[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23787-23800]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1461, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE 
                           REFORM ACT OF 2005

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 509 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 509

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1461) to reform the regulation of certain 
     housing-related Government-sponsored enterprises, 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 chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee

[[Page 23788]]

      amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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.
  This structured rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Financial Services. It waives all points of order 
against consideration of the bill, and provides that the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial 
Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. It 
waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute and makes in order only those amendments printed in the 
Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution.
  It provides that the amendments made in order may be offered only in 
the order printed in the report, offered only by a Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and opponent. They shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the 
House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments 
printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation, H.R. 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform 
Act of 2005. This bill, cosponsored by my good friend, Chairman Richard 
Baker, was accepted at its full committee markup last May and reported 
to the House by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 65 to 5. This 
balanced rule under debate makes in order a manager's amendment and an 
equal number of additional amendments from Members of both sides of the 
aisle, with four Republican and four Democrat amendments also made in 
order.
  The purpose of this legislation is simple: to provide for the 
creation of a world-class regulator to oversee the housing government-
sponsored entities that help make America's mortgage and capital 
markets the envy of the world.
  Currently, approximately 70 percent of American households own their 
own home, a fact that is due in no small part to the liquid and strong 
capital markets that allow families to achieve the American dream of 
homeownership at rates never seen before.
  But the same GSEs that help to drive high ownership rates are also 
among the largest U.S. financial institutions, with approximately $2.5 
billion in assets. Between the two largest GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac, nearly half the residential market is either owned or guaranteed. 
Because of their size and potential to have a disproportionate impact 
on America's capital markets, they require strong and effective 
oversight of their operations. The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, 
brought forth by Chairman Mike Oxley and Chairman Richard Baker, will 
accomplish this goal.
  This bill will provide for the continued strength of our mortgage 
markets by creating a new, world-class regulator with strong safety and 
soundness and mission powers to oversee these GSEs. It merges the 
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which currently 
regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with the Federal Housing Finance 
Board, which currently regulates the Federal home loan banks, into a 
single entity. This new entity, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, 
will be headed by a Director who is appointed by the President and 
confirmed by the Senate. It will also be comprised of an advisory 
board, represented by the Department of the Treasury, HUD, and two 
nongovernmental members.
  This regulator will be empowered to ensure the safety and soundness 
of GSEs through a number of increased powers similar to ones already 
given to bank regulators, including the ability to determine minimum 
and risk-based capital standards, to review and adjust portfolio 
holdings, to approve new programs and business activities, to mandate 
prudent management and operational standards, to take prompt corrective 
and enforcement actions, and to put critically undercapitalized GSEs 
into receivership, to require corporate governance improvements, and, 
lastly, to hire examination and accounting experts.
  This legislation also establishes an Affordable Housing Fund, based 
on the Affordable Housing Program already in place for the Federal home 
loan banks. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will now have the opportunity to 
manage affordable housing programs funded by a percentage of their 
earnings. These funds will be awarded through a competitive application 
process to for-profit builders, State housing agencies, and nonprofit 
organizations; and, this fund will streamline HUD's current affordable 
housing goals for the GSEs to meet pressing needs in low-income and 
rural communities.
  Under this rule we also have the opportunity to discuss a manager's 
amendment to this legislation, which makes a significant number of 
improvements to the bill. Chief among these is the recognition that 
Congress must provide strong, market-based incentives to rebuild the 
devastated gulf coast region in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita. The manager's amendment will ensure that during the first 2 
years, additional weight will be given to Hurricane Katrina and Rita 
disaster areas and to those families affected by these catastrophes. 
Priority will be given for other disaster areas and to areas of 
greatest impact and geographic diversity.
  The manager's amendment also recognizes the need for fast action in 
the gulf region, and speeds up the effective dates of this legislation 
from 1 year to 6 months after enactment. Finally, the manager's 
amendment sunsets the fund after 5 years, at which point the Director 
will report to Congress on whether funds should be extended or modified 
to improve its efficiency and effectiveness so that Congress can 
exercise appropriate oversight of this new program.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation to reform and 
improve oversight of housing GSEs, and I would like to thank Chairman 
Richard Baker and Chairman Mike Oxley and their colleagues on the 
Financial Services Committee for their hard work on this important 
legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support this fair and 
balanced rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule and 
to the

[[Page 23789]]

manager's amendment made in order under the rule. H.R. 1461, the 
Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, as reported out of the Committee on 
Financial Services, was a thoughtful, reasonable, bipartisan piece of 
legislation. As evidenced by the 65-5 committee vote in favor of the 
bill on May 25, H.R. 1461 clearly has the support from both Democrats 
and Republicans.
  Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank worked together to craft 
bipartisan legislation that provides real oversight and a stronger, 
more powerful regulator for Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the Federal 
home loan banks. The Federal Housing Reform Act, as reported out of the 
committee in May, is the kind of legislation that the Framers intended 
Congress to pass. Not only is it legislation that will do good and will 
improve people's lives, it is legislation that was created out of 
bipartisan negotiations and compromise.
  I commend Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their actions 
on the Financial Services Committee and for producing an excellent 
bill.
  But, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republican leadership cannot 
handle bipartisan success. Despite overwhelming bipartisan support in 
committee, the Republican leadership held the bill hostage for 5 
months, merely because a radical faction of their party opposes 
affordable housing and, specifically, opposes the Affordable Housing 
Fund included in the bill.
  Unfortunately, after being strong-armed by the Republican Study 
Committee, the Republican leadership forced changes that not only 
weakened the Affordable Housing Fund provision, but will actually 
restrict the ability of low-income people from voting in future 
elections. Here is the deal: They have a manager's amendment that has 
some very good things in it, but tucked in that manager's amendment 
there is included some language that many of us find offensive. And the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Financial 
Services Committee, wanted to have an amendment made in order to strike 
that offensive language and was denied that opportunity last night in 
the Rules Committee.
  The language that I am talking about specifically denies faith-based 
and nonprofit groups from funding simply if they express their first 
amendment rights. Under these restrictions, any nonprofit community 
group, or church would be ineligible to receive funding if either they 
or their ``affiliates'' have engaged in nonpartisan voter registration 
and get-out-the-vote activities. Furthermore, affiliation is defined so 
broadly that it includes having overlapping board members sharing 
physical space or other public communications.
  It is worth noting that for-profit companies are exempt from these 
restrictions. Why would we protect companies from these restrictions, 
and impose them on low-income and faith-based communities, the very 
people who this legislation is supposed to empower? I would ask my 
colleagues, what do you have against faith-based organizations? We need 
to enhance access to affordable housing, not reduce it.
  Mr. Speaker, these restrictions are undemocratic. They are part of a 
pattern by the extreme right in the Republican Party in an attack on 
poor people. They are written with the intent to deny poor people the 
access to vote. These provisions are a direct affront on the democratic 
principles upon which this country was founded.
  It seems clear that these restrictions are unconstitutional. They 
would require any organization that wanted to receive funding from the 
Affordable Housing Fund to sacrifice their freedom of assembly, which 
protects their right to associate with one another in groups for 
economic, political, or religious purposes.
  We can provide and expand the affordable housing market without 
trouncing on the Bill of Rights. Just as easily as these restrictions 
were added into the legislation, they can be removed without affecting 
the goals of the Affordable Housing Fund or the overall legislation.
  A multitude of organizations across the country, ranging from the 
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to the National Alliance 
to End Homelessness, have expressed their strong disapproval of these 
egregious provisions. For one reason, these groups realize how harmful 
these restrictions would be toward fighting homelessness.
  Homelessness cannot be combatted unless our Nation's affordable 
housing stock is increased. Affordable housing cannot be expanded if we 
bar nonprofits and community organizations from tapping into the 
appropriate resources.
  Mr. Speaker, affordable housing should not be a partisan issue, but, 
unfortunately, the Republican leadership has made it so. The battle 
against homelessness and the expansion of affordable housing needs to 
be addressed through a coordinated effort between the government and 
nonprofit and faith-based communities. This language in this manager's 
amendment severely restricts the ability of affordable housing 
professionals to fulfill their role.
  After Hurricane Katrina, President Bush and the leadership in the 
House talked about the need to help poor Americans rise out of poverty. 
They talked about improving people's lives. Well, Mr. Speaker, their 
actions clearly do not match their rhetoric. When the Republican 
leadership had a chance to help the poorest of Americans to receive 
affordable housing, they acted to restrict access to a proposed 
affordable housing fund. When the Republican leadership had a chance to 
stand up for people who do not have a voice, for people who need help 
making ends meet, they made a conscious decision to turn their backs on 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this debate is the ability to provide 
affordable housing and access to voting for low-income families. One of 
the icons of the civil rights movement, Rosa Parks, died on Sunday. We 
all mourn her passing. But it is hard not to see the irony that 2 days 
after her death, we are going to debate and vote on a bill that will 
restrict the ability of the poor to have access to affordable housing 
and to vote in democratic elections in this country.
  This is a lousy way to run this Congress. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this undemocratic and restrictive rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is right out there in front of 
everybody: Republicans are good on policy and, evidently, the Democrats 
do not like the politics. The policy is what this Financial Services 
Committee is all about. That is why they produced this great bill.
  I am pleased to yield 3 minutes at this time to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Feeney) who serves on that committee.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to speak in favor of the manager's amendment, if it is 
adopted, certainly a great and important bill, and the rule itself.
  The actual truth of the matter is that housing ownership in America 
is at an all time high. This Congress and this President have 
established policies that allow virtually every American that has a job 
to find a way, if they desire, to own a home.
  The GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have played an important part 
in that. They provide liquidity in the secondary market so that there 
are more opportunities for people to borrow at relatively low rates of 
interest. We ought to preserve that system, and we ought to protect 
that system.
  These are enormous entities. Fannie alone is $1.7 trillion in terms 
of assets, and both of these entities had some accounting troubles. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Baker) have led the way so that we can reform and have appropriate 
oversight for those enormous, but important, entities that help the 
housing market in America flourish.

