[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 26, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1037-H1044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3521, PUBLIC HOUSING ASSET 
                   MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 974 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 974

       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. 3521) to improve the Operating Fund for public 
     housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 
     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. 3521 
     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.
       Sec. 3.  House Resolution 955 is laid upon the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Texas, Representative Sessions. All time yielded during consideration 
of the rule is for debate only.

[[Page H1038]]

                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent 
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 974 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management 
Improvement Act of 2007. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate 
controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule makes in 
order two amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying 
this resolution. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that the rule makes in order an 
amendment offered by my colleague from Florida, Representative Kendrick 
Meek. His amendment ensures that in extreme cases where HUD is forced 
to take over control of a housing authority, it must honor any and all 
existing agreements between the local housing authority and tenant 
associations. This amendment is needed in south Florida and throughout 
the country, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, the skyrocketing number of foreclosures and the lack of 
affordable housing are some of the greatest financial problems our 
Nation faces today. In Broward County, the county in which I live in 
Florida, foreclosure rates tripled in 2007 alone. It is obvious this 
situation has grown beyond a crisis and extends into our entire 
economy.
  One group of service providers that is suffering significantly from 
this economic crisis is our public housing authorities. For this reason 
I support this rule and underlying legislation that will provide 
flexibility to public housing authorities during our Nation's housing 
crisis so that they are able to sufficiently meet the needs of our 
constituents.
  There are approximately 3,300 individual public housing authorities 
in the United States serving 1.2 million households. Low- and middle-
income individuals and families making between 50 percent and 80 
percent of the median income level in their community are eligible for 
Federal assistance. Without this assistance, literally millions of 
people would be homeless or in some cases even worse. Despite this 
known reality, HUD recently issued a ruling which will result in 
funding cuts for over 800 housing authorities throughout the country. 
If the House does not act, then 26 percent of the housing authorities 
in the United States will lose significant funding because of HUD's 
decision. To make up for the anticipated funding shortfalls, the 
underlying legislation gives housing authorities the flexibility to 
transfer funds from their capital to operational accounts. This move 
will ensure that housing authorities will not be forced to close down 
existing public housing units because of HUD's short-sightedness.
  Finally and importantly, the legislation also reaffirms the role that 
tenants play in determining where they live and how those communities 
are governed.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the problems addressed in this 
legislation are not the only obstacles public housing authorities have 
been forced to deal with over the last 7 years. As my colleagues know, 
the current administration has a long record of failing to meet 
America's low- and middle-income housing needs. For example, funding 
shortfalls have become regular staples in the President's public 
housing budgets, while the administration continues to neglect the more 
than $18 billion backlog in deferred maintenance for public housing 
units, allowing the deterioration of public housing units to the point 
that many of them are completely uninhabitable. This is simply 
unacceptable.
  In my district some housing units are literally falling apart. Roofs 
are leaking and in some instances even caving in. Appliances are broken 
and decades, not years, old. Units are deteriorating, unattractive, and 
lacking in some of the most basic amenities. Even more is that security 
in many of the public housing communities has been consistently 
disappearing. Residents in some public housing units in my 
congressional district alone are literally afraid to leave their homes.
  Yes, we are working to address these and other public housing issues. 
But we will not be able to fully address these issues if the underlying 
legislation does not pass.
  Mr. Speaker, this housing bill was reported out favorably by the 
Financial Services Committee, the whole committee, by voice vote. The 
minority members of the committee did not offer any amendments during 
markup, and not one Republican amendment was submitted to the Rules 
Committee.
  It is my sincere hope that the House will pass this rule and 
underlying bill with that same overwhelming bipartisan support. I urge 
my colleagues to support this rule and the Public Housing Asset 
Management Improvement Act of 2007 as we work to improve public housing 
throughout America.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida 
for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This bill is real simple. It's real simple. For several years there 
was a negotiation with HUD to look at the best practices across this 
country from people who are in the housing industry to determine best 
how to go about and manage assets of housing units. This bill is all 
about taking away the best practices that exist for nongovernment 
housing, the rest of the industry, because it will take money away from 
people who don't engage in best practices. Of course it will take money 
away from them. But what this is all about is to try to take a 
negotiation that has happened for about 7 years from what the previous 
Congresses have passed to say we think that public housing needs to 
raise its standards to where we do have proper public housing, public 
housing that works, public housing that can pass the smell test of 
asset management.
  Now my good friends, led by our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, want to say 
forget the standards. Forget the standards of the industry. If they 
have to live up to those standards of proper management, of best 
practices, do you realize what that would mean to us? We couldn't pass 
those audits; so we will lose our money. So this rule and this new 
change that we are having here that's called the Public Housing Asset 
Management Improvement Act of 2007 is all about trying to say forget 
trying to do something that's better. Forget following standards that 
have been established in the public sector. We don't want those to 
apply. So now we're going to pass a rule and a law that says you don't 
have to do that because if you did, you would lose money.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. I rise in opposition not only to 
the rule, which I believe is unnecessarily restrictive, but also to the 
provisions in this bill and the underlying legislation that 
unilaterally and at the last minute seeks to abuse the Congress's power 
and to undo specific parts of a process that have previously been 
carefully negotiated over years with the private sector best practices 
and brokered over the last decade to make public housing more 
accountable for its spending and more accountable to the public housing 
units that we don't want to go into disrepair in the United States of 
America.
  In 1998 Congress passed the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility 
Act, which among other things required a deliberate and negotiated 
rule-making process to bring asset management at our Nation's public 
housing administrations up to a reasonable standard. What we are here 
to do today is to say we don't want that standard.
  And you're right. The gentleman from Florida is right. Public housing 
units that cannot meet the standards would lose money. That's why we 
talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. People that do not use the money 
that has been given them by this Congress, by the taxpayer to work in 
the best interests, we thought, I think, as we vote to spend money, of 
people who are in public housing, who, through some sometimes no fault 
of their own, have to end

