[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 26, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H1046-H1056]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PUBLIC HOUSING ASSET MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 974 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3521.
{time} 1348
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3521) to improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, with Mr. Serrano in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Roskam) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to be here debating this
bill to help public housing authorities across
[[Page H1047]]
this Nation. Let me start by thanking Chairman Barney Frank for his
support on this bill and his leadership in the committee.
Let me start by explaining why I introduced this bill. Shortly after
I was sworn in, I received a letter from the Jersey City Housing
Authority in my district. They told me they had laid off 34 employees
because of asset management. When I looked into this, I learned that
Jersey City was not unique. Over 800 public housing authorities had
their operating budgets cut because of the way asset management was
implemented by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. At
the same time, the Department limited the amount of flexibility given
to public housing authorities to make ends meet.
I knew something had to be done. With the support of Chairman Frank,
Chairwoman Waters, and others, I introduced H.R. 3521, the Public
Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. You will note that
the title indicates that the bill improves asset management. It does
not, and I repeat, it does not put an end to asset management. That is
because I feel strongly that the goals of the asset management are
worthwhile. By making public housing authorities run more efficiently,
asset management has the potential to improve the lives of all those
who live in public housing in this country.
My bill simply makes four improvements to the asset management rule.
First, it requires renewed negotiations over the management fee. A
little background in this is probably helpful. In 1998, Congress passed
the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, which called
on the Department to replace the old funding system with a new, more
efficient system. In 2004, a negotiated rulemaking committee gathered
to decide how to implement this new system known as asset management.
One key piece was the management fee, and Congress required that the
fee be reasonable. The negotiators never discussed the management fee,
and industry groups have argued that it was set arbitrarily by the
Department in its final rule because it lacked input from the
negotiated rulemaking committee. My bill requires new negotiations to
establish a reasonable fee and allows public housing authorities to
revert back to their old funding mechanism until final implementation
of asset management on January 1, 2011.
Second, my bill reaffirms current law by allowing public housing
authorities to transfer funds between their operating fund and their
capital fund. This provision prevents the Department from prohibiting
such transfers. This flexibility is vital to agencies, particularly
since the public housing program is underfunded. Housing authorities
know best where they need funding, not Washington. There is wide
agreement on this provision. In fact, this provision was included in
the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. That
provision, however, is only valid for 1 year. My bill would make the
change permanent.
Third, my bill increases the exemption threshold from small to
medium-sized public housing authorities. The Department recognized that
small authorities with fewer than 250 units of housing would not
benefit from the efficiencies of asset management. The final rule
exempts public housing authorities with fewer than 250 units of housing
from implementing asset management. My bill simply raises this
threshold to 500 units. Again, there is little disagreement on raising
the threshold. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008
raised the exemption threshold to 400. My bill goes a little further to
500 units. The impact of this change will only affect 441 public
housing authorities, some of whom may not opt out of asset management
because they think it makes good sense. Even with this change, over
two-thirds of all public housing units still will be covered by asset
management rules.
Finally, my bill restates current law in terms of tenant
participation. It simply says that tenants should be allowed to
participate in the decisions affecting their homes. It prohibits the
Department from altering tenant participation rights, and it encourages
public housing authorities to include tenants in discussion about asset
management that directly affects their home.
Let me end by talking about who supports this bill. We have received
letters of support from the Council of Large Public Housing
Authorities, the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, the
National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, and the
National Training and Information Center.
I submit these letters for the Record.
National Training
and Information Center,
Chicago, IL, February 7, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, 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
decision-making 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.
Thank you for listening to the voices of the people!
Signed,
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, TX.
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
[[Page H1048]]
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.
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.
[[Page H1049]]
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, 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, 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 affects 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 recognized these rights for
residents of other federally assisted but privately owned
housing. See 12 U.S.C. 1715z-1b(4). It is important that
Congress also recognized 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.
My office has taken calls from public housing authorities across this
Nation, small, large, urban, and rural authorities supporting this
bill, and I hope that Members will support this bill. Please make a
difference for public housing residents and public housing authorities
by easing their regulatory burden. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3521.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3521, the Public Housing
Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. The bill makes several
changes to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Public
Housing Agency Asset Management Final Rule. And what I'd like to do,
rather than reading a lengthy statement, is just sort of summarize some
of my concerns in a nutshell.