[[Page 23790]]

  The question here today is whether the rule ought to be adopted. Some 
of our friends on the other side are very upset, because rather than 
providing money for bricks and mortar, what they would like to do is to 
provide money for politics. They want to allow folks that engage in 
political activity, including voter registration, to have access to 
money that otherwise would go to low-interest loans or to help 
affordable housing builders at the local level actually build bricks 
and mortar.
  People that want a home do not need a lobbyist; they do not want a 
politician. They want somebody that will actually build them, with the 
sticks and the bricks and the mortar, a home to live in. That is what 
this fight is about. One of the largest advocates, the groups that the 
other side would like to have receive up to 2 or $3 billion this fund 
may reach in the next 5 years, is a group called ACORN.
  Now, ACORN is an important group. They are a first amendment group. 
The gentleman is right. They have every right to participate in first 
amendment activity, but not with money that we give them from Congress. 
Thomas Jefferson said that to force a man to contribute to a cause in 
which he does not believe is the definition of tyranny.
  We want to build homes. They want to buy liberal lobbyists and 
politicians. That is what this debate is about. ACORN had a game plan 
in the year 2003 in Florida. By the way, they do this in many other 
competitive States. ACORN wanted to register voters. They argued to the 
public that this was about support for a minimum wage constitutional 
amendment in Florida.
  But their three bottom-line goals here are very important. Increasing 
the minimum wage was the least important thing as part of their voter 
registration drive. What they argued to contributors, who have the 
right to contribute to this activity, who we should not force probably 
to contribute to this activity, is they had three goals. And I want to 
read these into the Record.
  The goals of this campaign are three-fold: To increase voter turnout 
of working class, mainly Democratic voters without increasing 
opposition turnout; number two, to increase the power of progressive 
constituencies by moving a mass agenda, putting together the capacity 
to get on the ballot and win and by putting our side on the offensive; 
number three, to deliver a wage increase to hundreds of thousands of 
Floridians. That was an afterthought.
  Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker have fashioned a great compromise. 
Let us build homes. Let us pay for bricks and mortar. Let us not pay 
for a liberal lobbyist.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following 
letter from Catholic Charities USA, which strongly opposes the language 
in the manager's amendment.

                                       Catholic Charities USA,

                                 Alexandria, VA, October 25, 2005.
     Hon. James P. McGovern,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McGovern: On behalf of Catholic Charities 
     USA, the national association of Catholic social services 
     agencies and institutions serving over seven million people 
     in need every year, I urge you to support H.R. 1461, the 
     Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, and to oppose 
     amendments that would prevent experienced faith-based and 
     community-based organizations from successfully competing for 
     the proposed affordable housing funds.
       We strongly support the creation of the housing funds and 
     are convinced that this initiative would increase the 
     development of affordable housing, but we have learned that 
     the Rules Committee will be asked to put in order a managers' 
     amendment to bar organizations with proven experience in 
     mobilizing community support and resources.
       We applaud efforts to develop additional non-governmental 
     funding resources to support affordable housing efforts that 
     will be cost neutral to the federal budget. At the same time, 
     we oppose limiting language that essentially bars non-profits 
     whose mission extends beyond the provision of affordable 
     housing. Not only our Catholic Charities agencies, but many 
     religious orders and some parishes, whose missions are 
     serving the poor and vulnerable in their communities, develop 
     and manage very effective affordable housing programs 
     alongside programs that provide food, clothing, counseling, 
     and other health and social services. These agencies should 
     not be barred from affordable housing funds simply because 
     their primary purpose goes beyond affordable housing.
       In addition, we oppose amendments that restrain non-profits 
     from receiving these funds if they are engaged in any non-
     partisan voter registration activities, even if these 
     activities are funded by their own resources. One of the 
     strengths of our democratic system has been the almost 
     universal involvement of community-based and religious 
     organizations in encouraging all citizens to register and 
     vote. National religious bodies, regional bodies, such as 
     Catholic dioceses, and local congregations throughout the 
     country organize voter registration efforts and provide 
     transportation to the polls for isolated seniors and people 
     with disabilities. Non-profits with expertise in housing 
     should not have to choose between two equally important 
     missions: supporting full participation in our democracy and 
     providing affordable housing.
       While this Administration has worked diligently to remove 
     barriers to full participation in federal programs and 
     funding by faith-based organizations, these amendments would 
     bar these very same groups from being considered for this 
     funding while for-profit agencies remain free to engage in 
     these same voter activities. We are puzzled and troubled by 
     the double standard being applied to faith-based and non-
     profit organizations.
       Existing limits in H.R. 1461 on activities that qualify for 
     affordable housing funds prevent abuse of this funding. In 
     addition, Catholic Charities agencies routinely sign 
     certifications to receive federal, state, and local 
     government funds that prohibit diversion of program funds for 
     political and lobbying purposes. There are multiple vehicles 
     available to ensure that the new Affordable Housing Funds are 
     protected from inappropriate use by grantees.
       The proposed Affordable Housing Fund to be created under 
     H.R. 1461 is sorely needed, especially in the devastated Gulf 
     Coast region where hundreds of thousands of families have not 
     been able to return to their homes. In such challenging 
     times, it would be unfortunate if experienced faith-based 
     organizations and non-profits that have performed laudably in 
     meeting the needs of these survivors would be barred from 
     participation in funding that would help meet critical 
     housing needs.
           Sincerely,
                                                Rev. Larry Snyder,
                                                        President.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the problem is, I tell the former Speaker 
from the Florida legislature, you do not have the courage of your 
convictions on your side. You are not prepared to put your proposition 
to a democratic vote on your side.
  Mr. Speaker, once again this House majority is resorting to heavy-
handed tactics that are designed to do one thing only, to achieve a 
preordained result by shutting down a full and fair debate in this 
House.
  Let me remind my colleagues what the chairman of the Rules Committee, 
Mr. Dreier, said on this floor 12 years ago, in March 1993: ``Frankly, 
it seems to me that the process of representative government means that 
a person who represents 600,000 people here should have the right to 
stand up and put forth an amendment and then have it voted down if it 
is not supportable. We are simply asking that we comply with the 
standard operating rules of this House.''
  Why will you not do that today? Because you do not have the 
confidence you have the votes. Again, today, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) and his Republican colleagues are violating 
their own promise to allow free and fair debates. It is another stark 
example of the arrogance of power and the abuse of power.
  This Republican majority has blocked Mr. Frank's amendment, as well 
as other Democratic amendments, and thus stifled, shut down, democracy 
and stifled debate.
  The manager's amendment, among other provisions, will prohibit 
nonprofit organizations from using their own funds, I tell the 
gentleman from Florida, their own funds, from voter registration drives 
or get-out-the-vote activities for a period beginning 12 months before 
a grant application until it is over.
  Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that this House would take such an 
action, any action that would inhibit or prevent anyone from engaging 
in nonpartisan voter registration, unless, of course, you fear the 
wrath of the voters in response to your abuse of power. Let us be 
clear. This provision is nothing

[[Page 23791]]

more than a transparent attempt to disenfranchise voters who otherwise 
may not register to vote.
  The gentleman mentioned the Catholic Conference. Let me read just two 
sentences, I hope I have the time to do it: ``Proposals that would 
limit eligible recipients to organizations that have as their primary 
purpose the provision of affordable housing would effectively prevent 
Catholic dioceses, parishes and Catholic charity agencies from 
participating in affordable housing programs.''
  That is the Catholic Conference of Bishops speaking. They say it 
would force Catholic agencies, not ACORN, would force Catholic agencies 
to choose between participating in affordable housing fund programs, or 
engaging in constitutionally protected voter registration and lobbying 
activities with their own funds.
  This is Catholic bishops, I tell my friend, speaking. These 
provisions are an outrage, and this process is an outrage. As one 
Member of this body complained, once again the vast majority of 
Americans are having their representatives in Congress gagged by the 
closed-rule committee.
  That was the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the now-chairman 
of the Rules Committee. This undermines democracy in this the People's 
House. What a shame.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am very disappointed that the gentleman from Maryland referred to 
this as a closed rule, when in fact he knows it is not a closed rule.
  The gentleman from Maryland understands that what we have done and 
undertaken in this rule is the opportunity that would allow any Member, 
but in particular a Member of the minority, a chance to vote on a 
manager's amendment, a motion to recommit, and certainly final passage.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, so the public understands and our colleagues 
understand, what I indicated was that the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank), the ranking Democrat on this committee, who has been here 
over a quarter of a century, wants to offer an amendment that was 
supported in the committee; and he has been precluded from offering 
that amendment.
  To that extent, the Republicans have undermined the free and fair 
debate on this floor. That was my point. And I believe I was absolutely 
correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, so that the gentleman 
does understand the facts of the case, the committee had no discussion 
on this point. The discussion took place in the Rules Committee, 
because a decision was made well after May, at the time that the 
committee brought it forward.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman, 
it was never discussed in committee. That is precisely the point. The 
restrictive language being put forward, which would say no faith-based 
group could participate, has never been debated in this committee and 
we are not allowed to do an amendment on the floor.
  Yes, it is part of the manager's amendment along with a number of 
other things such as preference for the gulf. All we asked for was an 
ability to vote on some of these specific things. I agree, it was not 
brought up in committee. It was brought up in a private session between 
the Republican Study Committee and the then-majority leader. That is 
not an appropriate forum to be the only place where we discuss things.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my point is that the 
gentleman from Maryland referred to this as being a closed rule. It is 
not a closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record a campaign plan from ACORN 
that is very much a part of this debate today about what organizations 
and groups plan to do with politics and money.