[[Page H1039]]

up in public housing and find out they are in a rat-infested, bad 
housing project because asset management standards aren't followed. 
Amazing.
  By adopting widespread private sector common practices such as 
project-based budgeting and accounting to ensure that costs are known, 
managed, and maintained at a reasonable level, which is what the 
current bill is about, which is what we're going to undo, Congress 
wisely gave public housing administrations the tools they needed, and 
just like private sector tools, to manage their own finances better, 
bringing them into line with every other operator of subsidized housing 
in this country and ensuring that spending moneys to support their 
tenant and tenants remain the highest priority. We are going to do away 
with that today. That's what we are going to do away with, and we call 
that new and approved. I call that a sham and disrespectful of the 
residents whom we are trying to help.
  Today's legislation would overturn these longstanding negotiations 
and turn back the clock for public housing administrations nationwide 
by eliminating any restrictions on the amount of management fees they 
could charge, promoting inefficiency, reducing the level of funding 
available to tenants, and decreasing oversight and accountability. In 
other words, making sure that these public housing agencies stay on the 
watch list for waste, fraud, and abuse rather than using private sector 
standards of best practices to make them better.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why this self-proclaimed most 
honest, ethical, and open Congress in history would use this time today 
to bring this legislation to the floor to make financial management of 
mid-sized public housing administrations less transparent, less 
responsive, and not even following the standards established by the 
private sector and by unilaterally overturning a lengthy and fairly 
negotiated rule-making process. But here we are.
  In fact, if Speaker Pelosi really wanted to demonstrate her 
commitment to honest, open, and ethical government, she could be using 
this time instead to take up a resolution that I and over 150 of my 
Republican colleagues have cosponsored, authored by my good friend, 
Representative Jack Kingston from Georgia, which is a continuation of 
House Republicans' long-term commitment to reform the earmark process. 
Congressman Kingston's bill would create a Joint Committee on Earmark 
Reform to conduct a full study of the earmark practices of the House, 
the Senate, and executive branch. Upon completion of this study, the 
joint committee would file a report of its findings and its 
recommendations. Most importantly, until this report is filed, the 
House would put in place an immediate moratorium on the consideration 
of all earmarks.
  By the way, that's the people's money. That's the people's money that 
people really back home are worried about.
  Instead, Mr. Speaker, this House, which recently tied the record as 
the most closed Congress in history, with 49 closed rules so far in the 
110th Congress, will consider this legislation that will impede the 
successful transition to, and implementation of, asset management by 
overturning a long negotiated process that is consistent with proper 
standards of the private sector.

                              {time}  1245

  I know that other bills like the bipartisan Senate legislation to 
give our Nation's intelligence services tools that they need to protect 
Americans against terrorists is also trying to be taken up by the 
House. But, instead, this Democrat leadership has chosen to miss yet 
another opportunity to provide Americans with greater security by 
instead allowing the Protect America Act to expire. If there is any 
question as to why the public holds Congress in such low regard, with 
only about one in five Americans approving the job that this House is 
doing, one need not look any further than the congressional calendar 
this week, again, this week, and examine what both the Democrat 
leadership and the House are doing and what we are neglecting to do.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to insert in the Record a 
Statement of Administrative Policy explaining their strong opposition 
to H.R. 3521's passage.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                Washington, DC, February 12, 2008.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


