Deputy Director: The FHFA will be led by a Director 
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a 5-year 
term.
  A Federal Housing Enterprise Board is established.
  Affordable housing goals: GSEs will be required to meet goals 
established by the FHFA for single and multi-family home purchasers in 
low income or very low income areas. The goals would be based on data 
using 3-year averages to determine the market and they would be set 
annually, but could be set for a multi-year period, allowing 
flexibility. It requires GSEs to serve underserved markets such as 
manufactured housing and affordable housing preservation in rural 
areas.
  It also establishes an Affordable Housing Fund. The bill creates this 
with funds sent directly to the States to be administered as the States 
see fit. So we have a local control element here, enhancing the 
prospects that the money will be used for its intended purpose. The 
fund is intended to be a down payment toward the eventual creation of a 
much larger National Housing Trust. In fact, the bill provides that 
funds allocated for the Affordable Housing Fund may be transferred at a 
later date to the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund that hopefully 
we will enact that into law.
  The bill also makes sure we take care of the victims of Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita. The individuals living in the devastated gulf coast 
need the money immediately. Seventy-five percent of the Affordable 
Housing Fund available in the first year will go to Louisiana and 25 
percent will go to Mississippi for affordable housing needs arising out 
of the hurricanes.
  Also the bill is deficit neutral and directs that all of the spending 
is fully offset. Seventy-five percent of the contributions made by the 
GSEs would be used for the Affordable Housing fund. Twenty-five percent 
would be allocated to the Federal Government to keep the bill deficit 
neutral.
  All of us applaud the work of Chairman Frank for recommending an open 
rule to this bill and for the content of this bill, and providing the 
first new infusion of funds into an ever rising crisis about affordable 
housing.
  Chairman Frank came before the Rules Committee and testified we 
should allow consideration of all amendments, and we have done that, 
with the limitation of a preprinting requirement so as to allow us to 
manage and the Members to know what it is they will be debating on the 
floor. The rule was agreed to with the chairman, and I am pleased to 
bring forth such an open rule.
  This is a bipartisan measure. It is supported by a diverse group of 
financial institutions, lenders, housing industry participants, housing 
groups and other financial service providers. The administration also 
supports the bill.
  I urge all Members to support this open rule that allows the House to 
consider H.R. 1427.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont, my friend, 
for not only his friendship, but also for our opportunity to engage 
today on this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unorthodox rule and to a 
number of provisions in the underlying legislation in its current form. 
While I do appreciate and support the committee's effort to provide for 
the safety and soundness of our Nation's housing finance system and 
broader financial system, this legislation has a number of fatal 
shortcomings that I hope will be corrected during the modified open 
amendment process provided for by this rule.
  Unfortunately, I cannot support this rule, which breaks with the 
longstanding, bipartisan precedent of providing Members with the 
certainty of a specific date by which their amendments must be printed 
in the Congressional Record so that they may be included in the debate 
under this rule. By changing this longstanding, established practice 
and only providing Members with the requirement that their amendments 
must be printed at an undetermined, unannounced time before the 
consideration that this bill begins, Members from both sides of the 
aisle are left vulnerable to the scheduling whims of the majority, 
which is neither an open nor a transparent way to run the House of 
Representatives.
  I also find it odd that a majority of the Rules Committee members 
would vote to provide for such an open deadline. Just this week, they 
demanded such precision in timing from Members and an overworked 
Legislative Counsel Office with a filing deadline for the Defense 
authorization bill. That is an unprecedented move. Amendments filed 
less than 12 hours after this deadline were simply turned away at the 
door.