  Floridians for All--Campaign Plan for a November 2004 Minimum Wage 
                  Constitutional Amendment Initiative


                              Introduction

       A Florida constitutional amendment initiative to create a 
     minimum wage of $6.15 with indexing will help defeat George 
     W. Bush and other Republicans by increasing Democratic 
     turnout in a close election, will deliver wage gains to at 
     least 300,000 Floridians, and will catalyze the construction 
     of permanent progressive political infrastructure that will 
     help redirect Florida politics in a more progressive, 
     Democratic direction.
       The 2004 election in Florida is shaping up to be just as 
     close as 2000, which Al Gore won by 537 votes. Although there 
     have been demographic changes and growth throughout Florida 
     when the 2000 total is adjusted for 2004 it is still-razor 
     thin: Unofficial NCEC analysis shows that Gore's adjusted 
     margin is 404, combined with the 2004 adjusted Nader voter--
     25,138 (assuming 25 percent stay home, 25 percent vote for 
     Bush and 50 percent vote for Gore). The 2004 adjusted margin 
     is 25,542--too close for comfort.
       The 2004 projections indicate addition turnout of 370,000 a 
     total of 6.4 million, increasing the vote goal by 200,000 in 
     order to have a winning margin. The other significant change 
     in preliminary analysis is that the electorate will have 10 
     percent fewer ticket splitters than 2000. With less 
     persuadable voters, the need to increase base voters and 
     turning out more infrequent voters is critical to reach the 
     vote goal in Florida.
       Given that turnout is down when the economy is bad, since 
     our voters are more discouraged, the need for a exciting 
     ballot initiative strategy that works to address the needs of 
     the most economically needy, and also likely Democratic 
     voters, is a fundamental part of a winning strategy in 
     Florida.
       Florida ACORN is building a coalition, called Floridians 
     for All, that will unite labor unions, community and civil 
     rights organizations, the faith community, elected officials, 
     sectors of the business community, political organizations, 
     and thousands of grassroots activists behind the proposed 
     strategy. At the same time, we are building the 
     infrastructure to carry out the campaign and ensure the 
     accomplishment of our objectives.
       The empirical evidence from other states indicates that 
     initiatives generally increase voter turnout, and that 
     minimum wage initiatives can significantly increase the 
     turnout of supporters without increasing turnout from the 
     opposition. [ACORN's own experience running municipal and 
     state minimum wage ballots [Denver, Houston (1996), Missouri 
     (1996), New Orleans (2002)] supports the conclusion that 
     these efforts are highly motivating to low-wage voters.] In 
     2000, 6.1 million voters came to the polls in Florida, a 
     turnout of approximately 70 percent. A targeted campaign that 
     works to turn out 1 percent of that electorate, approximately 
     61,000 voters, would not only make the difference for the 
     Democratic Presidential candidate but also lend significant 
     support to Congressional and local races. [As an example, 
     Congressional District 5 was won by conservative Republican 
     Ginny Brown-Waite, by little over 4,000 votes. From the top 
     of the ticket on down, a ballot initiative strategy which 
     mobilizes infrequent voters and energizes unregistered 
     Democratic constituency will help defeat George W. Bush and 
     allow Floridians to vote themselves a raise.]
       An estimated 300,000 Florida workers would receive a direct 
     raise from our proposal. Moreover, thousands more would 
     receive residual raises because of their wage level just 
     above the new minimum. Floridians sorely need this proposed 
     raise. In 2001 over 28 percent of Florida's workers earned 
     less than the poverty line (approximately $8.70 an hour). A 
     full 20 percent of those workers earned less that $7.69 an 
     hour, a result that can be partially explained by the 
     concentration of workers in the lowest wage job sectors--
     retail and service. A whopping 37.3 percent of the state's 
     workforce is employed in service sector jobs, with another 
     19.6 percent in the low wage retail sector. The additional 
     earnings of minimum wage workers, almost $700 mi1lion in the 
     first year alone, would be directly pumped back into the 
     economy, helping to stimulate the stagnant economy created 
     under the watch of Bush's destructive tax cuts. Not only is 
     this proposal beneficial to Florida's economy, it also helps 
     to seed a mass constituency for future change.
       Because we are starting this campaign early, and because we 
     have a plan, the Floridians for All Campaign will challenge 
     the institutional forces for progressive and Democratic 
     change in the state to build permanent political capacity. 
     This is particularly important to rehabilitating the long-
     term prospects of our side. In a state where Democrats 
     control only 53 of 160 legislative seats, and zero 
     Constitutional offices, the need to rebuild infrastructure 
     and capacity to win, has never been more important. For 
     example, the signature gathering phase of the campaign wil1 
     lead to the construction of a vast database of hundreds of 
     thousands of economic justice activists and voters in the 
     state. These are the same voters the Democratic Party must 
     court and win to regain a presence in state politics. The 
     campaign will also force organizations like

[[Page 23792]]

     ACORN to build massive field capacity to deliver these 
     necessary signatures and GOTV. A vast network of activists 
     and voters, combined with sophisticated field campaign will 
     act as a unifying force among Democratic electoral forces. 
     The combined strength of community, labor, and--faith 
     organizations committed to mobilizing their members and 
     leaders at the grassroots level, will result in a cohesive 
     strategy to retake the White House in 2004 and rebuild the 
     Florida Democratic Party.


                             Campaign Goals

       The goals of this campaign are threefold:
       1. To increase voter turnout of working class, mainly 
     Democratic voters without increasing opposition turnout;
       2. To increase the power of progressive constituencies by 
     moving a mass agenda, putting together the capacity to get on 
     the ballot and win, and by putting our side on the offensive;
       3. To deliver a wage increase to hundreds of thousands of 
     Floridians.
       Increasing turnout is crucial to a successful 2004 
     electoral strategy from the top of the ticket all the way 
     down, through the many key races in Florida that include not 
     only the Presidency, but also a key Senate race, 
     Congressional seats and also significant turnover in the 
     Florida Legislature. Given these many key races, exciting and 
     mobilizing constituency has never been more important, but in 
     order to do this there must be a compelling issue on the 
     ballot. Though presidential year elections always result in 
     higher turnout, the 2000 elections demonstrate the importance 
     of every vote in Florida; and we do not want to leave turnout 
     to chance. These turnout figures from the most recent Florida 
     elections demonstrate the overall decline in voter 
     participation and the need to refocus efforts on mobilizing 
     and motivating our base.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992..........................................................       83
1994..........................................................       66
1996..........................................................       67
1998..........................................................       49
2000..........................................................       70
2002..........................................................       55
AVG...........................................................       64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Election Turnout Statistics from the Florida Secretary of State
  http://election.dos.state.fl.us/online/voterpercent.shtml

       Giving our constituency the opportunity to vote themselves 
     a raise is probably the most compelling reason to go the 
     ballot box. Candidates will make many promises, but turning 
     out to vote for a higher minimum wage is a voter's guaranteed 
     chance to affect real chance at the ballot box.
       The process of building a statewide network of progressive 
     forces can be accelerated greatly through the use of the 
     minimum wage ballot initiative. Though there are many groups 
     that represent and advocate for the needs of social justice, 
     civil liberties, and environmental concerns, the strength of 
     these forces is limited through a lack of coordination 
     amongst these groups. While the groups promote diverse 
     agendas, a coalition of necessity is required in the face of 
     organized and unilateral support amongst opposition groups. 
     This ballot initiative will bring together progressive forces 
     from around the state around a common goal: increasing 
     turnout in the 2004 election in order to support campaigns 
     which represent the interests of all our groups.
       Approximately 303,000 workers would be directly affected by 
     a minimum wage increase, putting millions of dollars into the 
     pockets of working families across Florida. In addition to 
     the workers who are directly affected, many more will benefit 
     through the rising tide of wages that results from raising 
     the baseline wage level. Unlike tax cut policies which 
     supposedly put money into peoples pockets, but really just 
     raid state and federal treasuries, a minimum wage increase 
     will put real in the hands of those who need it the most: 
     working families.


                           Campaign Strategy

       We define winning here as accomplishing the three campaign 
     objectives:
       1. Driving heightened Democratic turnout;
       2. Passing the initiative;
       3. Building permanent political capacity for future gains.
       Our plan to win centers on a series of strategic premises, 
     layed out as follows:
       1. First, we will divide the electorate into targeted 
     groups of voters/potential voters, and make a strategic plan 
     vis-a-vis each group. We are in the process of completing 
     this plan, but roughly, the categories/plans are as follows:
       *African American voters--According to NCEC, there are 
     440,000 unregistered VAP (Voting Age Population) African-
     Americans in Florida. Of the 440,000 unregistered voters 
     statewide, 176,000 of these voters live in the 475 majority 
     African-American precincts in Florida. This campaign will 
     work to register 50,000 of these potential voters through 
     voter registration drives in the following major metropolitan 
     areas:

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Total VAP      White        Latino       Black        County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                VAP (from 2000)
Miami:
    M-Dade.....................................      283,673       32,116      195,859       49,000         1.7M
Orlando:
    Orange.....................................      144,987       81,100       23,414       32,563         670K
Tampa:
    Hillsborough...............................      228,681      126,387       42,711       50,109         746K
Fort Lauderdale:
    Broward....................................      122,821       77,807       11,282       28,620         1.2M
St. Petersburg:
    Pinellas...................................      194,796      141,797        7,618       36,752         744K
Jacksonville:
    Duval......................................      539,278      353,983       20,759      139,700      573,888
Tallahassee:
    Leon.......................................      124,431       74,942        5,341       39,327     188,445
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This potential universe of newly registered voters, and highly motivated activists can be the deciding factor in
  the 2004 election. Registering 50,000 new African-American voters in these majority precincts can result in a
  net vote gain of approximately 21,000 votes (assuming 70 percent turnout of new registrations and 60 percent
  approval for the measure).

       *Non-Cuban Latino voters--There are 800,000 Hispanic voters 
     in Florida, 400,000 of whom are non-Cuban, and 345,000 new 
     potential Hispanic voters of Voting Age Population. The 
     Hispanic population is the fastest growing population in 
     Florida, and presents the Democratic Party with an 
     opportunity to build a new, revitalized constituency within 
     Florida.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Gillmor).
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding. I rise in support of the rule, rise in support of the bill, 
and I also want to note that government-sponsored enterprise reform is 
way overdue, and it does pose a systemic risk to our financial system.
  Also I want to commend Chairman Oxley, Chairman Baker and also 
Ranking Member Frank for all of the work they have put into bringing 
this bill to this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss briefly an amendment that I had 
offered that was adopted by the committee by voice vote back in May. 
That amendment adds an important disclosure requirement to ensure that 
shareholders are fully informed on the charitable giving practices of 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  The language would authorize the Federal Housing Finance Agency to 
require that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac make publicly available each 
year the total value of contributions made to nonprofit organizations 
during the previous fiscal year, and it would also request specific 
disclosures on donations to insider-affiliated charities.
  The housing GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were established by 
congressional charter and give special privileges to provide a service 
to the American people by creating a secondary mortgage market and 
increasing liquidity.
  Given their unique status and responsibility to improve access to the 
housing market, it is both their shareholders' and the public's right 
to know how these profits are being spent.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include the following editorial that 
appeared in today's New York Times entitled, ``A Ban on Voter 
Registration,'' which is very much opposed to the offensive language in 
the manager's amendment.