       H.R. 3521--Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act

       The Administration is strongly committed to the successful 
     transition to and implementation of asset management for 
     Public Housing Agencies (PHAs). Asset management will adopt 
     widespread private sector practices, including project-based 
     budgeting and accounting, to assure costs are known, managed, 
     and maintained at reasonable levels--ensuring public housing 
     tenants are the first priority. However, the Administration 
     is deeply concerned that H.R. 3521, as reported by the House 
     Financial Services Committee, would severely undermine PHAs' 
     long-awaited conversion to asset management and the adoption 
     of conventional business practices. For the reasons that 
     follow, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of 
     H.R. 3521.
       H.R. 3521 would exempt 88 percent of PHAs, those which own 
     or operate fewer than 500 public housing units, from the 
     requirement to convert to asset management. The increase of 
     the threshold for exemption from asset management, from 250 
     to 500 public housing units, would directly contradict a 
     fundamental element of the Operating Fund negotiated 
     rulemaking process.
       The bill also would eliminate any restriction or limitation 
     on the amount of management and related fees that a PHA could 
     charge through January 2011. This change would promote 
     program inefficiency, likely reduce funds available to 
     directly assist tenants, and erode effective program 
     oversight and accountability. Moreover, the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has already provided the 
     PHAs with the flexibility to phase-in management fees through 
     2011, provided they include reasonable documentation in their 
     Annual Plan.
       PHAs would be allowed to spend as much as 20 percent of 
     their Capital Fund grant on central office costs related to 
     the operation of public housing. The extra 20 percent is 
     above and beyond the 10 percent of the Capital Fund grant 
     that the PHA earns as a management fee, and on top of the 
     normal management fees that a PHA earns for operating each 
     project. The Administration strongly opposes this provision 
     because it could lead to excessive Capital Fund diversions 
     and expenditures on administrative costs, and because HUD has 
     already allowed PHAs until 2011 to abide by the new 
     management fee guidelines, with supporting documentation. 
     Beyond that date, PHAs should abide by the new management fee 
     guidelines so that Capital Fund amounts are spent, to the 
     maximum extent possible, on capital works projects, not on 
     central overhead costs.
       Under the bill, HUD is directed to ensure that PHAs 
     encourage the reasonable efforts of resident tenant 
     organizations to represent their members, and to issue 
     guidance encouraging resident participation in the 
     implementation of asset management. Although these provisions 
     are well-intended, HUD's regulations already encourage 
     resident and tenant participation, especially in the adoption 
     of Annual Plans. Moreover, the provisions in H.R. 3521 giving 
     wide latitude to a PHA's determination and use of management 
     fees are directly contrary to the interests of public housing 
     residents. Such provisions encourage PHAs to direct valuable 
     resources away from the direct operation of public housing 
     projects in favor of central overhead.
       The Administration looks forward to working with the 
     Congress to ensure that the long-awaited conversion of PHAs 
     to asset management occurs smoothly and under the guidance of 
     conventional business practices. However, H.R. 3521 moves in 
     the wrong direction and would undermine these efforts.

  I urge all my colleagues to vote against the previous question and 
this rule so that today the House can actually take up legislation that 
will move America in a positive direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is bad policy when you stand up and try and 
pass a law that takes away more accountability, more opportunity for 
sunlight, but most of all a standard that exists everywhere else. The 
people we are really robbing, hurting, harming, and continuing to harm 
are the people that live in public housing. We believe transparency is 
important. But we believe in responsibility. We believe that people who 
are in public housing are entitled to know that where they live that 
someone is responsible, looking at the dollars wisely, and prepared 
with the investments that had been made on their behalf. To be worried 
about leaving where they are, I do understand. As the gentleman from 
Florida has said, people are concerned that they even leave where they 
are, concerned that something will happen. Well, that's right. That's 
right.
  And today, what this House wants to do is to lower the standards even 
lower. I am disappointed. But I remain optimistic, because we have got 
a vote in just a few minutes and we can change that pathway.

[[Page H1040]]

  Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of September 11 taught us many 
lessons, and one of the most basic lessons was that our Nation must 
remain aggressive, nimble, proactive, and adaptable in our fight 
against international terrorism. To accomplish this commonsense goal, 
and a goal that I think we, as Members of Congress, when we raise our 
hand to say we will support and defend our country, Congress must give 
our intelligence agencies the tools that they need to stay one step 
ahead of terrorists who wish to harm Americans.
  Telecommunications technology has changed greatly since 1978 when 
FISA was first written, and the modernization of foreign intelligence 
surveillance to adapt to the realities of the 21st century should be a 
critical national security priority. I am pleased that several of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle also agree.
  On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog coalition sent a letter to 
Speaker Pelosi in support of the Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation in 
the United States Senate. The letter states, ``The Rockefeller-Bond 
FISA legislation creates satisfactory language addressing all of these 
issues which we fully support that would measure and should reach the 
House floor without substantial change. We believe these components 
will ensure a strong security apparatus that can thwart terrorism 
across the globe and save American lives here in our country.''
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I will insert into the Record the letter 
by the Blue Dogs to Speaker Pelosi.

       Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being 
     considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's passage of a 
     FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly 
     consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President 
     before the Protect America Act expires in February.
       It is our belief that such legislation should include the 
     following provisions: Require individualized warrants for 
     surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad; 
     Clarify that no court order is required to conduct 
     surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are 
     routed through the United States; Provide enhanced oversight 
     by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; Compel 
     compliance by private sector partners; Review by FISA Court 
     of minimization procedures; Targeted immunity for carriers 
     that participated in anti-terrorism surveillance programs.
       The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory 
     language addressing all these issues and we would fully 
     support that measure should it reach the House floor without 
     substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a 
     strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism 
     across the globe and save American lives here in our country.
       It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a 
     timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect 
     America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a 
     limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical 
     surveillance issues. We have it within our ability to replace 
     the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong, 
     bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed 
     into law and we should do so--the consequences of not passing 
     such a measure could place our national security at undue 
     risk.
           Sincerely,
         Leonard L. Boswell, Marion Berry, Mike Ross, Bud Cramer, 
           Heath Shuler, Allen Boyd, Dan Boren, Jim Matheson, 
           Lincoln Davis, Tim Holden, Dennis Moore, Christopher 
           Carney, Earl Pomeroy, Melissa L. Bean, John Barrow, Joe 
           Baca, John Tanner, Jim Cooper, Brad Ellsworth, Charlie 
           Melancon, Zack Space.