                              {time}  1045

  Members were informed that their noncompliance with the arbitrary 
deadline meant that their voices would not even have the opportunity to 
be heard in the House.
  I wish I could say that I was surprised by this decision made by the 
Democrat members of the Rules Committee. Unfortunately, the majority's 
selective enforcement of amendment deadlines and disregard for other 
long-standing House precedents has become the status quo in the 
Democrat Rules Committee. So much for all of those campaign promises to 
run the most honest, ethical and transparent House in history.
  While this bill does provide for a stronger regulator with increased 
powers to ensure the safe and sound operations of the housing 
government sponsored enterprises, I must rise in strong opposition to 
this bill's worst flaw: A new housing fund mandate that would create a 
de facto tax on the middle-class homeowners to finance an expensive and 
ill-defined big government housing program.
  In its budget score of the legislation, the Congressional Budget 
Office acknowledges that the new government-mandated assessments on the 
GSEs could very easily be passed on to their customers in the form of 
higher fees, meaning that this fund would unfairly target the most 
modest home prices to finance this unprecedented government-mandated 
redistribution of wealth from the middle class.
  I believe it is bad public policy to tie the fate of families that 
need housing support to the success or failure of Fannie Mae or Freddie 
Mac's portfolios. Even worse because the affordable housing funds would 
come from loans that are less than $417,000, which in 12 metropolitan 
areas in the country is dangerously close to or below the median home 
price, this bill levies a new stealth tax on the most modest home 
buyers without even disclosing to them the costs associated with this 
new Federal mandate. Mr. Speaker, it is the same as a tax increase to 
these middle income home buyers.
  To deal with this problem, I will be offering an amendment that 
provides useful information to home buyers about the real costs of this 
stealth tax. This amendment would require that the director of the 
Federal Housing Finance Agency determine what the cost per $1,000 
finance would be to home buyers whose mortgages are purchased by the 
housing GSEs. This information would need to be disclosed to the home 
buyer at or before closing for these mortgages, who qualify for future 
GSE purchase, and any additional cost for mortgage originators created 
by this new disclosure regulation would be paid for by the housing fund 
so that the new disclosure requirement does not create a new, costly 
private sector mandate.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are going to pass along a brand new, stealth $2.5 
billion tax increase on the middle class to pay for their affordable 
housing, I think that Congress should at the very least be up front 
about the true cost of this fund with those who are being asked to foot 
the bill. My amendment simply provides for transparency for mortgage 
consumers about the true cost of this new government $2.5 billion 
mandate, and I would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to oppose this restrictive 
rule and the underlying legislation in its

[[Page H5341]]