                [From the New York Times, Oct. 26, 2005]

                      A Ban on Voter Registration

       Hurricane Katrina made it politically necessary for 
     Republican Congressional leaders to tone down their effort to 
     kill off federal

[[Page 23793]]

     programs for affordable housing. But it has not stopped them 
     from dragging their feet on an important bill to create a 
     valuable housing fund by tapping into a small portion of the 
     after-tax profits of the federally backed mortgage giants 
     Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fund would initially be aimed 
     at the hurricane-ravaged gulf states, but would eventually 
     help to house poor, elderly and disabled people nationally.
       Not satisfied with just delaying the bill, House ideologues 
     are advocating an outrageous and potentially unconstitutional 
     provision that would bar the nonprofit groups that build most 
     affordable housing from participating in the fund if they 
     also participate in even nonpartisan voter registration. This 
     would force such nonprofits to choose between their 
     historically important roles: promoting civic engagement and 
     providing housing and other services for low-income people. 
     The provision would conflict with state laws that require 
     housing grant recipients to do things like register voters 
     and would put the federal government in the unacceptable 
     position of actively discouraging political participation.
       The long-overdue housing fund contains numerous safeguards 
     that would prevent grant recipients from using federal 
     dollars for advocacy. A measure that would bar them from 
     nonpartisan activities has absolutely no place in a 
     democracy.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule, 
House Resolution 509. The Federal Housing Finance Reform Act as 
reported by the Committee on Financial Services is a strong bipartisan 
effort.
  It represents several years of work that will ensure the safety and 
soundness of the government-sponsored entities, helping working 
Americans achieve the dream of homeownership. Unfortunately, this rule 
has a potential to undercut the committee's fine effort and may 
severely undermine critical GSE reform.
  The availability of affordable housing keeps our communities strong. 
So wisely, the committee bill includes a fund to build and preserve 
affordable housing and, I would add, support these activities at no 
cost to the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the manager's amendment 
mars this fund by forcing nonprofit, affordable housing groups to make 
a choice. They can work to bring affordable housing to working 
families, or they can register voters in the most nonpartisan of ways; 
but they cannot do both, not even to drive an elderly person to the 
polls.
  Over 60 national organizations, many of them faith-based, such as the 
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Episcopal Church, the 
Presbyterian Church, have come out opposing this provision. These 
organizations represent the mainstream values of this Nation, and their 
efforts should not be hindered by roll-backs in these constitutionally 
protected rights.
  I urge my colleagues to maintain the broadly supported language that 
came out of the Committee on Financial Services by rejecting the rule 
and the manager's amendment.
  This rule also provides for consideration of another amendment worthy 
of a ``no'' vote. I am referring to the measure by the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) that would strike the bill's conforming loan 
limit provision. Like many other metropolitan locations, my 
constituents in Sacramento face escalating housing prices that are 
making it harder and harder for working families to achieve the dream 
of homeownership: firefighters police officers, the teachers in our 
schools. They deserve to live in the same communities they work in.

                              {time}  1115

  Increasing the conforming loan limit would bring fairness to the 
housing market by giving working families in more expensive parts of 
the country the same opportunity as everyone else to own their own 
home.
  Once again, this commonsense provision was included in the bipartisan 
committee bill, and so I urge my colleagues to reject the Garrett 
amendment.
  In closing, I reiterate to my colleagues the importance of 
maintaining the bipartisan version of H.R. 1461 that came out of the 
committee. Vote no on this rule which will tar the Affordable Housing 
Fund without giving the majority an opportunity to vote on it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, at no time in our Nation's history has the need for 
affordable housing been so great. As the price of owning a house has 
risen all over America, the poverty level has risen to almost 13 
percent, and now Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have left thousands more 
Americans, many of limited income, homeless.
  The bill we will consider today takes a critical step toward 
addressing our Nation's affordable housing crisis. By establishing an 
affordable housing fund, we are increasing the supply of affordable 
homes to low- and very low-income families. As a member of the 
Committee on Financial Services, I was proud to see the inclusion of an 
affordable housing fund in the bill and proud to support the bill in 
committee.
  Seeing this bipartisan support for this bill provided one of those 
moments when we can just say, oh, happy days. But this important 
provision will be for naught should one amendment made in order by the 
Rules Committee pass. The Oxley amendment would disqualify nonprofit 
organizations, including faith-based organizations, from participating 
in the fund if they engage in voter participation or get-out-the-vote 
activities. And it effectively prevents many nonprofits from 
participating.
  As an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church, I come to 
this discussion from a unique perspective. Mr. Speaker, it is the 
mission of the United Methodist Church and every denomination and every 
faith group in our world to serve the poor and vulnerable. For my 
church, the St. James United Methodist Church in Kansas City, an 
important part of the mission is to shelter the poor, and that is why 
we started in 1985 a section 202 project not far from our church.
  Mr. Speaker, I grew up one of those vulnerable citizens. I am not 
sure how many Members of the United States Congress lived in public 
housing, but I did. My family, including my three sisters and mother 
and father, lived in a shack, literally a two-room shack. My mother and 
father both worked all day every day, and I can tell you, growing up in 
public housing, not one time did we ever see a candidate canvassing our 
community, not one time do I remember any kind of effort to get the 
citizens to vote.
  I do not ever even remember seeing a voting precinct until I was 
about 17 years old because the elected officials knew that the poor do 
not vote. They knew that if you were poor, you were preoccupied with 
survival, and so there was no civic or political involvement. It was, 
how can we make it one more day?
  We have created a culture in low-income neighborhoods where people do 
not participate in the political process, and what we need is to 
democratize the low-income neighborhoods of our communities. And if you 
go around, I do not care whether you are Republican or Democrat or just 
a lazy person, if you go and look at the voting returns, you will find 
that people who live in low-income neighborhoods do not vote. And I do 
not care who you are, you ought to want to get people to vote.
  This is the United States of America. We are strong only if we are 
able to get all of our citizens to participate in the political 
process.
  Someone used the term ``liberal.'' If liberal means that I care, then 
color me liberal. And understand this: Caring may hurt, but not caring 
hurts more. We can do better than this. America can do better than 
this.
  Mr. Speaker, at no time in our Nation's history has the need for 
affordable housing been so great. As the price of owning a home has 
risen all over America, the poverty level has risen to almost 13 
percent. And now Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have left thousands more 
Americans, many of limited means, homeless.
  The bill we will consider today takes a critical step forward toward 
addressing our Nation's affordable housing crisis. By establishing

[[Page 23794]]

an affordable housing fund, we are increasing the supply of affordable 
homes to low- and very low-income families. As a member of the 
Financial Services Committee, I was proud to see the inclusion of 
affordable housing fund in the bill, and proud to support the bill in 
committee. Seeing the bipartisan support for this bill provides one of 
those moments when we can say, ``O Happy Day''. But this important 
provision will be for naught should one amendment made in order by the 
Rules Committee pass. The Oxley amendment would disqualify nonprofit 
organizations, including faith-based organizations, from participating 
in the fund if they engage in voter registration or get-out the vote 
activities, and it effectively prevents many nonprofits from 
participating.
  As an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church, I come to 
this discussion from a unique perspective, Mr. Speaker. It is the 
mission of the United Methodist Church, and every denomination and 
faith group in our world, as it is of many religious orders and 
communities, to serve the poor and vulnerable. For my church, St. James 
United Methodist in Kansas City, an important part of that mission is 
to shelter the poor by providing affordable housing. But an equally 
important part of that mission is empowering the poor and vulnerable by 
supporting their full participation in the Democratic process.
  I grew up one of those vulnerable citizens--my family, by any 
standard of measurement was financially poor. Until the age of 7, I 
lived in a shack--literally a two room shack--with my mother, my 
father, and my three sisters. We had no indoor plumbing and for a 
while, no electricity. My family moved into public housing when I was 
7. I can tell you, growing up, no candidates canvassed our community 
and few, if any residents in our projects voted. My great-grandfather, 
who lived until age 103, never once voted in his life. I say this as a 
point of illustration. The poor and vulnerable are often those who need 
the most help to fully participate in our democracy. When you live in 
public housing, you are preoccupied with economic survival.
  Let me be perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, by forcing faith-based 
organizations and other nonprofits to choose between participating in 
the Affordable Housing Fund or engaging in constitutionally protected 
voter registration and get out the vote activities with their own 
funds, the Oxley amendment limits the full participation of our 
Nation's most vulnerable citizens in our democracy.
  I keep a photograph of the shack where I grew up hanging on the wall 
in my office to remind me that I have been given the opportunity to 
speak for those who cannot, and represent in this the interests of the 
most vulnerable and voiceless American citizens here in the Congress. 
Every day when I go to work for the people of my district and the 
citizens of our country, I walk out of the front door of that shack. 
But whose interests are being served by passing these restrictions? 
We're not serving the interests of the faith-based community or the 
poor. These restrictions serve only the political purposes of some 
study group that should not have the power to derail democracy in our 
land. It is an assault on the poor in this country, and it is obscene.
  Vote ``no'' on the Rule and vote ``no'' on the Oxley amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kansas City very clearly articulated 
the exact reason why this bill is moving forward, and the reason why 
Chairman Richard Baker and the chairman of the committee, Chairman Mike 
Oxley, have moved forward a bill that is so powerful, that will include 
more dollars.
  But I believe that the argument that is here is about politics, pure 
and simple politics, rather than policy. And this bill is about policy. 
It is about getting millions of dollars that will be given to the 
source at which we will create more and better housing for really poor 
people.
  The gentleman referred to him being a member of the United Methodist 
Church. I am a member of the United Methodist Church. When you look at 
a Web site for Habitat for Humanity, you will see large corporations on 
that list who contribute to new houses in this country, not-for-profits 
and others; and number four on that list is my church, of the entire 
country, my church the Highland Park United Methodist Church of Dallas, 
Texas. We build houses in Dallas, Texas, for poor people, people who 
are without that ability for their families.
  But what we are asking here is the ability to move this bill to 
create thousands of more homes. And I think what Mike Oxley wants in 
this bill is to make it about policy, not about politics. And I am 
proud of how we are doing this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas keeps on saying 
this is about policy, not politics; but what would be more political 
than the language in here that denies poor people the right to vote?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. We need 
to have a strong, independent and world-class regulator for Fannie Mae, 
Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks.
  The committee I serve on, the Committee on Financial Services, has 
labored for 6 years, 20 hearings, hundreds and hundreds of hours, and 
hundreds of witnesses to put together what I think is probably one of 
the best examples of bipartisan activity this House has seen in many 
years. It is unfortunate that we come here today with the manager's 
amendment excluding faith-based entities from participating in the 
Affordable Housing Fund.
  I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of our friends on the 
other side of the aisle, if they understood the restrictions in the 
manager's amendment and the denial by the Committee on Rules of a right 
to vote on the issue, that is all we asked, it was never considered in 
the subcommittee. It was never considered in the full committee. It has 
never had an up-and-down vote or any consideration of this issue. It 
appeared at the 11th hour to satisfy some political fears of some of 
the majority party's members, and they felt this was a way of solving 
it. Maybe it was directed at one entity, but in fact it has encompassed 
in its grasp the faith-based entities of this country which provide 
most of the affordable housing.
  I have to say that with this we are making our religious institutions 
choose between a joint mission of serving God their number one mission, 
and then helping the poor. They are going to have to give up helping 
the poor because if they were to do so, they will be restricted from 
spending their own funds, not these affordable housing funds, but their 
own funds, to bring out the vote, to have voter education, and to have 
even carrying a voter to the polls for people who do not have a ride.
  We have taken 15 protections in the bill to see that the intended 
purposes were not abused. We did not need these additional 
restrictions. They are there, I think, probably for political reaction 
purposes, and it is unfortunate. As a result, we are going to 
compromise an otherwise perfectly bipartisan bill that could have shone 
with great favor in this House at this particular time in our history. 
I find it unfortunate that we are denied this right to have an up and 
down vote, and, as a result, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the 
rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
the Fifth Congressional District of Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, and I rise in support today of this rule.
  I have been listening with great interest to some of the debate, 
which I must admit is a little bit confusing to me. I hear some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that essentially this 
is a closed rule; yet I look at the fact that we will be voting on a 
number of amendments later today, a number of which were offered by 
Democratic Members.
  I understand there is an accusation that somehow language dealing 
with the Affordable Housing Fund, that Members do not have an ability 
to weigh in on that. As I look at the manager's amendment, 
substantially all of it has to do with the Affordable Housing Fund 
issue. So if for some reason you do not like this language, you have an 
opportunity to vote on it. So it seems to me that the process and 
procedures dealing with this very important issue are quite open. If 
you do not like it, vote against the manager's amendment. Vote for the 
underlying bill.