  It is unfortunate that House Democrat leaders chose to allow the 
Protect America Act to expire instead of bringing to the House floor 
the bipartisan measure that passed the United States Senate by a vote 
of 68-29. To make our country safer, Congress needs to act immediately. 
Today, I will once again give all the Members of the House an 
opportunity to vote on a bipartisan long-term modernization of FISA. I 
will call on all my colleagues, including members of the Blue Dog 
coalition that signed the letter to Speaker Pelosi, to join me in 
defeating the previous question so that we can immediately move to 
concur in the Senate amendment and send the bill to the President to be 
signed into law quickly.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent solution that closes 
the terrorist loophole.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am hard put to move 
hurriedly, so I will yield myself such time as I may consume. I am also 
hard put, Mr. Speaker, to restrain myself and not get involved with the 
ongoing discussion and the numerous ads that I saw during the previous 
recess that were very much in error concerning the House of 
Representatives' actions on the FISA legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I served for 7 years on the House Select Committee on 
Intelligence. I find it hard to believe that my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, or that anyone, would believe that the distinguished 
Chair of the Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes, the distinguished 
Chair of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, the distinguished Chair 
of the Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson, their counterparts 
in the United States Senate, all combined would want to put this Nation 
in jeopardy in any way.
  Enough of the fearmongering. Enough of making people think that 
something is going to happen that is not going to happen. The simple 
truth is that there will be legislation that will be legislation 
fashioned by the House and by the United States Senate and not by the 
United States Senate and not by this administration without those of us 
who have actual concerns about the United States Constitution having 
our say in that regard.
  Civil liberties and civil rights are critical to America, and the 
foundational aspects of our country allow full airing before 
conclusions are made by people that have oriented the most secretive 
administration that I know of in the history of this country.
  I won't go much further on that score on the previous question, Mr. 
Speaker. I return now to what we have heard about why we must pass this 
rule and the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act, which we 
are here about today. It is nice to have the nuances. It is nice to 
have the process. It is nice to have the procedural opportunities that 
the minority takes, and correctly they can bring up those matters which 
are not on the agenda today. I can assure my friends on the other side 
that the Speaker of the House of Representatives and those in this 
body, including the Blue Dogs, will address FISA legislation, and it 
will be appropriately undertaken to protect every American, every 
American's civil liberties and civil rights, and more important, to 
protect the Constitution of the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve an opportunity to improve 
their lives. Transitional public housing opportunities have served this 
purpose for decades, nurturing families and yielding such leaders as 
some of us who serve in this Congress. Public housing authorities must 
be empowered to effectively and flexibly manage their assets with 
appropriate tenant oversight. My colleague on the other side mentioned 
private sector tools. I am fascinated by the notion that the private 
sector, which all of us respect, has been so careful with all of their 
management. If their management has been so successful, why is it, 
then, that there is a housing crisis in this Nation with reference to 
foreclosure?
  This morning, Mr. Speaker, and I take the liberty of doing this 
because occasionally we come to the floor and talk about different 
matters, but a distant cousin of mine in Fort Worth, Texas, called me. 
Her name is Sharon Samuels. And Sharon shared her story with me about 
her involvement with her mortgage company, Countrywide. She has been in 
her home since 1993, she said, and in addition, thereto, had never 
taken out any of her equity out of her home. She has three children, 
all of them that she has managed to educate. And she was pursued by 
Countrywide to enter into a mortgage set of circumstances that has now 
led from her mortgage rising from $1,100 to $2,200 and foreclosure 
proceedings going forward without any forbearance or opportunity for 
her to do anything

[[Page H1041]]

other than lose all of her assets that she had developed during the 
years since 1993. I mention that because that is the private sector 
that has put an individual in a home, in a position of being in need of 
this kind of stuff that we are talking about here today. Hardworking 
Americans families should not suffer as a result of HUD's failed 
policies.
  I applaud my colleagues for joining together in this effort that will 
benefit the low-income families, the elderly and the disabled Americans 
who live in public housing. This bill has been endorsed by all the 
groups that represent not only public housing administrators and 
agencies but also tenant advocacy groups. The bill is supported by the 
Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, the Public Housing 
Authorities Directors Association, the National Association of Housing 
and Development Officials, National Housing Law Project, and the 
National Training and Information Center.
  But guess who doesn't support it? Some people on the other side of 
the aisle who had an opportunity in the Financial Services Committee to 
offer amendments if they so choose, and they chose not to do so, and 
yet they will come here today and say that we are lacking on our side 
of the aisle in providing the necessary standards and providing the 
necessary tools for people to live in public housing.
  Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago, I ran for the United States Congress, and 
among the things that I said was I would try to improve public housing 
in my congressional district and throughout this Nation. I don't feel 
that I have succeeded. Twelve of those years have been spent under 
Republic administrations that were controlled by Republicans, 12 years 
in the House, 8 years just now, ending soon, happily, in November so 
that these $18 billion backlogs and so that housing won't collapse and 
fall down around people.
  This is the same administration that didn't answer in New Orleans. 
But what have we done? In the limited time that we are here, and I 
continue to hear criticism about what we have not done. What we have 
done in the House, we passed the section 8 voucher reform program that 
increases the number of families, veterans, and seniors that are able 
to afford safe homes by adding 20,000 new vouchers. We did expand the 
Homeownership Act of 2007 that allows the population of borrowers to 
have access to the Federal Housing Administration. In this House we 
have passed the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007, 
which creates a fund to use and build more affordable housing for low-
income families and families who have lost their homes to foreclosure.