Without question, there's been a great deal of good work and good
faith that's been put in on this bill, but I think that there's a
couple of key points that just fall a little bit short, and I think we
can do better.
The first is, the exemption of so many public housing authorities
from the asset management mandate. And that's something that's a good
thing, on balance. Asset management says that if you've got unit A and
unit B and unit C of public housing, then we're going to determine the
cost of unit A, the cost of unit B, and the cost of unit C, and that
we're not going to mix all these things up together and act as if each
individual one isn't responsible for an individual cost. Asset
management is a good business practice that makes all kinds of sense.
And if the bill, as amended, is ultimately passed by this House, 88
percent of public housing authorities in the United States would be
exempt. That's a bad idea.
The second thing that is actually a bigger concern to me, is section
2 of the bill, and it relates to management and related fees. Let me
just read part of the language that this House is being asked to vote
on. It says, ``The Secretary shall not impose any,'' and that's the
operative word, Mr. Chairman, ``any restriction or limitation on the
amount of management and related fees with respect to a public housing
project if the fee is determined to be reasonable by the Public Housing
Agency unless,'' and then there's a couple of limitations that have to
do with timing. The Secretary shall not impose any restriction or
limitation. Any restriction? Any limitation? And who is it that's going
to determine whether a fee is reasonable?
[[Page H1050]]
Well, under this bill, as amended, under this bill, it's going to be
the very entity that's going to be the beneficiary of that fee. So
we're essentially saying to the fox, Why don't you guard the henhouse?
Why don't you decide what your fee is going to be, and you simply send
the bill to the taxpayer, and that's the bill that's going to be paid?
I think that's unreasonable. I think that common sense says, no, no,
no. Common sense says, there's going to be someone else that determines
reasonableness of fees before a bill is going to be paid. And what this
does is it says, and it's a curious thing to me. I can't figure out for
the life of me why. It says that the determination of reasonableness
and the renegotiation of reasonableness can't be brought up for another
year. This can't even be the subject of a conversation, a substantive
negotiation, until April 1 of 2009. And then, even if something is
negotiated then, it can't be imposed until 2011, 3 years away. I just
think that's unreasonable, and I think it is a financial control that's
in place that is being put adrift, and we're not going to be able to
get it back for 3 years. Costs are going to go up. Mark my words.
Finally, this allows for the diversion of capital funds, Mr.
Chairman. You know, there's always a natural tension, right, between
capital funds and operating funds, and we hear that all the time. There
is no shortage of national attention and national conversation and
national concern about the atrophying of our capital, the atrophying of
our infrastructure. And what we ought not be doing is creating more
fungibility, in other words, more pressure to take money and divert
precious capital money from capital expenditures, which are the
traditional bricks and mortars of public housing to go into the
operating side. And for those reasons, I rise in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1400
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am indeed honored to be an original
cosponsor of H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement
Act of 2007; and I want to thank Mr. Sires and Chairman Frank for their
dedication and commitment to resolving this, at times, perplexing and
confusing process known as asset management to which our public housing
agencies have been struggling to adapt for several years now. This
struggle has been made all the worse by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development's overly prescriptive guidance on some issues, lack
of guidance on other issues, and contradictory or insufficient guidance
on everything in between.
I think we can all agree that public housing agencies can be better
at managing our public housing resources and that asset management has
the potential to improve how public housing is managed nationwide.
However, in examining the issues behind the implementation of asset
management, it has become clear that HUD's one-size-fits-all approach
simply won't work. In addition, the Department's willful disregard of
existing statute as a part of the implementation is eroding the trust
of housing agencies' residents and some Members of this Congress.
In light of the Department's actions and the need to proceed with
asset management, my friend from New Jersey who introduced this bill,
H.R. 3521, maintains and respects the negotiated rulemaking agreed to
by all parties, housing agencies, their industry representatives and
HUD and still requires housing agencies to convert to asset management
by 2011.