[[Page 23795]]

  Now, let us move to the substance of the arguments as far as the 
creation of the so-called Affordable Housing Fund. I for one am not 
convinced of the need for yet another government so-called affordable 
housing program. Already we have over 80 different government programs 
ostensibly aimed at affordable housing. We have got Community 
Development Block Grant for Insular Areas; Shelter Plus Care, S Plus C 
Emergency Shelter Grant. We have housing opportunities, the HOPWA 
program, One- to Four-Family Mortgage Insurance, section 203(b). We 
have got counseling for home buyers, Supporting Housing for the 
Elderly, and the list goes on and on and on.
  Mr. Speaker, the truth is there is no greater housing program than 
the American free enterprise system, which is created by the creation 
of jobs, which, under the economic policies of this administration and 
this Republican Congress, are working. Over 4 million new jobs have 
been created. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? We now have achieved the 
highest rate of homeownership in the entire history of the United 
States of America. That is astounding. We have the highest rate of 
homeownership in the entire history of America.
  The question or the debate is not how much money we are going to 
spend on housing; the question is who is going to do the spending? Is 
it going to be American families, or is it going to be government 
bureaucracies?
  Now, I know this fund is included in the bill, and so be it, I 
support the legislation. But the question is, going forward, if we are 
going to have yet another housing fund, should not it be used for 
housing? Why open up the opportunity for it to be subverted into things 
like political activities? I do not understand if those who have 
advocated on behalf of the funds truly want to help the low-income, 
then why do we not simply increase the section 8 voucher program? Why 
do we not cut out the middleman? That is what we need to do.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule on 
H.R. 1461. It adds an anti-minority, anti-family provision that was not 
included in any of the sections of the legislation I supported in 
committee.
  The rule will prohibit nonprofit groups involved in voter 
registration and get-out-the-vote activities from receiving money from 
the affordable housing fund created by the bill.
  It will negatively impact good civic organizations in my district 
such as Amigos del Valle, National Council of La Raza, and Catholic and 
faith-based organizations.
  This rule is strongly opposed by large Latino groups, including 
NALEO, LULAC, NCLR, and others.
  The newly added provision is included in the manager's amendment and 
appears to be aimed at suppressing the civic engagement of low- and 
moderate-income and minority families. I respectfully urge that these 
provisions be removed before the amendment and bill come to the House 
floor for a vote.
  I will insert at this point in the Record two letters to Speaker 
Hastert. One is dated October 24, 2005, by NCLR, LULAC, and the League 
of United Latin American Citizens. The second letter is from the Jesuit 
Conference, and that letter is signed by the Reverend Bradley 
Schaeffer.

                                                 October 24, 2005.
     Hon. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: It has come to our attention that the 
     House Leadership has forged a compromise with members of the 
     House Financial Services Committee regarding the Federal 
     Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461). The newly-
     added provision is included in the Manager's amendment and 
     appears to be aimed at suppressing the civic engagement of 
     low- and moderate-income and minority families. We urge that 
     these provisions be removed before the amendment and bill 
     come to the House floor for a vote.
       With strong bipartisan support, H.R. 1461 (Federal Housing 
     Finance Reform Act of 2005) passed the House Financial 
     Services Committee. The bill contained a measure that would 
     create an affordable housing fund, potentially generating 
     billions of dollars for development. As you know, with 
     housing prices continuing to rise, many communities suffer 
     from a lack of affordable rental and homeownership 
     opportunities for hard-working families.
       Unfortunately, after passage, a compromise was struck 
     between the House Leadership and the Financial Services 
     committee that would preclude most nonprofits from accessing 
     the funds. Many of the organizations that would be left out 
     are uniquely positioned to develop the affordable housing 
     needed in their communities. Specifically, nonprofit 
     applicants would be restricted from participating in voter 
     registration and many classic civic engagement activities in 
     the twelve months before the time of application. In 
     addition, the nonprofit applicants would be deemed ineligible 
     if they are affiliated with an organization that engages in 
     these activities. Notably, for-profit organizations would not 
     have the same restrictions.
       As representatives of diverse Hispanic constituencies, we 
     have the following concerns:
       Minority Voter Suppression. The Latino community has 
     experienced a long history of voter suppression. Nonprofit 
     community-based organizations have played a critical role in 
     fighting against those who would limit the voice of Latinos. 
     The groups often serve as the main point of contact in 
     Hispanic communities and, in many cases, they are the only 
     local organization addressing their social, civic, and 
     educational needs. The proposed Manager's amendment to H.R. 
     1461 wi11 force these trusted community centers to choose 
     between providing civic education and affordable housing.
       For-Profit Double Standard. Inexplicably, under this 
     provision, for-profit developers would not face similar 
     restrictions and would likely become the majority of fund 
     recipients. Even for-profits with a dubious track record 
     would be eligible to receive funds while public interest 
     social service providers would not.
       We urge you to preserve the integrity of H.R. 1461 by 
     fighting to remove the restrictions on nonprofits.
           Sincerely,
       National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed 
     Officials.
       National Council of La Raza.
       National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc.
       League of United Latin American Citizens.
                                  ____

                                                Jesuit Conference,


                                      Office of the President,

                                 Washington, DC, October 25, 2005.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to you on behalf of the 
     Jesuit Conference board of the Society of Jesus in the United 
     States to express our concern regarding an amendment to H.R. 
     1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, that 
     concerns the Affordable Housing Fund. We support the Fund but 
     strongly oppose a manager's amendment that would severely 
     restrict the organizations eligible to build much needed 
     affordable housing and would be an affront to the promotion 
     of civic engagement.
       Today there are approximately 3,300 Jesuit priests and 
     brothers working in our domestic programs and abroad which 
     include: over 100 parishes, various social works throughout 
     the country, 28 Jesuit-affiliated colleges and universities, 
     and around 60 Jesuit-affiliated secondary and middle schools. 
     Many of our projects put us in direct contact with low-income 
     people that benefit from affordable housing programs, or that 
     suffer from a lack of housing.
       Our nation desperately needs more housing that is 
     affordable to those struggling to get by. The U.S. Catholic 
     bishops, in their statement, Putting Children and Families 
     First, comment that, ``Many families cannot find or afford 
     decent housing, or must spend so much of their income for 
     shelter that they forego other necessities, such as food and 
     medicine . . . [The Catholic bishops] support housing 
     policies which seek to preserve and increase the supply of 
     affordable housing and help families pay for it.'' The 
     Affordable Housing Fund would address some of this great need 
     by increasing the supply of affordable homes for very low and 
     extremely low-income families. We applaud the effort to 
     increase the affordable housing stock in the country.
       However, the manager's amendment that will be introduced 
     would disqualify any nonprofit organization, including faith-
     based groups, from using resources from the Fund to build 
     affordable housing if that organization has engaged in voter 
     registration, get-out-the-vote, and other nonpartisan voter 
     participation activities. Furthermore, language in the 
     amendment also disqualifies organizations that are 
     ``affiliated,'' a term broadly defined, with any organization 
     that engages in such activities.
       Concerns that the Affordable Housing Fund would finance 
     partisan grassroots lobbying are unfounded. Current law, and 
     language in H.R. 1461, already contains sufficient 
     restrictions to ensure that funds are used solely for 
     affordable housing and not for other activities. However, the 
     manager's amendment will prevent even those groups that both 
     build housing and that conduct constitutionally protected 
     voter registration activities from receiving funds.