                              {time}  1300

  They keep saying that the agenda isn't good. We passed the Housing 
Finance Reform Act and expanded the size of loans that can be issued by 
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We passed the Mortgage Reform and Anti-
Predatory Lending Act that increases transparency and heightens 
standards to keep brokers from practicing predatory lending. Save us 
from these people who argue that asset management is a landmark program 
change now several years in the making? You bet it is.
  What I don't understand is why is it poor people are always the ones 
that have to take it right on the chin every time this Nation gets 
itself in a crisis. The National Training and Information Center 
sponsored by La Raza; the Center for Community Change; the Chicago 
Rehab Network; Cleveland Housing Tenant Association; Fall River Housing 
Joint Tenants Council; Legal Aid Justice Center; Miami Workers Center, 
all sorts of organizations. I will include all of the letters of all of 
the organizations I have for the Record.

                                                 National Training


                                       and Information Center,

                                    Chicago, IL, February 7, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker, The undersigned 150 democratic 
     grassroots resident organizing groups and allies would like 
     to convey our strong support for protecting the rights of 
     public housing residents to organize, as delineated in H.R. 
     3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 
     2007. As the transition to a system of asset management is 
     one of the most significant shifts facing the administration 
     of public housing in many years, it is more important than 
     ever that public housing residents are involved in the 
     decisionmaking processes at the local and national levels.
       In April of 2007, the National Training & Information 
     Center (NTIC) submitted a letter to Congress endorsed by 
     local, statewide, and national organizations in protest of 
     recent attempts to undermine the efforts of resident and 
     community organizations to participate in the decisions 
     around public housing that impact their communities and their 
     lives. One of those attempts was a notice by HUD on March 1, 
     2007 to streamline the process to waive 24 CFR 964, which 
     outlines the rights of residents to organize, for PHAs 
     transitioning to asset management. Section 4 of H.R. 3521 is 
     critical in order to ensure that the congressionally 
     sanctioned rights to organize for public housing residents 
     are protected.
       The NTIC network is of the perspective that residents must 
     be central to the discourse around policies that impact 
     them--both at the local and national level. Section 4 of this 
     bill will ensure that the voices of public housing residents 
     are not lost in the implementation of asset management. Over 
     the past year, NTIC has brought together public housing 
     residents and allies from 38 cities to identify the most 
     pressing areas for reform of public housing policy. The right 
     to organize and meaningful resident participation are among 
     the highest priorities for residents across the country. In 
     order to make asset management work for everyone, it is 
     critical that residents are involved in decisions around its 
     implementation.
       The undersigned 150 local, statewide, and national 
     organizations would like to convey our support for the 
     principles outlined in Section 4 of H.R. 3521. Namely, we 
     feel strongly that residents should have a right to organize 
     in public housing and should be meaningfully and 
     substantively involved in the decisions that impact their 
     lives--both at the local and national level. Specifically, it 
     is critical that the rights bestowed by 24 CFR 964 not be 
     undermined by the transition to asset management. We hope 
     that we can rely on your support for these principles.
       Access Living--Chicago, IL.
       Annapolis Tenant Task Force--Boston, MA.
       Beacon Glen Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
       Bethel New Life--Chicago, IL.
       Bethune Village Resident Council--Daytona Beach, FL.
       Border Fair Housing & Economic Justice Center--El Paso, 
     Texas
       Bowen Homes Resident Association--Atlanta, GA.
       Cabrini Green Rowhouse Council--Chicago, IL.
       California Coalition for Rural Housing--California State
       Center for Community Change--National
       Central Advisory Council--Chicago, IL.
       Central Illinois Organizing Project--Central Illinois
       Chicago Coalition for the Homeless--Chicago, IL.
       Chicago Rehab Network--Chicago, IL.
       Cleveland Housing Resident Association--Cleveland, TN.
       Clinton Springs Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
       Coalition to Protect Public Housing--Chicago, IL.
       Communities United for Action--Cincinnati, OH.
       Community Voices Heard--New York, NY.
       Connecticut Legal Services--Connecticut State
       Consumer Action--National
       Crossroads Urban Center--Salt Lake City, UT.
       Detroit United Organizing for Power--Detroit, MI.
       District of Columbia Grassroots Empowerment Project--
     Washington, DC.
       Empower DC--Washington, DC.
       Empowering & Strengthening Ohio's People--Cleveland, OH.
       Erie Tenant Council--Erie, PA.
       Everywhere & Now Public Housing Residents Organizing 
     Nationally Together--National
       Fall River Housing Joint Tenants Council Inc.--Fall River, 
     MA.
       Families United for Racial and Economic Equality--New York, 
     NY
       Faneuil Tenant Task Force--Boston, MA.
       Findlater Gardens Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
       Fuerza Laboral/Power of Workers--Providence, RI.
       Good Old Lower East Side--New York, NY.
       Grass Roots Organizing--Mexico, MO.
       Guste Homes Resident Management Corporation--New Orleans, 
     LA
       Hartford Organizing for Power & Equality--Hartford, CT.
       Homeline--Minnesota State
       Horizon Hills Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
       Housing Action Illinois--Illinois State
       Housing Choices Coalition--Santa Cruz, CA.
       Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco--San Francisco, 
     CA.
       Housing Trust Fund Project--National
       Illinois Network of Centers for Independent Living--
     Illinois State
       Imagine Supported Living--Santa Cruz, CA.
       Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement--Iowa State
       Jane Addams Senior Caucus--Chicago, IL.
       Janie Poe Residents Council--Sarasota, FL.
       Jurisdiction-Wide Resident Advisory Board--Cincinnati, OH.

