[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26957-26960]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1130
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2895, NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING 
                         TRUST FUND ACT OF 2007

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 720 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 720

       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. 2895) to establish the National Affordable 
     Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States to 
     provide for the construction, rehabilitation, and 
     preservation of decent, safe, and affordable housing for low-
     income families. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider

[[Page 26958]]

     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now 
     printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 2895 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 720.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 720 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund 
Act of 2007.
  As the Clerk read, the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate 
controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule waives all 
points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clauses 9 
and 10 of rule XXI.
  The rule makes in order the Financial Services reported substitute. 
The rule makes in order eight amendments, including a complete 
Republican substitute. The amendments are each debatable for 10 
minutes, except for the Neugebauer substitute, which is debatable for 
20 minutes. The amendments are not amendable or divisible.
  All points of order are waived against the amendments, except for 
clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule also provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, so many American families today are facing a critical 
housing crunch. The cost of an apartment or a home is out of reach for 
so many, but there is good news. Many of us in this Congress understand 
and will keep fighting for a new direction for America and more 
affordable housing.
  Today we will create a landmark affordable housing trust fund under 
H.R. 2895 in this rule, which will provide over 1.5 million new 
affordable homes for hard-working folks across America over the next 
decade. I would like to thank Chairman Barney Frank and Chairwoman 
Maxine Waters for their dedication to American families in their 
efforts to make housing affordable and available to those who could use 
a helping hand.
  They pledged at the beginning of this new Congress that they would 
focus on affordable housing, and they have stayed true to their word.
  Four other bills in addition to this one that will be considered 
today expand American homeownership and provide relief to our 
neighbors, many of whom have been subjected to foreclosure due to 
predatory lending in the subprime loan crisis.
  This new affordable housing trust fund will focus on construction, 
rehabilitation and preservation of affordable housing in our hometowns 
and communities across America. The trust fund will pool monies, 
together with State, local and private housing initiatives to target 
housing to families with the greatest economic need.
  The innovative, dedicated funding mechanism for this new trust fund 
comes at no new cost to taxpayers. Our efforts come at a critical time. 
Federal money for affordable housing has largely disappeared under this 
current administration. Health care costs are out of sight, the cost of 
living is higher, and many of our neighbors have not received raises 
that keep up with these rising costs.
  We have heard from so many Americans across this country. For 
example, in south St. Petersburg, just recently, I was talking with a 
police officer that works for the City of St. Petersburg. He said it 
was his dream to have his young son move into his neighborhood nearby. 
Unfortunately, affordable housing in that neighborhood is all but gone, 
and he will just not be able to swing it.
  In addition, local housing agencies across America have thousands 
upon thousands of Americans on waiting lists for affordable housing. In 
my hometown of Tampa, Florida, during a 1-week open enrollment session, 
more than 10,000 seniors, families and veterans indicated a need for 
affordable housing. But there is just no inventory.
  Instead of receiving housing, they are placed on a waiting list. That 
waiting list takes 4 years, and it makes affordable housing completely 
unreachable for the other people that simply never made that call for 
help.
  The number of American households paying more than half of their 
incomes on housing increased to 17 million in the year 2005, with 1 in 
7 U.S. households being severely housing-cost burdened. This imbalance 
is very troubling, and when combined with predatory subprime loans, it 
has caused many homeowners to lose their homes. In the Tampa Bay area 
alone, in the first 6 months of this year, over 10,000 of my neighbors 
have found that their homes have fallen into foreclosure.
  This new affordable housing trust fund will provide for the new 
construction, preservation of existing housing and homeownership, 
assistance, emergency housing repairs and housing-related services. 
Help is on the way.
  H.R. 2895 is a positive step in a new direction to ensure that more 
families are able to find clean, safe, stable and affordable places to 
live. I am proud to support this bill and this rule, and I urge the 
Congress to pass this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. 
Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  This rule provides for the consideration of a bill to establish a 
national affordable housing trust fund. Members of this House share in 
the commitment to meet the housing needs of lower-income Americans. 
However, we differ on how to best achieve this goal.
  The bill that will be before us today creates a new, a new national 
housing trust fund, and, with it, a whole new level of Federal 
bureaucracy. There are already over 30 separate Federal programs 
designed to promote affordable housing. The new trust fund, created by 
the underlying bill, is modeled in large part on one of those existing 
programs, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
  Why create a new level of Federal bureaucracy to administer 
essentially the same program that is already being successfully 
administered by State and local governments closest to the problem? It 
seems to me that ought to be a big subject of the debate that we have 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this rule makes in order a substitute 
amendment offered by Mr. Neugebauer