current form, particularly this stealth tax contained in the affordable 
housing fund provision.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Before yielding to my friend from 
Massachusetts, I just want to emphasize that every single Member of 
this House did have an opportunity to preprint an amendment, as was 
done by my friend from Texas.
  In a recent rule, we had a specific deadline by which that had to be 
filed. There were complaints from our friends on the other side of the 
aisle about a specific deadline. In this case, we extended it so that 
depending on what the floor schedule was, there would be the maximum 
time available for folks to put their amendments in printed form, and 
now there are complaints about that process as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first I ask the indulgence 
of the House for the fact that I am dressed a little less spiffily than 
is my norm, but I have a cast on my arm and this is all that would go 
over it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have rarely heard anyone repudiate as much of his 
party's past as I just heard from the gentleman from Texas. First he 
said this is a restrictive rule. Why, because we said anyone who wanted 
to file an amendment could file an amendment. There would be no 
rejection of any amendments by the Rules Committee, and the deadline 
for that was the day before the bill was to come to the floor. Now we 
didn't know when that was. And, in fact, what happened was there was a 
possibility that there would have been an extra day. So the gentleman 
apparently objects to the possibility of an extra day.
  I was also struck that he had two objections to deadlines. One was 
the fact that a rule had a deadline; and one was the fact that a rule 
didn't have a deadline. He objected to the fact that there was a 
deadline on the defense bill. He objects to the fact that there isn't a 
deadline on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear: The gentleman objects to the being 
in the minority. When you object to a deadline and the absence of a 
deadline, you have pretty much exhausted the logical possibilities of 
argument, and the gentleman has done that.
  Then we talk about this being restrictive. This bill, a very similar 
bill, was reported out of the committee under Republican rule in the 
previous Congress. Nine amendments were allowed by the Rules Committee; 
36 amendments are pending to this bill. So because we only had four 
times as many amendments to this bill as when they were in power, we 
have become restrictive.
  The gentleman says we have upset a long-standing tradition. He is 
right. During their rule, the long-standing tradition was amendments 
they didn't like and were afraid might pass couldn't be offered. We 
have upset that.
  Every amendment that anyone wanted to offer is before us. In fact, 
the last time this bill came before us, and apparently the gentleman 
voted for the rule, the bill came out of committee. In the Rules 
Committee, a self-executing rule was adopted that was very 
controversial limiting much of what could be done with housing funds, 
and the Rules Committee then refused to allow a vote on that self-
executing rule.
  So here are the comparisons as the gentleman from Texas laments: Our 
lack of openness. When he was in power, the Rules Committee took a bill 
that came out of the committee by a bipartisan majority, inserted its 
own amendment and insulated that amendment from being voted on. We 
instead said here is the bill, offer any amendment you want. This is 
pretty topsy-turvy. I understand the demands of partisanship, but 
shouldn't logic put some limits on what people would say just to make a 
partisan point?
  The fact is this bill came out of committee in the last Congress with 
an amendment that the Rules Committee put in and wouldn't allow us to 
vote on, and we have done exactly the opposite. Then he talks about the 
housing funds, and once again, we have the zeal of a convert. He finds 
this housing fund a terrible thing, Mr. Speaker. It is a tax on people. 
It was in the bill that the Republicans brought to the floor. It was in 
the bill that received more than 300 votes, many of the ``no'' votes, 
my own included, were from Democrats who objected to the unfair 
restrictions on the fund that the self-executing rule imposed.
  So when the Republicans were in power, this housing fund was not so 
bad. This housing fund came out of committee by a bipartisan majority, 
came to the floor, and was voted on in a final bill by over 300 
Members. This same housing fund, exactly the same principle, it is 
financed a little differently, but with all of the same effects, when 
did it become so terrible? What turns a fund to build affordable 
housing for lower-income people from a thing to be proud of into a 
terrible tax? An election.
  When the Republicans were in the majority, this was apparently a good 
thing. It was overwhelmingly passed. But now that the Democrats are in 
the majority, this same housing fund becomes something that is awful. 
It is a housing fund that is supported by the realtors, by the home 
builders, by everybody in the housing business because it does not have 
the effects the gentleman talks about.
  Here is the inconsistency which lies at the root of many of my 
colleague's arguments. The purpose of this bill is to put some checks 
on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. People have said Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac get certain assistance from the Federal Government that allows them 
to borrow money more cheaply from the market, and too little of that 
goes to public benefit and too much goes to the stockholders.
  So this bill, as did the last bill from the Republicans, headed by 
Chairman Oxley, and poor Chairman Oxley, he did Sarbanes-Oxley, he did 
this bill. I always thought well of Mike Oxley. I guess I have to 
defend him against his former colleagues who now are apparently ready 
to tear down everything the poor man did. Mike Oxley deserves better of 
you than for you to repudiate all of the good work that he did, and I 
speak out. I know you are not supposed to address people who are not 
here, Mr. Speaker, so let me say that I want Mike Oxley to know that 
there are many of us, and I think a few on his own side, too, who do 
respect his work on the housing fund and who respect his work on other 
things.
  But what we said to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was we are going to 
have you make a contribution. You should not keep all of the money for 
yourself and for your shareholders. We are going to take some of it for 
affordable housing.
  By the way, this is an affordable housing fund that a great majority 
of Republicans voted for 2 years ago. It became terrible because we won 
the election. Well, wisdom comes in various ways, and I suppose it came 
late to some of my colleagues over there, but better late than never by 
their standards.
  But the fact is this: In this bill, there will be amendments proposed 
that would impose far greater restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac than the housing fund. There is an amendment that I assume many of 
them are going to vote for, that would severely restrict what they 
could put in the portfolio. Now they make a lot of money off their 
portfolio, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that is part of the money 
that goes to help them keep down housing costs. An amendment will be 
offered that would severely restrict, that would say only low-income-
type mortgages can go in the portfolio. That would have a far greater 
financial impact in reducing funds available to Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac than the housing fund. The problem is that the housing fund would 
help State governments and others build affordable housing, and 
apparently there is this ideological opposition to doing that.
  By the way, where is this housing fund going to go in the first year, 
this terrible tax? It is going to go to Mississippi and Louisiana. It 
is going to go to a place where there was terrible devastation of 
affordable housing in Louisiana and Mississippi, 75 percent to 
Louisiana and 25 percent to Mississippi.
  In future years, the money won't be spent until this House and the 
Senate and the President pass a subsequent bill deciding how to spend 
it. This bill sets it aside, but it leaves to a later bill the 
collective decision about how to spend it.