[[Page H1042]]

       Just Cause Oakland--Oakland, CA.
       Kalamazoo Homeless Action Network--Kalamazoo, MI.
       Lafayette Resident Advisory Board--Lafayette, WI.
       Lake City House Council--Seattle, WA.
       Lake County Center for Independent Living--Lake County, IL.
       Lake Park East Tenant Association--Chicago, IL.
       Lakeview Action Coalition--Chicago, IL.
       La Playa Resident Council--San Diego, CA.
       La Raza Centro Legal--San Francisco, CA.
       Lawyers' Committee for Better Housing--Chicago, IL.
       Lebanon Tenants Association--Lebanon, PA.
       Le Claire Court Community Development Corporation--Chicago, 
     IL.
       Legacy of Equality, Leadership and Organizing--Seattle, WA.
       Legal Aid Justice Center--Charlottesville, VA.
       Legal Aid Justice Center--Richmond, VA.
       Legal Assistance Resource Center of Connecticut--
     Connecticut State.
       Liberty Apartments Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
       Livermore Tenants and Neighbors--Livermore, CA.
       Logan Square Neighborhood Association--Chicago, IL.
       Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness--Los 
     Angeles, CA.
       Lowden Homes Local Advisory Council--Chicago, IL.
       Low Income Families Fighting Together--Miami, FL.
       Madera Action Coalition--Madera, CA.
       Maine Association of Interdependent Neighborhoods--Maine 
     State.
       Maine Equal Justice Partners--Maine State
       Mar Vista Gardens Resident Advisory Committee--Los Angeles, 
     CA.
       Massachusetts Alliance of HUD Tenants--Massachusetts State
       Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants--
     Massachusetts State.
       Mennonite Central Committee--National.
       Metro Atlanta Task Force on Housing & Homelessness--
     Atlanta, GA.
       Metropolitan Tenants Organization--Chicago, IL.
       Miami Workers Center--Miami, FL.
       Millvale Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
       Mineral Manor Resident Council--Reno, NV.
       Minneapolis High Rise Council--Minneapolis, MN.
       Mission Terrace Residents Association--San Jose, CA.
       Mississippi Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities--
     Mississippi State.
       Mobilizing and Organizing for Victory and Empowerment--
     Minneapolis, MN.
       Mothers on the Move--New York, NY.
       Myra Birch Manor Resident Council--Reno, NV.
       National Alliance of HUD Tenants--National.
       National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
     People--Richmond, VA.
       National Association of Consumer Advocates--National.
       National Association of Resident Management Corporations--
     National.
       National Economic and Social Rights Initiative--National.
       National People's Action--National.
       National Training & Information Center--National.
       New Direction for Change--Chicago, IL.
       New Orleans Women's Health Clinic--New Orleans, LA.
       New Orleans Women's Health & Justice Initiative--New 
     Orleans, LA.
       Neill Resident Association--St. Paul, MN.
       North Valley Community Cooperative--North Valley, NM.
       North West Bronx Community & Clergy Coalition--New York, 
     NY.
       North West Side Housing Center--Chicago, IL.
       New York City AIDS Housing Network--New York, NY.
       New York City Public Housing Residents Alliance--New York, 
     NY.
       Oahu Housing Task Force--Oahu, HI.
       Old Colony Tenant Task Force--Boston, MA.
       Organization of the North East--Chicago, IL.
       Organizing Neighborhood Equity DC--Washington, D.C.
       Peabody-Englewood Tenant Task Force--Boston, MA.
       People for Community Recovery--Chicago, IL.
       People Organized for Westside Renewal--Los Angeles, CA.
       People Organized to Win Employment Rights--San Francisco, 
     CA.
       People Organizing to Demand Environmental & Economic 
     Rights--San Francisco, CA.
       People United to Secure Housing--Kalamazoo, MI.
       Pittsburg Community Reinvestment Corporation--Pittsburg, 
     PA.
       Portland Tenants Union--Portland, ME.
       Praxis Project--National.
       Public Housing Association of Residents--Charlottesville, 
     VA.
       Public Housing Residents of the Lower East Side--New York, 
     NY.
       Public Housing Residents of Trumbull Park Homes--Chicago, 
     IL.
       Resident Owned Business, Inc.--Gary, IN.
       Residents of Salem United--Salem, OH.
       Rhode Island HUD Tenant Project--Rhode Island State
       Richland Resident Council--Richland County, MT.
       Rogers Park Section 8 Tenants Council--Chicago, IL.
       Rose Garden Apartment Association of Residents--Las Vegas, 
     NV.
       Safe Streets/Strong Communities--New Orleans, LA.
       Senior Action Council--Phoenix, AZ.
       Seventy St. Botolph Street Tenant Taskforce--Boston, MA.
       Single Mothers on the Move--Hartford, CT.
       South Austin Coalition Community Council--Chicago, IL.
       Southside Together Organizing for Power--Chicago, IL.
       Sunflower Community Action--Kansas State
       Survivors Village--New Orleans, LA.
       Sutter View Resident Council--Cincinnati, OH.
       Syracuse United Neighbors--Syracuse, NY.
       Tenants Union of Washington State--Washington State
       Tenants Rallying In Unity to Maintain Public Housing--New 
     York, NY.
       Transadvocacy Coalition--Hartford, CT.
       Tri-City Resident Council--Southeastern Kentucky
       Union de Vecinos--Los Angeles, CA.
       United Community Housing Coalition--Hartland, VT.
       United Residents for Housing Rights--Jackson, OH.
       Upland Residents Association--Upland, CA.
       West Broadway Tenant Task Force--Boston, MA.
       Whittier Street Tenant Task Force--Boston, MA.
       Winton Terrace Resident Association--Cincinnati, OH.
                                  ____