[[Page 26959]]

of Texas that would establish a national affordable housing grant fund 
program within the current HOME program. This proposal would meet the 
need and meet the goal of expanding rental and home ownership 
opportunities for low-income families without adding new layers of red 
tape. While I support the Neugebauer amendment being made in order, I 
am troubled that this is the only Republican amendment allowed to be 
considered under this restrictive rule.
  A total of 15 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee by the 
10 a.m. deadline yesterday. One amendment offered by Representative 
Capuano of Massachusetts to change the short title of the bill to the 
``Barney Frank National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007'' was 
withdrawn. Out of the remaining 14 amendments, seven were submitted by 
Democrats and seven were submitted by Republicans. This rule makes all 
seven amendments offered by Democrats made in order, but just 1 
Republican amendment. If this rule is adopted, many thoughtful ideas 
will be denied the opportunity to be considered on the House floor 
today.
  Unfortunately, shutting out amendments offered by Republicans has 
become the norm for the Democrat Rules Committee.
  Americans want to see Members on both sides of the aisle work 
together to address the problems our Nation faces. Unfortunately, with 
this restrictive rule, the Democrat majority has chosen to deny 
millions of Americans a voice on several significant issues related to 
meeting the affordable housing challenges that lower-income Americans 
face. Therefore, I must urge my colleagues to vote against House 
Resolution 720.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I will inquire of my colleague from 
Washington if he has any additional speakers. Otherwise, he can proceed 
to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I had requests from two 
Members, but I see they are not here. If the gentlelady has no more 
speakers, I will be prepared to close on my side.
  Ms. CASTOR. That's correct, we have no speakers. We have requests as 
well, but they are not here in attendance, so I think it's safe to 
proceed to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  House Republicans believe that every earmark should be debatable on 
the House floor and that the House earmark rules are flawed when it 
comes to the enforceability of earmarks.
  Earlier this year, Republican Leader Boehner introduced a measure to 
close loopholes in the rules and allow the House to debate openly and 
honestly earmarks contained in all bills. Currently, 196 Republicans 
have signed a petition to bring this proposal to the floor for 
immediate consideration.
  Unfortunately, we need 22 more Members in order to get real earmark 
reform before this can be considered by the House. The House cannot 
delay action on this any longer. Each day we put off closing loopholes 
in the House earmark rules, American taxpayers are left to wonder what 
hidden earmarks are contained in bills before the House. It is time we 
act to prove to American taxpayers this House is serious about earmark 
transparency and enforceability.
  I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to 
immediately consider House Resolution 479 introduced by Republican 
Leader Boehner. By defeating the previous question, the House will 
still be able to consider the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund 
Act today, but we will also be able to address the earmark 
enforceability in order to restore the credibility of this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to 
oppose the previous question and the restrictive rule which denies 
debate on several significant issues related to increasing the 
availability of affordable housing with the most efficient and 
effective use of government resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, despite the threatened veto by the White 
House, we will continue to stand on the side of America's hardworking 
families today and pass this landmark affordable housing trust fund 
bill. This will help our States and our communities achieve over 1 
million new affordable homes for our neighbors over the coming years.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 720 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point 
     of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for 
     enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion 
     or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''

[[Page 26960]]

       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________