However, the bill settles three outstanding issues that have slowed
the implementation of asset management: number one, the amount of
management fees; number two, the ability of housing agencies to use a
portion of their capital funds while operating expenses as allowed
under statute; and number three, the kind of housing agencies that must
convert to asset management. These are all critical issues that must be
decided before 2011.
H.R. 3521 would require negotiated rulemaking to settle the issue of
management fees. The fees that the Department is attempting to impose
on housing agencies are, in many cases, insufficient and will not meet
the needs of housing agencies that have been historically underfunded.
In addition, these fees appear to have been arrived at in an
arbitrary manner. Negotiated rulemaking on the subject of management
fees would allow the Nation's housing managers to work with HUD to
determine a reasonable fee for managing public housing. Because the
date for full implementation of asset management would stay the same,
negotiated rulemaking would not delay or stall conversion to asset
management.
On the use of capital funds for operating expenses, the statute is
very clear. Housing agencies have the ability to move 20 percent of
their capital funds to their operating fund. However, in its guidance,
the Department has disregarded this plain-as-day statute and has
limited capital fund fungibility to 10 percent. The bill simply asserts
what is already in law.
Large housing agencies will benefit the most from asset management
due to the economies of scale that will result from streamlining their
operations. By raising the threshold for conversion from housing
agencies that manage 250 units to those that manage 500 units, the bill
simply ensures that only those housing agencies with the ability to
benefit from asset management are required to comply with it.
Furthermore, the bill makes sure that asset management does not
stifle tenant participation and resident organization. Public housing
residents are very concerned about how asset management will impact
their ability to participate and to organize. The bill ensures that the
ability of residents to remain involved and to be represented is not
impinged upon.
Mr. Chairman, this bill does not undo, reverse, or undermine the
original negotiated rulemaking between housing agencies and the
Department. It simply settles four outstanding issues so that asset
management can move forward.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers, and I will
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007.
I commend Chairman Frank and commend Chairwoman Waters and my
colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Albio Sires, for bringing to the
floor this very important legislation. This is the most significant
administrative transformation, Mr. Chairman, in 30 years dealing with
all of the public housing authorities throughout the United States.
This bill, developed with the input of public housing agencies,
administrators and tenants, is a commonsense measure that provides
flexibility to the Nation's public housing authorities as they
transition to asset management.
I must say to my friend from Illinois, the points that you bring up
are salient, but it doesn't work here, and I will tell you why. H.R.
3521 was included as part of H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2008, which the President signed on December 26, 2007. It's
already law.
Specifically, the Consolidated Appropriations Act included the
provision to allow flexible funding between the capital and operating
funds. It also expanded the exemption from implementing asset
management from public housing authorities with less than 250 units to
public housing authorities with less than 400 units. This legislation
that is before us today increases that threshold to 500 units. So what
we are taking is something already in the law and expanding it.
H.R. 3521 would also be permanent whereas the Consolidated
Appropriations Act would only put provisions in place for the year
2008. I ask that that be considered, and I think it is a very important
part of what we are debating today.
Asset management is an efficient administrative style that allows
public housing authorities to manage each individual housing
development on a project-level basis as opposed to managing
developments on an agency-wide basis.
While most stakeholders support the idea of asset management, they
believe that HUD has implemented its inflexibility. For example, HUD
has mandated that public housing authorities
[[Page H1051]]
demonstrate compliance. So this is not a willy-nilly situation here.
This is something you have to comply to the law. New rules will be
established by 2011, which the PHAs believe is too soon. You have to
get these public housing authorities that have been operating, many of
them for 30 years, the flexibility for compliance. And HUD is
overseeing them. You act as if there is no one who is auditing the
books.
We need time to issue timely and complete guidance on these new
regulations causing some PHAs to lose funding and staff. I don't think
any of us want that.
During this time of declining resources for public housing, when is
the last time we built public housing? When is the last time we built
public housing for seniors at a time when we know what is going on out
there with people losing homes? When is the last time we have provided
public housing?
So during this time of declining resources for public housing, it is
imperative that we provide them with the flexibility they need to use
their funds as they see fit. This legislation requires new negotiated
rulemaking to begin in 2009 to ensure that housing authorities are
funded according to an accurate funding formula and allows the public
housing authorities the flexibility to move small amounts of funding
from capital to operating funds.