[[Page 23796]]

       We strongly urge you to allow a vote on an amendment to 
     delete the harmful provisions of the manager's amendment 
     described above. H.R. 1461 and the Affordable Housing Fund 
     present Congress with an opportunity to provide housing 
     relief to the families that need it most. Don't let the 
     unconstitutional manager's amendment get in the way.
           In the Lord,
                          Very Reverend Bradley M. Schaeffer, S.J.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Baton Rouge (Mr. Baker), the author of the bill.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time and 
wish to express my appreciation to him and members of the Rules 
Committee who have delivered a rule enabling consideration by the House 
today of significant legislation relative to the reform in the 
regulatory structure of government-sponsored enterprises.
  For many years, that has been the subject of discussion by the 
Committee on Financial Services and, prior to that, the Committee on 
Banking. I cannot express enough appreciation to Chairman Oxley for his 
long-standing tolerance on this matter, the many hours of agony I am 
sure I have caused all Members on this subject matter; and I am very 
appreciative for his courtesies extended in bringing to the floor a 
bill which has been over many months hammered into the shape we 
currently find it.
  As to the current issue before the House in the consideration of the 
rule now pending, I wish to make clear that the manner in which the 
manager's amendment was constructed is no different from the 
construction of hundreds of manager's amendments over the years in this 
body. From the time at which a matter leaves committee until it arrives 
on the House floor can be a matter of days, weeks, or months. 
Circumstances change.
  In this case, one element of that manager's amendment is the 
establishment of assistance for victims of the significant hurricanes 
the country has experienced, a highly appropriate utilization of a new 
fund. I think it important to understand this is the first time such 
fund has been constructed. The entity which will manage and distribute 
the funds does not now exist; and so, for some Members, constraining 
the utilization of the fund in its beginning stages was a logical 
precaution.
  It is about restoration of housing in the case of hurricane victims, 
many of whom do not live in my district, but certainly reside in my 
State. At the moment, they are without a home. They are living in a 
FEMA trailer or a tent or with family and friends or in any number of 
circumstances around the country. They are desperate for the 
opportunity to come home, to live in that structure that they call 
their own.
  The bill now provides resources to construct homes. It was never 
intended that the bill would become the basis for political activism. 
The choice is clear: If we have limited resources to meet overwhelming 
need, should we not ensure that those resources are used as intended 
for the construction, for affording opportunity for low-income 
individuals and those who are requiring homeownership opportunities for 
the first time to have every cent go for that utilization? Of course it 
does.
  It is regrettable, of course, that there would be those to say the 
amendment is flawed and that you should oppose it because we will not 
allow a voter registration campaign or political activism. I think in 
light of the concerns expressed, the overwhelming need for housing 
inventory, the fact that this is a 5-year program which will end at the 
end of 5 years, that we do not have yet an entity to manage, supervise 
or distribute the funds, it is highly appropriate that the constraints 
adopted in the manager's amendment be favorably considered by this 
House and adopted.
  More broadly, I think the rule has made in order a number of 
amendments that were not discussed in committee, which the House will 
consider and vote on accordingly; and I think at the end of the day, no 
matter the construct of the final bill, it is important to understand 
that a government-sponsored enterprise reform is absolutely essential.
  I will speak more to that matter during general debate; but I think 
those who only listen to the debate on the rule should understand, a 
government-sponsored enterprise is created by an act of Congress. It is 
given a privileged position in the marketplace. They utilize taxpayer-
guaranteed debt in order to make a profit for their shareholders. They 
are unique in their construct in that they are authorized by the 
Congress, but are shareholder-driven institutions. They take on great 
risk and, accordingly, deserve the highest standard of regulatory 
oversight possible. This bill achieves that.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for the underlying 
bipartisan bill on GSEs, but in strong opposition to the rule that was 
put in at the last minute, a provision that prevents any nonprofit 
recipient of a housing grant from conducting nonpartisan civic voter 
registration.
  This is an outrageous, undemocratic provision that imposes 
restrictions on promoting the most fundamental of our civil liberties, 
the right to vote. Of all our rights, this is the one that our Founding 
Fathers held most dear. What in the world are we doing today in this 
Congress in an attempt to limit this great right on which our country 
was founded?
  Restricting the right of nonprofits in this way violates these 
organizations' first amendment rights. Voter ID, civic awareness, civic 
activities are protected by the first amendment. Yet this provision 
forbids any nonprofits from even applying for a grant if they have 
encouraged voting in the recent past.
  There is absolutely no justification for preventing nonprofits' 
efforts to encourage civic activities such as voting. Many faith-based 
organizations, including the Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church, 
the American Jesuit Conference, have come out in opposition to this 
provision; and I will place in the Record at this point a list of these 
organizations that have come out in opposition to this provision.

                                             The Episcopal Church,


                               Office of Government Relations,

                                 Washington, DC, October 20, 2005.
     Hon. Dennis Hastert,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Hastert. The Episcopal Church supports the 
     Affordable Housing Fund as part of the Federal Housing 
     Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461). However, we are 
     strongly opposed to the inclusion of language in H.R. 1461 
     that restricts non-profits--including religious 
     organizations--from receiving Affordable Housing Funds if 
     they have engaged in any voter registration, voter 
     identification, get-out-the-vote, and other nonpartisan voter 
     participation activities or voter encouragement efforts 
     within 12 months of the application. They very people in need 
     of affordable housing are those who often need the most help 
     in fully participating in our democracy as voters. It is 
     highly ironic that at the very moment when we have seen in 
     the starkest of terms the great need for affordable housing, 
     important legislation to meet that need is encumbered with 
     language that undermines our democracy.
       The Episcopal Church, through Jubilee Ministries and 
     Episcopal service providers, offers housing assistance to 
     many of our nation's poor. Jubilee Ministries administers 
     grants to over 70 Jubilee Centers throughout the United 
     States as well as the wider Anglican Communion. Including a 
     provision that would prohibit Episcopal organizations that 
     encourage democratic engagement from participating in 
     Affordable Housing Fund programs would limit our response to 
     God's call to serve the least among us and severely restrict 
     our efforts to provide safe, decent, and affordable housing.
       In supporting the Affordable Housing Fund in H.R. 1461, we 
     are acting upon a resolution passed at our 2003 General 
     Convention that reaffirmed our commitment to providing 
     affordable housing for the poor. The resolution calls for the 
     legislative branches of the federal government to provide 
     ``rental and owner-occupied housing that is safe, accessible, 
     and affordable for low-income and moderate-income persons and 
     their families including persons with disabilities'' and ``to 
     ensure that housing assistance programs are adequately funded 
     to address the growing gap between the number of affordable 
     housing units available and the number of renter households 
     in the bottom quartile of income in this nation.''
       As a church we have also acknowledged ``the use of the 
     political process as an act of Christian stewardship'' and 
     recognized that a ``faithful commitment to voting is an 
     extension of our baptismal covenant to `strive for justice 
     and peace and the dignity of every human being.''' We have 
     asked ``all Episcopalians to actively engage in advocating

[[Page 23797]]

     for voter rights, encouraging voter registration, getting out 
     the vote, and volunteering to assist voters at the polls.''
       Mr. Speaker, we ask that you do all in your power to see 
     that the provisions related to voter participation are 
     removed from H.R. 1461. No organization should be asked to 
     choose between providing homes for those in need or enabling 
     citizens to fully participate fully in our democracy.
           Sincerely,
     Rev. Kwasi A. Thornell,
       Chair, National Concerns Committee of the Executive 
     Council.
     Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane, D.D.,
       Bishop of Washington.
                                  ____

         National Organizations Opposed to Voter Restrictions in 
           H.R. 1461,
                                 Washington, DC, October 19, 2005.
     Hon. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker, The undersigned national organizations 
     have learned that the compromise reached by House Leadership 
     on H.R 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, 
     includes provisions that would restrict the ability of 
     American citizens to engage in our democratic process. We 
     urge that these provisions be removed before the bill comes 
     to the House floor for a vote probably during the week of 
     October 24.
       Specifically, we object to the restrictions on non-profit 
     organizations that apply for grants through the Affordable 
     Housing Fund established in H.R. 1461. The egregious 
     provisions, which we strongly oppose, disqualify any 
     nonprofit organization that has engaged in voter 
     registration, voter identification, get-out-the-vote, and 
     other nonpartisan voter participation activities in the 12 
     months prior to application from eligibility for the 
     Affordable Housing Fund grants. It further prohibits non-
     profit organizations that receive grant funds from engaging 
     in these activities.
       These grants are to be used solely to produce and preserve 
     housing that is affordable to extremely low and very low 
     income families. For the first two years, the funds will be 
     prioritized to rebuild housing in the areas devastated by 
     Hurricane Katrina. The anti-democratic provisions do not just 
     prohibit the use of Affordable Housing Fund dollars from 
     being used for these purposes. The prohibition applies to any 
     resources of a grantee, including funds specifically for 
     civic engagement activities.
       Moreover, even if a particular non-profit organization does 
     not itself engage in any of these activities itself, 
     ``affiliation'' with an organization that does would 
     disqualify the nonprofit from applying for Affordable Housing 
     Fund grants. Notably, for-profit companies are exempt from 
     these restrictions.
       These provisions are blatantly undemocratic and raise 
     substantial constitutional questions in the attempt to limit 
     the rights of affiliation. They are intended for no other 
     purpose than to reduce access to voting by low income people. 
     People of color are overrepresented in the low income 
     population, making this a civil rights issue. Moreover, these 
     provisions have serious implications for the broader 
     nonprofit community by setting a very dangerous precedent.
       The low income housing community has worked tirelessly to 
     establish the Affordable Housing Fund in H.R. 1461, because 
     we know the dire need for funds to increase the nation's 
     affordable housing stock. But nothing is worth compromising 
     the right of all Americans to participate in our precious 
     democracy.
           Sincerely,
       Alliance for Healthy Homes.
       Alliance for Justice.
       American Counseling Association.
       American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees.
       American Network of Community Options and Resources.
       Americans for Democratic Action.
       Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now 
     (ACORN).
       Campaign for America's Future.
       Center for Community Change.
       Center for Law and Social Policy.
       Child Welfare League of America.
       Children's Defense Fund.
       Cities for Progress at the Institute for Policy Studies.
       Coalition on Human Needs.
       Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities.
       Corporation for Supportive Housing.
       Enterprise Foundation.
       Environmental Working Group.
       Episcopal Church.
       Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
       Local Initiatives Support Corporation.
       Lutheran Services in America.
       Mercy Housing.
       National AIDS Housing Coalition.
       National Alliance of HUD Tenants.
       National Alliance on Mental Illness.
       National Alliance to End Homelessness.
       National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
     (NAACP).
       National Association of Housing Cooperatives.
       National Coalition for the Homeless.
       National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
       National Community Reinvestment Coalition.
       National Council on the Aging.
       National Council of Nonprofit Associations.
       National Council on Independent Living.
       National Fair Housing Alliance.
       National Head Start Association.
       National Health Care for the Homeless Council.
       National Housing Conference.
       National Housing Law Project.
       National Housing Trust.
       National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.
       National Low Income Housing Coalition.
       National Neighborhood Coalition.
       National Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness.
       National Urban League.
       OMB Watch.
       Poverty and Race Research Action Council.
       Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Washington Office.
       Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA).
       RESULTS.
       Smart Growth America.
       Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future.
       Technical Assistance Collaborative.
       The Arc of the U.S.
       U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), National 
     Association of State PIRGs.
       United Cerebral Palsy.
       United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.
       Women's Committee of 100.
       YWCA USA.

