[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.

                          ____________________