Also, this legislation exempts small public housing authorities from
asset management, as they generally will see no economic or efficiency
improvements from its implementation and ensure that the PHAs involve
tenants in every decision.
Mr. Chairman, this bill makes real practical changes that will truly
benefit our public housing agencies as they implement asset management.
I urge my colleagues to support its passage, and I commend the sponsors
of this legislation.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the tone of the discussion this afternoon very, very
much. I just want to point out and really ask the House if you notice
something, and at the beginning of my remarks, I put out, essentially
as a challenge, this concern that I have of this language: the
secretary shall not impose any restriction or limitation on the amount
of management and related fees. Nothing: no restrictions, no authority,
completely stripped so that there is nobody that has the ability that
can come in and say this invoice for management, this amount of money
for management, are you kidding me? That's outrageous. Nobody has the
authority to do that. They do now, they do currently have that ability,
but under this bill, Mr. Chairman, that authority goes away.
Now, the gentleman from New Jersey, the previous speaker, mentioned
the fungibility argument. I accept that as an argument. I just don't
think it is a good idea. I don't think that something that's in an
appropriations bill, just because it's a bad idea, that it needs the
House's imprimatur once again. That's going to expire at the end of the
year, and I think we can do better.
So just in summary, what we are being asked to do today is
essentially to limit down the amount of public housing authorities that
would be under asset management to only 12 percent of the public
housing authorities in the United States. Only 12 percent of them would
be subject to asset management if this bill is enacted.
So I think those are sufficient numbers to say, you know what, I
think we can do better. Those are sufficient reasons, sufficient
arguments that would suggest that we can do better. This should go back
to the drawing board. And I urge a ``no'' vote.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, just in closing I would like to say that
there is oversight, and the 20 percent that we are talking about is
just increasing 10 percent because already they have the ability to
move 10 percent. With all of the costs, all of the increases and the
underfunding of these housing authorities, I think this is reasonable.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment is as follows:
H.R. 3521
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Public Housing Asset
Management Improvement Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. REVISIONS TO ASSET MANAGEMENT RULES AND RELATED FEES.
(a) Management and Related Fees.--The Secretary shall not
impose any restriction or limitation on the amount of
management and related fees with respect to a public housing
project if the fee is determined to be reasonable by the
public housing agency, unless such restriction or limitation
imposed by the Secretary on such fees--
(1) is determined pursuant to a negotiated rulemaking which
is convened by the Secretary no earlier than April 1, 2009,
and in accordance with subchapter III of chapter 5 of title
5, United States Code, with representatives from interested
parties; and
(2) is effective only on or after January 1, 2011.
(b) Increase of Threshold for Exemption From Asset
Management Requirements.--Any public housing agency that owns
or operates fewer than 500 public housing units under title I
of the United States Housing Act of 1937 may elect to be
exempt from any asset management requirement imposed by the
Secretary.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON RESTRICTION OF FUNGIBILITY OF CAPITAL
FUND AMOUNTS.
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall not
impose any requirement, regulation, or guideline relating to
asset management that restricts or limits in any way the use
by public housing agencies of amounts for Capital Fund
assistance under section 9(d) of such Act, pursuant to
paragraph (1) or (2) of section 9(g) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g(g)), for costs of any
central office of a public housing agency.
SEC. 4. TENANT PARTICIPATION.
(a) Rule of Construction.--Neither the requirements of this
Act, nor any other requirement, regulation, guideline, or
other policy or action of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development relating to public housing asset management may
be construed to repeal or waive any provision of part 964 of
title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations, regarding tenant
participation and tenant opportunities in public housing. The
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall ensure that
public housing agencies encourage the reasonable efforts of
resident tenant organizations to represent their members or
the reasonable efforts of tenants to organize.
(b) Guidance.--Guidance issued by the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development shall encourage participation by
residents in the implementation of asset management and the
development of local policies for such purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 110-524. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report; by a Member designated
in the report; shall be considered read; shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not be subject to
amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sires
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in House Report 110-524.