[[Page H5342]]

  So we have a rule that allows 36 amendments. Last year they did nine. 
We have a rule where the Rules Committee does not add substance. Last 
year they did and wouldn't allow us to vote on it.
  We do have one thing in common in the bill last Congress and this 
Congress: An affordable housing fund. The difference is that the 
affordable housing fund which my Republican friends took credit for 2 
years ago has transmogrified into a terrible beast solely because the 
Democrats are now in power. That doesn't make any sense.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to notify my colleague from the 
Rules Committee that I have no additional speakers at this time. We had 
spoken about that before. But, in fact, as a result of the scheduling 
that has taken place this morning, none of my colleagues on my side are 
available to come down this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, as is generally always understood in this House, the 
gentleman is generally correct, that the Rules Committee, in fact, did 
provide a good number of wonderful amendments that would be made in 
order.
  The fact of the matter is that as part of this House majority and 
minority being able to understand what the Rules Committee is going to 
do, we were looking for some transparency and some consistency. I 
believe it is important for Members to be able to know when they can 
submit those amendments that they might want to have.
  It is also true that the majority is the one that determines what 
this schedule would be. Members generally have no clue exactly when 
amendments are going to be due if you do not give them a deadline and 
if you simply say well, before the bill is called up.
  The bottom line is we are simply asking that the Rules Committee 
would state very clearly when amendments would need to be placed for 
consideration, and that is what our point is.
  The gentleman also makes other points about the GSEs and about this 
House voting on this money that would become available for affordable 
housing.