  Mr. Speaker, clearly, these organizations recognize an attack on 
faith-based values when they see one.
  These restrictions force faith-based organizations to make a decision 
between providing low-income housing or promoting civic activities, and 
that choice is not one Congress should be forcing.
  It goes against our deepest principles and strikes at those who can 
least protect themselves, and I feel that it is particularly 
inappropriate that the majority is trying to limit the rights of the 
disadvantaged this week in the wake of the death of Rosa Parks, who 
stood up for the right to vote in so many courageous ways.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule which did not permit a 
vote on Congressman Frank's amendment to strike from this bill the 
provision that prevents any nonprofit recipient of a housing grant from 
conducting nonpartisan civic voter registration.
  This is an outrageously bad provision that imposes unconstitutional 
restrictions on promoting the most fundamental of our civil liberties: 
The right to vote.
  Of all our rights, this is the right that our Founding Fathers held 
most dear; that thousands have come to this great democracy to hold; 
and that right now our men and women are dying to protect in Iraq.
  What are we doing here limiting this great right on which our Nation 
is founded?
  Restricting the rights of nonprofits in this way violates these 
organizations' fundamental First Amendment rights. Voter registration, 
voter identification, and get-out-the vote activities are protected by 
the First Amendment. Yet this provision forbids nonprofits from even 
applying for grants if they have encouraged voting in the recent past. 
There is just no justification for preventing nonpartisan civic efforts 
to encourage voting.
  Many faith based organizations strongly oppose these restrictions. 
The Catholic Church is just one of many organizations whose faith-based 
mission to serve the disadvantaged leads them to both provide low-cost 
housing and help the disadvantaged exercise their right to vote.
  Indeed, faith based organizations are strongly united in their 
opposition. Among them are the Lutheran Church, the United Church of 
Christ, the Presbyterian Church, the U.S. Jesuit Conference, and the 
American Jewish Congress, just to name a few.
  Clearly these organizations recognize an attack on faith-based values 
when they see one.
  These restrictions force faith based organizations to make a choice: 
Provide low-income housing or promote the ability to vote. That choice 
is not one Congress should be forcing. It goes against our deepest 
principles and strikes at those who can least protect themselves.
  It is particularly inappropriate that the majority is trying to limit 
the rights of the disadvantaged to vote this week, in the wake of the 
death of Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks was a national icon, a symbol of what 
one courageous

[[Page 23798]]

person can do to achieve civil rights and liberties. This amendment to 
preserve nonpartisan voter registration could be called the Rosa Parks 
Amendment--to remind us that she co-founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks 
Institute for Self Development to help young people register to vote, 
and I am confident that she would have supported it with the quiet 
dignity and faith that she demonstrated in her own life.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to repudiate these 
provisions that strike all faith-based organizations.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I find it rather embarrassing to have to 
come to the floor of the Congress of the United States to protect the 
constitutional rights of the citizens of this country when, in fact, 
that is what we were all elected for, to make sure that this democracy 
works.
  I am opposed to this rule, and I cannot believe that my colleagues on 
the opposite side of the aisle would jeopardize the opportunity for us 
to provide housing for people who are victims of these hurricanes that 
have hit this country because they have interjected politics into this 
bill.
  This is absolutely outrageous. There is nothing in this bill that 
would allow any nonprofit or profit-making organization who wished to 
produce housing for low- and moderate-income people to use this money 
for any political activity. It is not fair. My colleagues are making it 
up, and it is absolutely outrageous.
  As a matter of fact, we were so concerned about making sure that 
everybody had an opportunity to provide housing, to produce housing, we 
put in an amendment that would make sure that this money would not go 
to one or two big organizations; that it would be available in rural 
communities; it would be available to the faith-based communities; it 
would be available all over this country to small- and medium-sized 
organizations, not just a few large ones.
  So we have been very democratic. We know that there are some people 
on the opposite side of the aisle that did not like the idea of 
providing funds for low- and moderate-income housing; but we also know, 
because of the leadership of some people on the other side of the aisle 
who understood the homelessness and the crisis that we have in America, 
lack of housing, the low-income people, that they were able to prevail, 
and we came out with a good bill.
  Do not get up here and fuss and talk about closed rule, modified 
rule, manager's amendment. It has nothing to do with that. My 
colleagues either want to provide low-income housing and not put 
politics in it and prevent people from exercising their constitutional 
rights or they do not want anything for anybody.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member on the 
committee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first, as to the rule, let 
us be very clear. This is democracy denied squared. Substantively, this 
imposes restraints on getting lower income people to vote.
  One of the Members of the majority, one of the authors of this 
restruction, the gentleman from Florida, talked about ACORN. In fact, 
under provisions of the bill which are agreed upon unanimously, what 
ACORN proposed would have disqualified them from getting funds. There 
is agreement that if groups are engaging in partisan activity they 
should be excluded.
  One thing that the majority forgot to mention, one of the pieces of 
their amendment to which we object is the piece that says you can only 
participate in this program if housing is your principal purpose. The 
faith-based initiative, rest in peace. Apparently, it did not last very 
long.
  The primary purpose of faith-based organizations is faith. It is not 
housing. They would like to do housing. It is part of their mission, 
but it is not their primary purpose. That is why not just Catholic 
charities but the Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States 
has asked that this be amended, because this provision that only if 
your primary purpose is housing can you participate denies any faith-
based group the right to participate. Apparently, the fear of low-
income people voting outweighs the support for faith-based groups.
  What are the substantive restrictions? We agree that there should be 
no partisanship. There would be a lot of restrictions if my very small, 
specific amendment were to pass. You could do not electioneering. You 
could not do lobbying beyond a very limited amount, but you could get 
out the vote. You know what that means? We had the Episcopalians, the 
Methodist, the Orthodox Jews, all of which do a lot of housing. You are 
the Methodists and you run an elderly housing project, under the 
Republican provision, you cannot do get-out-the-vote activity if you 
help build housing. So you cannot hire a bus to go take the old people 
to vote. You cannot have somebody come in and get them to register.
  That is what we are talking about. There is an extremism here that is 
not comprehensively accepted in the history.
  The committee voted on this bill. It is contentious as anything I 
would write, as anybody would write. It is a good bill which sets up a 
world-class regulator. Much of what has been said on that side I agree 
with.
  Then the Republican Study Committee, the most conservative Members of 
the House who appear to be able to run the House by using their 
influence with the majority leadership, an influence which does not 
seem to have changed since the majority leadership changed, they were 
able to take this bill hostage.

                              {time}  1145

  They tried to kill this whole thing. Members on their side now say, 
we are for doing this affordable housing. Well, then why did they try 
to kill it?
  There was an amendment to kill the whole affordable housing fund, not 
restricted. It lost 53 to 17, and so then they went to the majority 
leader and said we cannot win a fair fight. Hijack the bill. So now it 
comes to the rules situation. Here it is. Yes, we will get the vote on 
the manager's amendment. The manager's amendment includes what the 
gentleman from Ohio, the gentleman from Louisiana, myself, and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania all agree to, along with the gentlewoman 
from California, to give a preference for those areas affected by the 
hurricane.
  So what the gentleman from Texas would have Members believe, both 
gentlemen from Texas, it is an open rule on this issue because if you 
are willing to vote not to give a preference to the hurricane areas, 
you can also vote to let the Catholic Church participate in low-income 
housing. They come as a package. If you think the Catholic Church and 
the Episcopal Church and the Methodist Church and other churches ought 
to be able to participate in this, then you have to vote not to give 
preference to the hurricane areas. That is their idea of a fair rule.
  All I asked for was a chance to agree to everything in the manager's 
amendment except for three things: Allow faith-based groups to 
participate. Let it be one of their primary purposes. Let them do 
nonpartisan voter registration and let them do nonpartisan get-out-the-
vote. We are not given a chance to vote on that.
  I hope Members will vote against the manager's amendment. It is a 
tough vote for Members in the hurricane areas because they will be 
demagogued.
  If the manager's amendment is defeated, let me announce now, I will 
then offer a motion to recommit which will be everything in the 
manager's amendment except these three things. So Members over there 
who have told these low-income groups, as often happens, I do not like 
what these people have done, I do not want to exclude the Catholic 
Church, but my hands are tied, we will untie your hands. We will give 
you a chance to vote on it, but it is still not a fair vote.
  I think it is very clear that there is one reason why the Members are 
not allowed to vote on a specific amendment that says let us take all 
of the restrictions on the groups, and when people say we do not want 
the money