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sires:
Page 2, after line 17, insert the following:
The Secretary may not consider a public housing agency as
failing to comply with the asset management requirements of
subpart H of part 990 of title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, or any successor or amended regulation
containing asset management requirements, or determine that
an agency fails to comply with such requirements, because of
or as a result of the agency determining its fees in
accordance with this subsection.
At the end of the bill add the following new section:
SEC. 5. INELIGIBILITY OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FOR ASSISTANCE.
Immigrants who are not lawfully present in the United
States shall be ineligible for financial assistance under
this Act, as provided and defined by section 214 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
1436a). Nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter the
restrictions or definitions in such section 214.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 974, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Sires) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
[[Page H1052]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
{time} 1415
Mr. SIRES. This manager's amendment covers two different aspects of
the bill. The first part addresses compliance with section 2 of the
bill. Section 2 grants agencies that lost funding because of asset
management to walk out of the funding agreement. The bill allows them
to set their own reasonable management fee until a new negotiated
rulemaking takes place. However, the Department recently announced that
any agency compliant with this provision of the bill will be deemed as
noncompliant with the Asset Management Final Rule. The manager's
amendment makes it clear that these agencies are compliant.
The second part of the manager's amendment restates current law that
undocumented immigrants are ineligible for financial assistance under
section 214 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1980. These
changes are technical and should be adopted.
Chairman Frank and I urge a ``yes'' vote on these amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3521,
the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act. This legislation
works to provide flexibility to public housing agencies as they make
the transition to the new asset management system.
As we are working to enact this legislation, I am pleased that we
incorporated provisions to ease the potential burdens for many smaller
public housing authorities, including many in my Congressional
district. I am also pleased to see that the Manager's Amendment we are
considering includes language that reaffirms current Federal law and
ensures that illegal immigrants do not receive public housing benefits
that should only go to those who rightfully deserve them.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to express my appreciation to
Mr. Sires of New Jersey for introducing this legislation and to
Chairman Frank for working to include language in the Manager's
Amendment pertaining to illegal immigration. I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management
Improvement Act.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, we have no opposition to the amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Meek of Florida
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 110-524.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Meek of Florida:
Page 3, line 23, after the period insert the following:
``In the case of any public housing agency in receivership,
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or any
receiver may not abrogate, waive, repeal, or modify any
provision of part 964 of title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations or any provision of a formalized housing
agreement entered into pursuant to such part 964 (including
pursuant to section 964.11, 964.14, 964.18(a)(6), or 964.135
of such part) before the commencement of such receivership by
a resident or tenant organization and the public housing
agency.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 974, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Meek) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Members, I think that this amendment is well in
order. First of all, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr.
Frank, and also Mr. Sires, who has been a leader in this, my friend
from New Jersey, and also Chairwoman Waters.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply, on page 3, line 23, gives those
individuals who find themselves in the middle of a dispute between the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and a local housing
authority, when that particular local housing authority falls into
receivership, all agreements that have been agreed upon as it relates
to tenants and that housing authority should be honored when that takes
place.
Case in point: In south Florida we were awarded a HOPE VI grant, and
the housing authority failed the residents in being able to implement
that grant, and then the residents and housing authority came together
for the better good to make sure there weren't a number of homeless
individuals, and those agreements ended up going south. And I think
there are other communities that will be going through this in the very
near future.
I am offering this amendment, and hopefully the Members will accept
this amendment in good faith and it will help us move forward as we
look at these situations in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires) for 1 minute.
Mr. SIRES. I would like to thank Mr. Meek for offering this
amendment.
This amendment clarifies that the Department cannot prevent public
housing authorities in receivership from benefiting from this bill.
Chairman Frank and I fully support this amendment, and we urge
adoption.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be
postponed.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-524 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Sires of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Meek of Florida.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sires
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Sires) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 415,
noes 0, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 75]
AYES--415
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
[[Page H1053]]
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Allen
Boucher
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Christensen
Fortuno
Graves
Gutierrez
Hulshof
Jones (OH)
Keller
Lungren, Daniel E.