                                   National Association of Housing


                                  and Redevelopment Officials,

                                  Washington DC, February 1, 2008.
     Hon. Albio Sires,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Representative Sires: On behalf of the more than 
     22,000 members of the National Association of Housing and 
     Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), I am pleased to join with 
     our industry colleagues the Public Housing Authority 
     Directors Association (PHADA) and the Council of Large Public 
     Housing Agencies (CLPHA) in formally expressing our strong 
     support for House passage of H.R. 3521, ``The Public Housing 
     Asset Management and Improvement Act.''
       We believe H.R. 3521 contains provisions that will help 
     ensure a responsible and practicable transition to asset 
     management. The bill would establish a reasoned process for 
     defining and determining management and related fees and a 
     suitable transition period for implementing them. The bill 
     also addresses concerns expressed by NAHRO and our industry 
     colleagues with regard to the practicality and cost-
     effectiveness of asset management for local housing agencies 
     with fewer than 500 public housing units. We believe H.R. 
     3521 correctly makes the transition to asset management 
     optional for agencies with portfolios of this size. The 
     legislation also confirms current law enabling the use of 
     capital fund dollars used for operating purposes as permitted 
     for central office costs.
       Finally the legislation reaffirms current statute with 
     respect to the right of residents to provide input and 
     participate in the development of local agency policies.
       NAHRO maintains that the provisions contained in H.R. 3521 
     are necessary and would, upon final enactment, resolve some 
     of the more difficult and problematic concerns expressed by 
     our members with regard to the transition to asset management 
     as defined by recent HUD policies and directives. NAHRO has 
     and will continue to work with the Department to ensure a 
     smooth transition to public housing asset management, but 
     strongly feels that congressional action providing clarity 
     and certainty with respect to the items noted above is 
     necessary and warranted.
       We thank you for your leadership on this issue and stand 
     ready to be of further assistance as appropriate.
           Respectfully,
     Saul N. Ramirez, Jr.
                                  ____

                                                  Council of Large


                                   Public Housing Authorities,

                                 Washington, DC, January 30, 2008.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Frank: On behalf of the Council of Large 
     Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA), I am writing in support 
     of H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement 
     Act of 2007, and to urge passage of this sensible legislation 
     by the U.S. House of Representatives.
       Asset management is landmark program change now several 
     years in the making. CLPHA members have made the commitment 
     to transition to a flexible asset management system, a shift 
     involving sweeping management and accounting changes.
       Provisions in the legislation of most concern to our 
     members are those relating to management and related fees and 
     the prohibition on restriction of fungibility of capital fund 
     amounts. The legislation allows:
       Housing agencies and HUD to have an expanded formal process 
     by April 1, 2009, the basis of which is already established 
     in the Public Housing Operating Fund Final Rule,

[[Page H1043]]

     enabling the negotiation of appropriate property management, 
     bookkeeping and asset management fees. Once arrived upon, 
     execution of those fees would commence in 2011; and
       Housing agencies to use a portion of their Capital Fund 
     grant towards eligible operating expenses. This provision was 
     first established by Congress in 1996 and reinforced in the 
     2008 HUD appropriations bill in recognition of housing 
     agencies' need for funding flexibility--a need which has only 
     increased over time.
       We thank you for your leadership and support of public 
     housing and look forward to working with you on passage of 
     this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Sunia Zaterman,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                 National Housing Law Project,