                              {time}  1100

  I recall that earlier this year this House provided for Katrina 
housing relief. We've done that, and yet that's now what this bill that 
is left over for, that was passed last year was for. And so now what 
we're doing is taking a bill that was passed last year through a huge 
number of votes in this House, did not pass the other body, was not 
signed into law, and yet earlier this year we provided for a housing 
fund for Katrina earlier.
  Now we're asking for $2.5 billion increase on middle class 
homeowners. We're simply saying that we believe that there should be 
transparency. We believe that the processes by which this takes place 
should be more apparent to Members where they would have these 
opportunities to come down.
  If the gentleman wants to support a $2.5 billion increase for middle 
class consumers, as he did last year by bringing the bill forward, as 
he's doing this year, then we will let the Members decide by voting on 
that. But I think there should be transparency to the people who will 
be footing or paying the bill as to why there's additional costs that 
may keep people out of the marketplace because of additional costs 
related to them by buying their new home.
  Mr. Speaker, evidently at this time I have created an opportunity to 
continue dialogue, so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I again would repeat that the 
gentleman said last year I supported this Housing trust fund. So did 
almost all the Republicans, but the basic point here is that he 
misstated the nature of the hurricane bill.
  In the hurricane bill, and the gentlewoman from California who was 
its main author is here and will speak shortly, we did not provide any 
additional funds for the construction of affordable housing to replace 
what was lost. That was mostly with vouchers. We did have some project-
based vouchers in the amount of a couple of thousand, but if the 
gentleman will go back to that bill, he will note frequently in the 
debate we alluded in that debate to this bill. That is, much of the 
rental housing in New Orleans was destroyed. The rental housing was 
destroyed in much of the gulf.
  This was always a two-bill approach, and the gentleman is simply 
wrong to state that in the hurricane bill we provided funds for 
additional affordable housing. We stated at the time, we set some rules 
about vouchers. We talked about public housing, but we were always 
clear it would be this bill that would provide the funds.
  So the point that we already did this could not be more incorrect.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule on this very 
important piece of legislation and to commend Chairman Frank and the 
members of the Financial Services Committee for the wonderful work that 
they have done in getting this important reform measure back to the 
floor of this House.
  As it was said earlier, and I will simply repeat, that this is a good 
rule. This is a rule that has opened up opportunities for those who 
have amendments to get those amendments before the floor. As Mr. Frank 
said, there are more amendments that are being allowed on this bill 
today than were allowed on the bill that came before the House last 
year on the reform of these GSEs.
  This is an important piece of legislation where a lot of work has 
been done to get a consensus about how to reform the GSEs and to open 
up more opportunities for those who need to be supported on the 
secondary market for mortgages.
  This is important because we have had a lot of fights in the Congress 
of the United States about the GSEs. There were those who for many, 
many months simply defended the GSEs. We were frightened that we would 
lose this important resource, and we were suspicious of accusations 
that were being made about the way that they managed the GSEs, and we 
did not go along with some of the changes that were being recommended 
some time ago.
  But we have all worked very hard and we have compromised. Not only 
have the defenders of the GSEs decided that it was time for strong 
regulation and that OFHEO had indeed not done the job and given the 
oversight that they should have given, we also looked very closely at 
what was going on with the FM Watch organization that had been created. 
And while we will agree that there were those in the financial services 
community who thought that the GSEs were creeping into the retail 
market, and we still believe that some of what was done was all about 
potential competition, the one thing that we have agreed on is this.
  The GSEs are extremely important. They were organized to provide 
these opportunities to support them on the secondary market, and we 
cannot lose it, and there were some management problems. There were 
some accounting problems. Many careers have been destroyed in all of 
the fighting that has gone on. OFHEO has been dismantled. We have come 
up with good regulation and oversight, and it is time for us to move 
forward and not to simply oppose this bill and this rule because we 
think one has to be the loyal opposition, opposing whatever comes to 
the floor.
  It's time to recognize that if we want to do something about creating 
and supporting housing opportunities, if we want to deal with what is 
happening in the subprime market, if we understand what we're going 
through in America today, with all of these foreclosures, with people 
being very frightened about whether or not they are going to be able to 
hold on to their home, if we understand all of this, we will move very 
quickly, not only to support the rule but to support the bill and a 
very important aspect of this bill, and that is the housing trust fund.
  How can you be against helping Americans who just want a little piece 
of the American dream, to be able to own a home? We need to supply more 
spots. We need more housing. We need to build affordable housing. We're 
not taking any money away from our general fund. We're not taking any 
of the revenue that is being counted on to be used for other things in 
this huge budget. This is new money. This is money that's created from 
the after-profit taxes of these GSEs. It does not threaten our budget 
at all.

[[Page H5343]]

