[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8007-8012]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5818, NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION 
                              ACT OF 2008

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, we have just completed our third motion to 
adjourn the business of the House today, in addition to other 
procedural motions to delay action.
  While we will not be deterred, we are going to continue to fight for 
families throughout America who are suffering in this housing crisis. 
We are going to provide the tools that our communities need to purchase 
these foreclosed homes and turn them into affordable housing for 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the Chair of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to address both the 
procedural and substantive objections.
  First, procedurally, I understand there are some legitimate concerns 
about the second rule that we will deal with. But as to this rule, I 
will say categorically I was the ranking member on the Committee on 
Financial Services for 4 years. The rule today gives more scope to the 
minority's amendments than any rule under this committee's jurisdiction 
when they were in the majority.
  The gentleman complained about an amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite). There is an amendment 
on the subject of illegal immigrants and their benefits in this bill. 
There were four such amendments. One was made in order. Putting in 
order duplicative amendments serves no purpose.
  But when the Republicans were in power, we had situations where 
motions adopted in committee were changed by the Rules Committee, and 
we were not given an opportunity to vote an amendment and discuss that 
on the floor. That was on the GSE bill. There was never a time when, 
under the Republican rule, we had as much ability to offer ours.
  There are three substantive amendments offered here. Five were 
already adopted in committee.
  Now as to the substance. The notion that this helps lenders is 
bizarre. This is one that is strongly urged for mayors, Governors, 
police chiefs and municipal officials. Property already foreclosed used 
to pay taxes. It now absorbs taxes. There are fire hazards, there are 
nuisances, there are threats in terms of sanitation.
  The problem is that many of the cities that have this problem of 
foreclosed property don't have the financial wherewithal to buy up the 
property precisely because they have lost tax revenues. They are in a 
vicious cycle. We are offering this money, and it is a need-based 
formula. The money goes to where there is the most foreclosed property.
  Now it is true that it is $15 billion for the entire United States. 
We are in a terrible crisis, and this bill would provide $15 billion to 
elected local and State officials to buy up property. That's an awful 
lot of money. It is half what this administration offered to the 
counterparties of Bear Stearns.
  Now I thought that the $30 billion offer to the counterparties of 
Bear Stearns was an unfortunately necessary request. But how, Mr. 
Speaker, do people in an administration that gave $30 billion of 
taxpayers' money, put that at risk for the counterparties of Bear 
Stearns, object when half of that is made available to all of America 
to abate fire high hazards and to preserve neighborhoods from serious 
problems?
  The lenders don't benefit from this. In fact, we have a later bill in 
which we are going to be accused of not doing enough to put you into 
foreclosures. This bill says that when the property has already been 
foreclosed for at least 60 days, the cities and States may work with 
profit or nonprofit groups to make it available for affordable housing, 
to make it available for local employees. I guess when you don't have a 
serious argument, you just make things up. This one is totally 
unconnected to reality. We have been asked by local officials and 
worked with them. There is a great deal of property that has been 
foreclosed upon.
  By the way, to anyone who says this is an incentive to foreclose 
property, there isn't enough money in this bill to begin to buy up all 
that's already been foreclosed. No one who hasn't yet done it is going 
to get any benefit from this, but let's get back to the basics.
  Thirty billion dollars of public money has been made available for 
the counterparties of Bear Stearns, I think, of necessity, to avoid 
greater danger. But how, having done that, do you denounce half that 
amount of money for the whole country to cities and States to buy up 
foreclosed property that is blighting neighborhoods?
  Then the gentleman from Washington said, well, why should the rural 
areas be forced to deal with this when it's a city problem because 
there is foreclosed property in many places? But that kind of rhetoric 
that sets one against the other, I don't think is very productive.
  I guess I would say this: Why should the people of Detroit and 
Cleveland pay subsidies to farmers who make hundreds of thousands of 
dollars a year? We are going to pass an agricultural bill that's going 
to ask people in the cities to pay for agricultural subsidies. I don't 
think it is very sensible to start this kind of thing. We are going to 
bring forward housing dealing with rural housing.
  America is in a terrible financial situation brought about by 
irresponsible economic activity unchecked by reasonable regulation. 
This is one small piece of dealing with it, and it is far less 
expensive than other pieces these people have supported.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  H.R. 5818, quite frankly, is a bailout bill, and it is not even a 
bailout bill to homeowners, it's a bailout bill to lending 
institutions.
  While I appreciate the merits of the bill and what the sponsor was 
trying to accomplish, it is what it is. If we're going to provide a 
bailout, Congress should ensure that at least we are bailing out 
lending institutions that lent to Americans, not illegal aliens.
  Yesterday I offered an amendment in rules to do that, an amendment 
that actually had some teeth. Instead, the Rules Committee decided to 
allow a similar amendment but one that lacked the teeth that mine had. 
My amendment prohibited States from using any of the funds to purchase 
homes that were owned by illegal aliens. If States used the funds under 
this bill to provide affordable housing to its residents, my amendment 
prohibited them from providing that housing to illegal aliens. However, 
my amendment required documentation, which only included a Social 
Security card with a photo ID or a REAL ID identification. That would 
be the proof of the pudding.
  If Congress wants to use taxpayers' dollars to bail out lenders, 
let's make sure it's only benefiting the people who pay taxes and live 
here legally. I am saddened that once again the majority wants to pass 
legislation that will accomplish nothing but provide political cover.
  I just checked with my office to see if we have heard from one 
municipality. While I respect the gentleman from Massachusetts, we have 
not heard from one mayor, not one city council member, not one county 
commissioner and, as of the last time I checked, we still had not heard 
from one State official.
  For this reason I am going to vote against the rule and encourage 
other Members to do so.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would note for the record that the 
Committee on Financial Services heard from local government officials 
and housing experts across this country during committee markup and 
after that. There is no secret that communities across this country 
need a little bit of help in turning those dilapidated, empty, 
foreclosed homes into productive, safe, secure housing for families.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 8008]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule, because there are so many 
amendments that could have improved this bill and saved the taxpayers 
money, but they were ignored by the Rules Committee, not allowed on the 
floor of the House, which isn't totally unlike the situation we are in 
with the supplemental appropriation bill.
  Here we are about to pass a $200 billion--that's billion with a B--
the largest supplemental appropriation bill in the history of Congress, 
and supplemental appropriation bills aren't anything new. They go back 
to the second Congress that ever existed because, so often, when you 
have a war, there are unanticipated costs associated with it, as there 
are with disasters and other things that might occur during the course 
of the year. So supplemental appropriation bills are normal. But what 
isn't normal is the size of this bill.