                                   Oakland, CA, February 25, 2008.
     Hon. Albio Sires,
     Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Longworth 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Sires: We are writing to convey our 
     support for H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management 
     Improvement Act. The focus of our support is based upon the 
     resident participation provision.
       The National Housing Law Project (NHLP) is a 40 year old 
     national housing law and advocacy center whose mission is to 
     advance housing justice for poor people. NHLP's goals are to 
     increase and preserve the supply of decent affordable 
     housing, improve housing conditions for very low-income 
     persons and households, expand and enforce low-income 
     tenants' and homeowners' rights and increase housing 
     opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities. In pursuit of 
     these goals, NHLP provides support through written materials, 
     training, legislative and administrative advocacy, 
     litigation, and technical assistance on housing issues 
     affecting very low income families. NHLP works with numerous 
     legal services organizations around the country.
       HUD and public housing agencies (PHAs) are currently 
     engaged in the very substantial effort of transitioning to 
     and implementing asset management. This effort is having a 
     substantial impact at the local level. PHAs that never 
     applied for operating subsidies are now doing so. Other PHAs 
     are experiencing cuts in operating subsidies due to asset 
     management and the new funding formula. All PHAs are making 
     new staffing and program determinations because of the 
     requirements of project-based management and project-based 
     budgets, all of which affect current residents. 
     Simultaneously most PHAs are experiencing a cut in operating 
     subsidies because of the low level of funding for such 
     subsidies. In this environment of change, it is vital that 
     the Secretary of HUD issue guidance supporting resident 
     participation in the implementation of asset management and 
     the development of local policies that arise from that 
     effort.
       It is also critical that Congress recognize the rights of 
     public housing residents to organized and represent their 
     members. Previously, Congress recognize these rights for 
     residents of other federally assisted but privately owned 
     housing. See 12 U.S.C. Sec. 1715z-1b(4). It is important that 
     Congress also recognize the same rights for the approximately 
     1.2 million public housing families.
           Sincerely,
                                              Catherine M. Bishop,
     Staff attorney.
                                  ____

                                        Public Housing Authorities


                                        Directors Association,

                                 Washington, DC, January 31, 2008.
     Hon. Albio Sires,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Sires: On behalf of its members. PHADA 
     thanks you for your support of the public housing program and 
     for your efforts to ensure the workability of public housing 
     asset management. Asset management is a landmark program 
     change now several years in the making. During this time, 
     PHADA has advocated for a cost-effective and practicable 
     transition to asset management; a transition that would also 
     enable smaller housing agencies (for whom the transition to 
     individual project based management is neither cost effective 
     nor practical) to be exempt from the process altogether.
       The Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2008 
     (H.R. 3521) would authorize in statute recommendations long 
     advocated for and broadly supported by PHADA's membership; 
     recommendations that would accomplish this overall objective. 
     PHADA is pleased to express its strong support for the 
     passage of this important and necessary legislation.
       H.R. 3521 will make possible the following:
       1. In 2009, housing agencies and HUD will have an expanded 
     formal process, the basis of which is already established in 
     the Public Housing Operating Fund Final Rule, enabling the 
     negotiation of appropriate property management, bookkeeping 
     and asset management fees. Further, once arrived upon, 
     execution of those fees would commence in 2011.
       2. Small housing authorities that own and manage between 
     250 to 500 public housing units, 12 percent of all agencies, 
     will gain regulatory relief in that the transition to asset 
     management will be optional for them.
       3. The legislation upholds current statute by which public 
     housing residents may organize and participate in the 
     development of policies at public housing agencies.
       PHADA believes these simple provisions will mitigate 
     implementation impediments broadly identified by its members 
     and would provide flexibility critical to housing agencies' 
     survival in a time of dwindling resources.
       PHADA views these items as being essential to the fair, 
     efficient and effective implementation of asset management as 
     currently defined by HUD. It welcomes the opportunity to 
     continue to work with the Department and Members of Congress 
     to ensure that the administration of asset management is 
     handled in a responsible manner going forward. Thank you for 
     the opportunity to express these views.
           Respectfully,
                                                Timothy G. Kaiser,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time, but 
not before saying that I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question 
and the rule and remind people that this passed the Financial Services 
Committee by voice vote.
  Oh, no, we are not here about FISA. We are not here about earmarks. 
We are here about public housing for poor people in a country that has 
dumped on them over and over and over again. We will get to earmarks. 
We will get to FISA.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

                        Amendment to H. Res. 974

                    Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. ``That upon adoption of this resolution, before 
     consideration of any order of business other than one motion 
     that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the 
     Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a 
     procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign 
     intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment 
     thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the 
     Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without 
     intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and 
     the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to final adoption without intervening motion.''
                                  ____

       (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

[[Page H1044]]

     ``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.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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. 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 will be postponed.

                          ____________________