Peterson (PA)
Pryce (OH)
Reynolds
Ryan (OH)
Sutton
Wexler
Woolsey
{time} 1446
Messrs. CALVERT, PEARCE, and GINGREY changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered By Mr. Meek of Florida
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 337,
noes 77, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 76]
AYES--337
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--77
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Carter
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
[[Page H1054]]
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Granger
Hall (TX)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Inglis (SC)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (KY)
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Neugebauer
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Poe
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Sali
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOT VOTING--19
Allen
Boucher
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Christensen
Fortuno
Graves
Gutierrez
Hodes
Hulshof
Jones (OH)
Keller
Lewis (GA)
Lungren, Daniel E.
Pryce (OH)
Reynolds
Ryan (OH)
Sutton
Wexler
Woolsey
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
on this vote.
{time} 1454
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS and Mr. PENCE changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Tauscher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Serrano, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3521) to
improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, pursuant to House Resolution 974, he
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on
the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am in its current form.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. SMITH of Texas moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3521,
to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of
the bill H.R. 3773 as passed by the Senate on February 12,
2008.
Point of Order
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the amendment
is not germane to the bill. The bill H.R. 3773 has nothing to do with
the asset management bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Yes, I do, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, once again, the Democratic majority is insisting on a
procedural objection to block consideration of the Senate-passed FISA
modernization bill. This motion to recommit adds the bipartisan bill
passed 2 weeks ago by the Senate, 68-29.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman must confine his remarks to the gentleman from New
Jersey's point of order.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, there is nothing more germane to
the security of the American people than to take up the Senate bill as
quickly as possible.
Now I would like to reiterate my disappointment that the majority has
raised a point of order against this motion to recommit.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is not speaking on the point
of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas must confine his
remarks to the point of order.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman
to withdraw his point of order and allow for an up-or-down vote on the
bipartisan Senate reform bill.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The instructions in the motion to recommit
propose an amendment consisting of the text of an entirely different
measure that falls outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Financial Services. The instructions are therefore not germane. The
point of order is sustained. The motion is not in order.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Sires
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I move to table the appeal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218,
noes 195, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 77]
AYES--218
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
[[Page H1055]]
NOES--195
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Allen
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Frank (MA)
Graves
Gutierrez
Hulshof
Jones (OH)
Keller
Lungren, Daniel E.
Peterson (MN)
Pryce (OH)
Ryan (OH)
Sutton
Wexler
Woolsey
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1520
Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. BOEHNER and Mr. LEWIS of California changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. ISRAEL and Mr. SMITH of Washington changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Personal Explanation
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this
Chamber yesterday and today. I would like the Record to show that, had
I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 69, 70,
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, and 77.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mrs. Bachmann
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Mrs. BACHMANN. Yes, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Bachmann moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3521 to the
Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report
the same back to the House promptly with the following
instructions:
Page 2, after line 17, insert the following:
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall not
accept as reasonable any fees for enforcing any provision of
a dwelling lease agreement or other similar agreement that
requires the registration of or prohibits the possession of
any firearm that is possessed by an individual for his or her
personal protection or for sport the possession of which is
not prohibited, or the registration of which is not required,
by existing law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, our Founding Fathers wrote our Nation's
fundamental values of freedom and representative government into our
Constitution. This includes the people's second amendment right to keep
and bear arms.
Citizens who are in compliance with the law should not have those
rights taken away, including those who live in public housing. Yet,
public housing authorities, including the one right here in our
Nation's Capital, are telling residents that in order to be a resident
of public housing, you must give up your second amendment rights. You
must give up your right to own a firearm for sport or for hunting or,
most importantly, to protect yourself or your family.
Let me quote from the January 2008 dwelling lease agreement for D.C.:
``Lessee and all Others are required to comply with the following use
restrictions and requirements . . . To refrain from storing,
maintaining, using, distributing, purchasing or selling any type of
firearms or ammunition on the Leased Premises or the Development,
whether registered or unregistered.''
In other words, Madam Speaker, even if you comply with all the laws
of the District of Columbia related to gun ownership, you are
prohibited from owning a gun if you are a resident of public housing.
We are talking about law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Criminals
are already largely prohibited from residing in public housing.
Residents of public housing share the same legal rights to possess
lawful property and to take measures to defend their lives as do
homeowners who control their estate.
