[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 153 (Wednesday, October 10, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11410-H11412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1130
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2895, NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TRUST FUND ACT OF 2007
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 720 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 720
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. 2895) to establish the National Affordable
Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States to
provide for the construction, rehabilitation, and
preservation of decent, safe, and affordable housing for low-
income families. 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. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising
under clause 10 of rule XXI. 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 except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. 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.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 2895
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 720.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 720 provides for
consideration of H.R. 2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Act of 2007.
As the Clerk read, the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate
controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule waives all
points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clauses 9
and 10 of rule XXI.
The rule makes in order the Financial Services reported substitute.
The rule makes in order eight amendments, including a complete
Republican substitute. The amendments are each debatable for 10
minutes, except for the Neugebauer substitute, which is debatable for
20 minutes. The amendments are not amendable or divisible.
All points of order are waived against the amendments, except for
clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule also provides one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, so many American families today are facing a critical
housing crunch. The cost of an apartment or a home is out of reach for
so many, but there is good news. Many of us in this Congress understand
and will keep fighting for a new direction for America and more
affordable housing.
Today we will create a landmark affordable housing trust fund under
H.R. 2895 in this rule, which will provide over 1.5 million new
affordable homes for hard-working folks across America over the next
decade. I would like to thank Chairman Barney Frank and Chairwoman
Maxine Waters for their dedication to American families in their
efforts to make housing affordable and available to those who could use
a helping hand.
They pledged at the beginning of this new Congress that they would
focus on affordable housing, and they have stayed true to their word.
Four other bills in addition to this one that will be considered
today expand American homeownership and provide relief to our
neighbors, many of whom have been subjected to foreclosure due to
predatory lending in the subprime loan crisis.
[[Page H11411]]
This new affordable housing trust fund will focus on construction,
rehabilitation and preservation of affordable housing in our hometowns
and communities across America. The trust fund will pool monies,
together with State, local and private housing initiatives to target
housing to families with the greatest economic need.
The innovative, dedicated funding mechanism for this new trust fund
comes at no new cost to taxpayers. Our efforts come at a critical time.
Federal money for affordable housing has largely disappeared under this
current administration. Health care costs are out of sight, the cost of
living is higher, and many of our neighbors have not received raises
that keep up with these rising costs.
We have heard from so many Americans across this country. For
example, in south St. Petersburg, just recently, I was talking with a
police officer that works for the City of St. Petersburg. He said it
was his dream to have his young son move into his neighborhood nearby.
Unfortunately, affordable housing in that neighborhood is all but gone,
and he will just not be able to swing it.
In addition, local housing agencies across America have thousands
upon thousands of Americans on waiting lists for affordable housing. In
my hometown of Tampa, Florida, during a 1-week open enrollment session,
more than 10,000 seniors, families and veterans indicated a need for
affordable housing. But there is just no inventory.
Instead of receiving housing, they are placed on a waiting list. That
waiting list takes 4 years, and it makes affordable housing completely
unreachable for the other people that simply never made that call for
help.
The number of American households paying more than half of their
incomes on housing increased to 17 million in the year 2005, with one
in seven U.S. households being severely housing-cost burdened. This
imbalance is very troubling, and when combined with predatory subprime
loans, it has caused many homeowners to lose their homes. In the Tampa
Bay area alone, in the first 6 months of this year, over 10,000 of my
neighbors have found that their homes have fallen into foreclosure.
This new affordable housing trust fund will provide for the new
construction, preservation of existing housing and homeownership,
assistance, emergency housing repairs and housing-related services.
Help is on the way.
H.R. 2895 is a positive step in a new direction to ensure that more
families are able to find clean, safe, stable and affordable places to
live. I am proud to support this bill and this rule, and I urge the
Congress to pass this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady from Florida (Ms.
Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. This rule provides for the consideration
of a bill to establish a national affordable housing trust fund.
Members of this House share in the commitment to meet the housing needs
of lower-income Americans. However, we differ on how to best achieve
this goal.
The bill that will be before us today creates a new, a new national
housing trust fund, and, with it, a whole new level of Federal
bureaucracy. There are already over 30 separate Federal programs
designed to promote affordable housing. The new trust fund, created by
the underlying bill, is modeled in large part on one of those existing
programs, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
Why create a new level of Federal bureaucracy to administer
essentially the same program that is already being successfully
administered by State and local governments closest to the problem? It
seems to me that ought to be a big subject of the debate that we have
today.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this rule makes in order a substitute
amendment offered by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas that would establish a
national affordable housing grant fund program within the current HOME
program. This proposal would meet the need and meet the goal of
expanding rental and home ownership opportunities for low-income
families without adding new layers of red tape. While I support the
Neugebauer amendment being made in order, I am troubled that this is
the only Republican amendment allowed to be considered under this
restrictive rule.
A total of 15 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee by the
10 a.m. deadline yesterday. One amendment offered by Representative
Capuano of Massachusetts to change the short title of the bill to the
``Barney Frank National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007'' was
withdrawn. Out of the remaining 14 amendments, seven were submitted by
Democrats and seven were submitted by Republicans. This rule makes all
seven amendments offered by Democrats made in order, but just one
Republican amendment. If this rule is adopted, many thoughtful ideas
will be denied the opportunity to be considered on the House floor
today.
Unfortunately, shutting out amendments offered by Republicans has
become the norm for the Democrat Rules Committee.
Americans want to see Members on both sides of the aisle work
together to address the problems our Nation faces. Unfortunately, with
this restrictive rule, the Democrat majority has chosen to deny
millions of Americans a voice on several significant issues related to
meeting the affordable housing challenges that lower-income Americans
face. Therefore, I must urge my colleagues to vote against House
Resolution 720.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I will inquire of my colleague from
Washington if he has any additional speakers. Otherwise, he can proceed
to close.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I had requests from two
Members, but I see they are not here. If the gentlelady has no more
speakers, I will be prepared to close on my side.
Ms. CASTOR. That's correct, we have no speakers. We have requests as
well, but they are not here in attendance, so I think it's safe to
proceed to close.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
House Republicans believe that every earmark should be debatable on
the House floor and that the House earmark rules are flawed when it
comes to the enforceability of earmarks.
Earlier this year, Republican Leader Boehner introduced a measure to
close loopholes in the rules and allow the House to debate openly and
honestly earmarks contained in all bills. Currently, 196 Republicans
have signed a petition to bring this proposal to the floor for
immediate consideration.
Unfortunately, we need 22 more Members in order to get real earmark
reform before this can be considered by the House. The House cannot
delay action on this any longer. Each day we put off closing loopholes
in the House earmark rules, American taxpayers are left to wonder what
hidden earmarks are contained in bills before the House. It is time we
act to prove to American taxpayers this House is serious about earmark
transparency and enforceability.
I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question, so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to
immediately consider House Resolution 479 introduced by Republican
Leader Boehner. By defeating the previous question, the House will
still be able to consider the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Act today, but we will also be able to address the earmark
enforceability in order to restore the credibility of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to
oppose the previous question and the restrictive rule which denies
debate on several significant issues related to increasing the
availability of affordable housing with the most efficient and
effective use of government resources.
[[Page H11412]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, despite the threatened veto by the White
House, we will continue to stand on the side of America's hardworking
families today and pass this landmark affordable housing trust fund
bill. This will help our States and our communities achieve over 1
million new affordable homes for our neighbors over the coming years.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 720 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the
Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for
enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion
or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________