  How can you be against building new affordable homes for people who 
need it all over this country, not just in the cities but in the towns 
and in the suburbs and certainly in the rural communities? We have 
people who are living in homes that are not fit for humans to live in. 
We have people still in some places in the deep South that don't have 
toilets and running water. We have folks who are living in some of the 
housing and trailers that are falling apart. We need the housing trust 
fund. We need this reform. We need this rule, and I would ask support 
for it all.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 2005, the 
House passed the GSE bill that came out of the committee chaired by Mr. 
Oxley that had a housing trust fund virtually identical to this one. 
This one is financed a little differently at the request of the 
Treasury Department, but it's essentially the same thing.
  The vote was 331-90. Republicans voted in favor of this bill 
containing this housing tax 209-15, and among those who joined in the 
majority, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). So I appreciate his 
concern for this. It did not appear to be evident in October of 2005 
when he joined 208 of his Republican colleagues in voting for 
essentially this same fund.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I'd inquire of the gentleman from 
Texas if he has any remaining speakers at this point?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman asking. At this time I have 
no additional speakers.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I'm the last speaker on this side. 
So I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side 
and has yielded back his time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts makes important points. I think that 
the gentleman should also hear that we believe there should be 
transparency to make sure that these middle class homeowners who would 
be buying and paying for this $2.5 billion increase, that they would 
understand why that additional cost is being placed on them, and these 
are the transparency things that we think that good government can be 
about.
  The process also has developed itself to where we began talking about 
the Rules Committee once again, and Mr. Speaker, two nights ago I was 
provided with a summary by the majority party of a breakdown of the 
rules, what we have done when I was in the majority in the Rules 
Committee versus the Democrats now being the majority party.
  And the fact of the matter is through May 15, which is what this is 
talking about, the Democrats have had 13 closed rules. The Republicans 
had six closed rules over the same period of time. Six closed rules for 
Republicans; 13 closed rules for Democrats. Eight open rules for the 
Democrats, which they call open rules but that had a preprinting 
requirement, so they really should be modified open rules, but the 
bottom line is a number of those have been over suspensions that 
Republicans did not even place a rule on. We just brought them to the 
floor of the House of Representatives and let them see what that 
outcome would be.
  Mr. Speaker, I would insert this into the Record at this point.


               110th rule breakdown through May 15, 2007

     43 Total rules:

       8 open rules (7 with a preprinting requirement).
       20 structured rules.
       Thirteen closed rules.
       1 conference report rule.
       1 procedural rule.
       60--Republican/minority amendments in order.


               109th rule breakdown through May 15, 2005

     29 Total rules:

       2 open rules (1 appropriations bill).
       15 structured rules.
       Six closed rules.
       2 conference report rules.
       4 procedural rules.
       51--Democratic/minority amendments in order.

  Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party, my party, is very aware of the 
dramatic needs of housing in this country, the needs that people have, 
families who have children, elderly people, disabled people, who do 
need more affordable and better housing, and that's why you have seen 
in our past, as was undisputed on the floor today, about the number of 
people who have voted for providing these funds that would be 
available.
  We do believe that there should be transparency. We believe that the 
people, the consumers, who will be paying this additional $2.5 billion 
should be told why, what it's for, just as anyone who closes on a house 
should understand if there's going to be a FedEx package that would be 
delivered or a title fee or some fee that would be associated even with 
a notary public, that that should be included as part of the closing 
cost of a house to make sure that the consumer knows why and what they 
are paying for.
  So I would be offering an amendment that was made in order by the 
Rules Committee as part of our discussion about how to improve this 
opportunity to make transparency available to all the consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007 ensures 
that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the GSEs that support the mortgage 
markets, operate in a safe and sound manner and fulfill the missions 
assigned to them under their charters.
  The bill does this through the establishment of a strong, independent 
regulator and through the enhancements to the GSEs mission 
responsibilities. The bill also creates the first new funding source 
for affordable housing. Since the HOME program was created in the early 
1990s, it's been almost 20 years since we have put any infusion of 
money from a new source into a growing crisis in housing. The $500 
million Affordable Housing Fund, which housing advocates in Vermont, in 
your State and States all across this country are very excited about, 
will be used by them for badly needed construction and the preservation 
of affordable housing.
  Very similar legislation, as has been discussed between my colleagues 
from Texas and from Massachusetts, passed this House on a strong 331-90 
vote last Congress, and this bill, H.R. 1427, was approved in the 
Financial Services Committee by a bipartisan vote of 45-19.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.
  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. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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 are postponed.

                          ____________________