The D.C. policy clearly discriminates against the poorest members of
our society simply because they are residents of public housing.
Less than 2 weeks ago, 250 Members of this House of Representatives,
including 65 Members of the majority, who said there shouldn't be any
gun ban here in the District of Columbia signed a bipartisan amicus
curiae brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, which said it is a case
that currently is before the United States Supreme Court which
questions the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban. The amicus brief
supports the ruling by a lower Federal appeals court which upheld the
constitutional right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.
Just to refresh my colleagues one more time, one notable line from
the brief states, and I quote, ``Had Americans in 1787 been told that
the Federal Government could ban the frontiersman in his log cabin, or
the city merchant living above his store, from keeping firearms to
provide for and protect himself and his family, it is hard to imagine
that the Constitution would have been ratified.''
The D.C. public housing restriction goes even further than the D.C.
gun ban in question in this case.
Madam Speaker, we must assure that Americans living in public housing
have their personal right to possess firearms for hunting or self-
defense.
This motion to recommit is simple. It clarifies that public housing
authorities that participate in the asset management program cannot
prohibit their law-abiding tenants from possessing firearms and
ammunition.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this
motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise almost in disbelief that my friends
on the opposite side of the aisle, led by Mrs. Bachmann, would dare
bring to this floor a motion that basically would say to us that the
Federal Government cannot direct this issue on Federal property.
We own these public housing authorities. The people who are here live
under the rules that we develop for living in public housing. We are
confronted with the problem in America, and that problem is,
unfortunately, and painfully, we have poor people who are isolated, and
they find their power and their strength in the gun.
There are far too many guns raging every night in America in public
housing authorities, whether it is Los Angeles or New York or down
south.
What you find are young jobless men in gangs who shoot throughout the
[[Page H1056]]
night where people are ducking under their beds, afraid to open their
doors. Many of these public housing authorities are on main
thoroughfares, next to shopping centers, on your way to the airport.
These bullets don't limit themselves to inside these public housing
authorities. They could end up shooting people who are passing through
the area.
I understand, perhaps, the argument that one would make about
constitutional rights. While I disagree with that, I think it is
foolhardy and foolish to talk about we don't have the authority to
determine what happens on our property.
There are those in this room who would shout down public housing
authorities and not give people a place to live at all, because they
said there is too much violence, there is too much joblessness, there
is too much violence. There are those of us who have worked for years
not only to clean up these public housing authorities but to make sure
that the people who live there are abiding by the law.
I am in disbelief that anyone could believe it's all right to
continue what is happening in America today in many of these public
housing authorities where young people are dying. Of course we don't
like it. Of course we are appalled at it. We are pained with it. But
give me a break. All of us are much more responsible than this motion
to recommit would have us believe.
I would yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Would the gentlelady, the sponsor of the motion to recommit, yield
for a question?
Mrs. BACHMANN. Yes.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady.
Would the gentlelady agree to a unanimous consent request to make
your amendment a forthwith amendment so that it could be voted upon? My
presumption is the gentlelady wants the amendment adopted, the
gentlelady believes the majority of the House is for it. Would the
gentlelady agree to such a unanimous consent?
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the request from the
majority leader; however, the answer would be no.
We are aware of this problem, and it's very important that we send
this back to the committee so that it will be fixed.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, so it's more important to delay it
than to adopt it now?
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker and Majority Leader, as you know, the
important point is that the committee has a chance to look at this
measure. They did not have a chance to do so. We want to make sure that
they have the opportunity to fix the bill.
{time} 1530
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to
recommit be amended by substituting the term ``promptly'' with the term
``forthwith.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize only the proponent
of the motion for such a request.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker and Members, our majority leader just put
before us a motion that I think we should all support. It is
unreasonable for us to think that somehow we are going to not give this
House the opportunity to provide leadership on crime.
There are Members on the opposite side of the aisle who would
identify themselves as being law and order people, of wanting to get
rid of guns and crime. Well, this is an opportunity to show where you
stand. Do you stand with us to keep Americans safe? Do you stand with
us to make the rules on Federal property, or are you going to vote us
down?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 974, further proceedings on
H.R. 3521 are postponed.
____________________