[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 19 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H439-H441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3700, HOUSING OPPORTUNITY THROUGH
MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2015
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 594 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 594
Resolved, That at any time after 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. 3700) to provide housing opportunities in the
United States through modernization of various housing
programs, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair 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. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services
now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as
an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-42. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
{time} 1230
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported out a rule for H.R. 3700, the Housing Opportunity Through
Modernization Act of 2015. House Resolution 594 provides a structured
rule for consideration of H.R. 3700.
The resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial
Services. Additionally, the resolution provides for consideration of 14
amendments offered to H.R. 3700. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution
provides a motion to recommit for the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the
underlying legislation. H.R. 3700 is a package of several bipartisan
provisions that have been voted on by the House Financial Services
Committee and received bipartisan support multiple times since 2006 in
both Republican and Democratic Congresses.
H.R. 3700 cuts down on inefficient and duplicative regulations. The
bill employs a commonsense approach to mitigating the overlapping and
redundant procedures that have made rental assistance programs
unnecessarily burdensome for some tenants as well as private owners and
investors in affordable housing.
The portions of H.R. 3700 that are particularly important to me and
many of the large metropolitan housing authorities around the country
create positive changes based on project-based vouchers.
The Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, in my hometown, does a
lot of vouchers. They have a strong record of converting slums into
mixed-income neighborhoods. They help make sure that the needs of those
who live there come first and that we help build strong communities
around them.
An integral part of this approach is often project-based vouchers
that can be provided to encourage the development of mixed-income
housing facilities. However, because the Columbus Metropolitan Housing
Authority is approaching its cap for project-based vouchers, as many
metropolitan housing authorities around the country are, their capacity
to build new mixed-income communities that are thriving and strong is
at risk.
This bill authorizes public housing authorities to project-base up to
20 percent of its authorized voucher allocation rather than 20 percent
of its voucher funding. This change ensures that the unauthorized
number of vouchers is more stable. It will help make it easier for
housing authorities to plan their future investments in the communities
they serve.
Knowing Charles Hillman and the great people at the Columbus
Metropolitan Housing Authority and the great work they do, I would sure
hate to see them taken off the front lines in our war against poverty.
We need to make this change. It is just one example of something that
is really good in this bill.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill is projected
to actually save $311 billion in discretionary spending over just the
next 5 years. The savings associated with the flexibilities and
regulatory burden relief provided to local housing authorities will
result in substantial improvement in the return on investment for
taxpayers and help make sure that the affordable housing programs we
have are sustainable.
Mr. Speaker, the bill passed the Financial Services Committee, which
I serve on, with a vote of 44-10--a strong bipartisan vote.
It is my understanding that the sponsor of this legislation has
worked over the past few weeks with the ranking member of the
committee, Ms. Maxine Waters of California, to address an amendment
that she offered--which has been made in order under the rule--which
will alleviate the concerns of some Members about this legislation.
So, even though it only passed 44-10--which is pretty good--I think
we can actually see a bigger improvement when it hits the floor,
because I think the sponsor has worked with the ranking member, Ms.
Maxine Waters of California, to alleviate some of those concerns.
I look forward to debating this bill with our House colleagues, and I
urge support for both the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 3700, the Housing
Opportunity
[[Page H440]]
Through Modernization Act of 2015. This bill includes modifications and
updates to several existing laws pertaining to housing--and low-income
housing, in particular.
Many of these changes clarify and improve specific regulations for
the benefit of those providing low-income housing and those benefiting
from the availability of low-income housing. In fact, this bill
improves access to affordable housing for the most vulnerable, such as
low-income families and veterans.
It is apparent that much work has been involved in finding a balance,
and the authors and committee members of both parties are to be
commended for their efforts. With that being said, it is important to
note that a provision of this bill will effectively raise rents for
thousands of families with children and, ultimately, make it more
difficult for some low-income parents to maintain employment.
The deduction provisions in this bill, as it is currently worded,
raise rents for some of the lowest income families in the country. A
quarter of households facing rent increases of $25 or more a month are
families with children whose childcare deduction would be reduced.
I hope that this important issue of childcare deductions will be
addressed. My colleague from Ohio just spoke about the work that our
colleagues, the chair of this committee and the ranking member, have
done to perhaps cause this measure to go forward and not be derailed
because of the measure of reducing the childcare deduction for
families.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to quickly address the issue raised by the gentleman. I
alluded to it, but I didn't speak to it maybe as clearly as I should
have.
I believe that there is an agreement between the chairman of the
subcommittee as well as the ranking member of the full committee on an
amendment that Ms. Waters is offering with regard to the provision that
you refer to. I will tell you, I am going to be voting for that
amendment, and I would urge you to vote for it. I believe it is going
to pass. It may just be a voice vote. If you are here, vote on it by
voice.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is an example, in my view, of what can happen here when parties
work together. Obviously, on this issue, the Financial Services
Committee has done a tremendous job.
If we defeat the previous question, I am going to pivot for a moment
and offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bill to help prevent
mass shootings by promoting research into the causes of gun violence,
making it easier to identify and treat those prone to committing these
acts.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, this morning at 9, I held a gun violence
roundtable. We had extraordinary presenters from those who are
gathering information and disseminating that information around the
country to address this subject.
What the Gun Violence Research Act would do is give the Centers for
Disease Control the authority to research the causes, mechanisms,
prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of injuries with respect to gun
violence. It would also encourage the improvement and expansion of the
National Violent Death Reporting Systems and empower healthcare
providers by not inhibiting a physician or other healthcare provider
from asking a patient about the possession of a firearm and speaking to
a patient about gun safety or reporting to authorities a patient's
threat of violence.
If there is anyone in the House of Representatives who does not
believe that we have a gun violence epidemic in our society, then I
would ask him or her if they would speak with me and other Members of
Congress that have been about the business of trying to cause there to
be a reduction.
This actually does fit into the circumstances that we are addressing
in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Many of the violent
acts that take place--not just mass shootings, but on a day-to-day
basis--regrettably, take place in some of the low-income areas, where
we have inadequate housing, inadequate education, and inadequate
educational opportunity.
I hope at least the research can be done that may give us the data
for this Congress to have the courage to tell the American people that,
yes, we have a gun violence epidemic, and, yes, we are going to do
something about it.
The bill underlying this rule would enact several incremental reforms
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 tenant-
and project-based rental assistance and other public housing programs.
Many of these reforms have been around for several years and have, as
my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) has pointed out, broad support
from a wide range of stakeholders as well as both parties in Congress.
However, returning again to the subject of the matter of deductions
for child care, it is an important issue that needs to be addressed.
Representative Waters has an amendment that was made in order yesterday
by the Rules Committee to resolve this issue. Like my colleague from
Ohio, I plan to vote for that amendment, and I would urge Members to
recognize that this makes a good bill better, and I would urge my
colleagues to support Ms. Waters' amendment.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Florida said, this is a good bill.
It is a commonsense bill. It reforms our housing programs so they make
sense for people. It makes them more efficient. It saves $300 billion.
It is a no-brainer.
I hope that we can pass the previous question so that we can actually
move to passing this bill and doing important reforms that will make
government more efficient and help people in the war against poverty.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule, support the previous
question, and support the resolution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 594 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, 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.
3926) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
better understanding of the epidemic of gun violence, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 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. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3926.
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 Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority 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
[[Page H441]]
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.''
The Republican majority may 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
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. 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.
____________________