[[Page 23799]]

spent on other things, it has always been clear that the money can only 
be spent on affordable housing. We are talking about whether groups 
with their own money can do other things. People have said the money is 
fungible. Well, when we were debating faith-based groups, when we said 
if you give money for day care, is that going to go to religious 
activities, we were told, no, they will be segregated. I agreed with 
that. So the argument about fungibility, apparently, appears to be 
itself very fungible.
  Mr. Speaker, all we are asking for is a chance for an up-or-down vote 
on three provisions which have never been voted on which were inserted 
here because the most conservative elements in the Republican Party, 
the Republican Study Committee, got the majority leader to make them a 
condition of the bill coming to the floor. I guess if the rest of the 
Republicans want to be held hostage by that group, they will show us by 
their votes today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for conducting a worthwhile debate on this issue and the 
rule.
  While we will have plenty of time to debate the merits of the 
legislation, and there are a great deal of those out there, and I think 
both sides would agree, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Baker) for his excellent work, as well as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member.
  The approach that we took, beginning with the need, the glaring need 
for a world-class regulator for the GSEs, became quite evident with the 
revelations of some of the accounting scandals that took place in both 
of those institutions and to a lesser extent with the Home Loan banks.
  Looking back in the past when Chairman Baker was a lone voice in 
trying to get changes in the regulatory structure to where we are now 
is quite extraordinary. It is quite extraordinary that we are actually 
debating a rule that would bring up a major piece of legislation 
totally changing the way we look at GSEs and their role in the housing 
market and the secondary market, particularly as it relates to their 
regulation and how they are regulated. I do not think anybody can argue 
that the structure we set up is less than superlative and provides a 
world-class regulator.
  Some of the issues we debated that were so contentious, I think of 
receivership, and all of the debates that we had about the necessity 
for including receivership language in it so in case one or both of the 
GSEs, that the regulator could actually put them in receivership, 
essentially became a nonissue just a few months ago. I think that 
points out the kind of progress we made in the committee. The 65-5 vote 
that we had on final passage was quite extraordinary.
  We also needed to look at the whole issue of affordable housing. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and his subcommittee really deserve a lot 
of credit for putting together, I think, a very solid plan borrowed 
from the Home Loan bank system from which they set aside 10 percent of 
their profits towards affordable housing. Let me point out that program 
has been incredibly successful over the years, borrowing a page from 
the Home Loan banks, in this case, to set aside 5 percent from Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac that would potentially provide hundreds of millions 
of dollars towards affordable housing. Again, I think Members agreed 
with that, and the concern was always, I think, in the back of 
everybody's mind to make certain that this money was accountable and it 
was used for bricks and mortar, actually building the homes instead of 
political advocacy and the like. Indeed, I think we came to a 
reasonable conclusion on that.
  We have differences as to the application of that. It was always our 
goal to make those funds available only to groups that had housing as a 
function and that they had a track record. I am thinking of Habitat for 
Humanity as a good example, but also State housing agencies and for-
profit companies that would compete for those funds and would have to 
be approved by the board we set up in the legislation, again, providing 
accountability where that money goes because it is technically, 
certainly, not government funds, taxpayer funds, but private sector 
funds. We want to make certain that every dollar that was made 
available went into building affordable housing.
  And then, of course, along came Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, 
and now Wilma; and those events provided another glaring need for 
affordable housing in those heavily struck areas. That is why we wanted 
to include those and provide them with the opportunity to essentially 
be first in line for those funds because of the enormous complications 
that have developed down there in terms of housing and exacerbated an 
already difficult situation. That is where we are now.
  I am proud of the committee and the work we have been able to do. I 
think we are in a position where we can debate the manager's amendment 
under the rule. There are several Democrat amendments made in order, 
Republican amendments made in order, four on each side. I think the 
Rules Committee has done a superb job in doing that. I know the 
gentleman from Massachusetts will probably offer a motion to recommit 
based on the issue of fund availability. That is precisely within his 
rights, and I would expect that.
  But this vote on the rule that I support is moving us forward to get 
to legislation passing to help the hurricane victims and to better 
regulate the GSEs. I think there is a broad bipartisan consensus for 
that. Let us vote up the rule and get on with the debate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past 5 years, we have seen 100,000 Federal 
housing units lost. We are down 50 percent in real terms in elderly and 
disabled housing at a time when the leadership on the other side of the 
aisle has tried to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant 
Program. They have significantly cut back on the number of section 8 
vouchers for low-income housing assistance, and they have tried to 
limit housing assistance overall, so it is important that this 
underlying bill pass and at the same time that this reprehensible 
provision, this attack on poor people, be struck from the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, to prohibit organizations from receiving funding for 
housing, many of these organizations, faith-based organizations, that 
participate in nonpartisan activities, as the New York Times said 
today, has no place in our democracy. We can do so much better. The 
fact of the matter is that many of these faith-based organizations that 
do an incredible job in housing will be barred from participating 
because of this provision. Vote down the rule. Let us fix this 
provision.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts refer to his 25 
years of service in this distinguished body, and I have great respect 
for that; but I want him to know, and I am certain he remembers this, 
that the Democrats when they were in the majority, many times denied 
Republicans an opportunity in the legislative and rulemaking process to 
have motions to recommit. In fact, the Republican majority has given 
the minority that under this rule, as we have the entire time we have 
been in the majority.
  This vote today is simply on the rule. The committee voted for the 
bill 65-5. Members are going to have an opportunity during 
consideration of these amendments to voice their disapproval of the 
manager's amendment and vote it down if that is what they choose to do.
  The purpose of these changes that we are talking about in the 
manager's amendment is to prevent nonprofits from receiving these funds 
and engaging in political activity, to ensure that the scarce and 
available funds for housing resources are allocated effectively and for 
their intended purpose, pure and simple. We want to make sure that they 
are used for rebuilding houses with the primary emphasis in the gulf 
region.

[[Page 23800]]

  This legislation does not prevent nonprofit organizations from 
pursuing a political agenda if they so choose. It simply prevents them 
from accepting these funds if they put politics first. It is their 
choice.
  Hurricanes do not take party affiliation into account, and these 
funds are being contributed by the housing GSEs to rebuild this 
important region of our country. It should not be done on a political 
basis. I am very proud of this bill and the underlying legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. 
Res. 509 as reported out of the Committee on Rules last night relative 
to our debate of the GSE legislation, H.R. 1461. While many substantive 
amendments were made in order, the committee blocked what we 
undoubtedly consider one of the most substantive amendments that was 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, the ranking 
member of the body from which the underlying measure was discharged.
  The gentleman's amendment would have removed language contained in 
the current manager's amendment that bars organizations with proven 
experience in mobilizing community support and resources--a nonpartisan 
initiative. In addition, the manager's amendment would constrain the 
ability of experienced faith-based and community-based organizations to 
successfully compete for the affordable housing funds that are proposed 
in the underlying bill.
  My district of Houston, TX, has a plethora of faith-based 
organizations that have plans that would provide much-needed affordable 
housing for the surrounding community. Our affordable housing stock has 
suffered for a long time, and I have been working steadfastly with the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to facilitate the obtainment 
of opportunities by these groups. The nugatory provisions in the 
manager's amendment will contravene the hard work that I and many other 
Members have done to this end.
  While I applaud the effort made by the administration to remove 
barriers to full participation in Federal programs and funding faith-
based entities, proposals such as the manager's amendment will bar 
these groups from access to this funding while for-profit agencies 
remain free to engage in the democratic process which is every 
American's birthright. This double-standard must be removed. It 
contravenes the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose an outrageous provision 
attached to previously strong legislation. I am shocked and 
disappointed that the majority has chosen to destroy what was an 
effective, responsible, and bipartisan bill by including an 
indefensible provision to restrict nonpartisan civic activity of 
nonprofit organizations.
  This legislation started out as an example of how the legislative 
process should work. The Financial Services Committee reported a bill 
to reform Government Sponsored Enterprises, GSEs, and establish an 
Affordable Housing Fund, AHF. The bill would increase home ownership 
among low-income families, increase investment in housing in low income 
and economically distressed areas, and in general increase the Nation's 
supply of affordable housing. The bill received broad bipartisan 
support, reported by a vote of 65-5.
  It is unfortunate that the majority has chosen to mandate 
consideration of a bill that includes a provision restricting 
nonpartisan civic activities of nonprofit organizations, even if they 
use their own funds to conduct such activities. Nonprofit organizations 
(and any affiliate of the nonprofit) would be prohibited from engaging 
in nonpartisan voter registration or get-out-the-vote activities. These 
restrictions would force low-income housing groups and faith-based 
groups to choose between obtaining funding for low-income housing and 
using other funds to engage in nonpartisan voter registration and get-
out-the-vote activities.
  In my home State of New Jersey, organizations like Catholic Charities 
provide vital social services to vulnerable people in need, such as 
food, clothing, counseling, and health services. They also routinely 
hold voter registration drives before elections and provide elderly and 
disabled voters with transportation to the polls. Their activities are 
nonpartisan and play a vital role in ensuring that people are able to 
vote if they so desire. Under this legislation, they would no longer be 
able to fulfill this function. This body should not prohibit social 
service organizations from conducting nonpartisan civic activities.
  The majority protests loudly when its actions are judged to be 
motivated by a desire to suppress voter turnout and civic participation 
in urban or low-income areas. From the inclusion of this discriminatory 
provision, it is difficult to reach any other conclusion. Today this 
rule blocks an amendment by Representative Barney Frank that would 
remove this provision.
  It is disheartening to see that, at a time when the majority and the 
administration claims to support removing barriers for faith-based 
organizations, this provision has been included to restrict the 
activities they are permitted to conduct. Inclusion of the provision 
has sunk the prospects of passing strong and bipartisan legislation 
that will help the most vulnerable obtain affordable housing. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this rule.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to lament the wrecking of a solid, 
bipartisan bill that, at one time, both established a tough new 
regulator for our Nation's secondary mortgage market and created a new 
national housing trust to build affordable housing.
  Our Nation's economic security and the housing opportunity of 
millions of Americans is being played with on the floor today.
  But more than this particular bill, I also lament the fact that this 
Congress is held hostage to the extreme right wing agenda of the 
majority. A small cabal of 50 or so Members who, though small in 
number, loud in voice, threaten this Republican Majority and hold this 
Congress and our country hostage.
  They claim they want smaller government but they are saddling our 
children with trillions in the notorious birth tax--yes, every child 
born in America today comes into this world with a $30,000 debt to the 
Government thanks to the skewed economic policies of the so-called 
fiscally conservative Republican Party.
  They claim to help people but want to strip away student loans from 
college kids, Medicaid from the poor, and aid to farmers, for bigger 
tax cuts for the richest Americans.
  They claim they support families, but they are robbing the basic 
tenet of the American Dream--home ownership--right here in this very 
bill.
  They claim to represent people of faith, but they are stripping away 
the ability of groups like Catholic Charities, Baptists and other 
people of faith to use this new funding to benefit their communities 
and make America stronger.
  If this rule passes the Republicans will have done what they do best, 
stripping away the American Dream of owning a home for millions of 
Americans. As well as continuing on their path to destroying what this 
country stands for, religious freedom, home ownership and the ability 
of child to live a better life than his or her parents.
  This debate is bigger than this rule, bigger than this bill. It goes 
to the heart of who the Republican Party is today, and it is a party 
that does not stand for working people.
  This rule demonstrates this fact. Vote down this anti-religion, anti-
American rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

                          ____________________