                              {time}  1330

  And what isn't normal is the Democrat Party who even has on Speaker 
Pelosi's Web page, as I speak, a promise to the American people that 
every bill would be vetted properly and passed through proper order.
  And we all know from our eighth grade social studies class that 
proper order is that a bill is introduced; ding. It is sent to 
subcommittee; ding. The subcommittee has hearings, it has a markup in 
which amendments are allowed and where endorsements and where 
statements are made. Then it goes to full committee; ding. And full 
committee again repeats the process, possibly with hearings, certainly 
with debate, always with amendments, always with the minority and the 
majority party putting aside partisan differences on a committee level 
before the final product goes to the floor. And then again, ding, the 
bill goes to the floor where again people are allowed to amend a bill. 
People are allowed to make speeches on it.
  But instead, what we have from what can only be called a ruthless, 
iron-fisted majority, an air-dropped bill. Yes, Mr. Speaker, an air-
dropped bill, a bill that has bypassed, leapfrogged over the regular 
subcommittee and committee process.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. KINGSTON. May I have another 30 seconds?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Again, Mr. Speaker, this bill is thrust upon Members of 
the House who will not have read it. In fact, I will take a poll right 
now.
  Is there anybody who has read, there are a lot of Members of Congress 
on this floor, have any of you read this $200 billion supplemental 
appropriations bill of which we will be voting on tomorrow? Not one 
hand goes up. I rest my point. This bill has not been vetted.
  It should go through regular order which means subcommittee, full 
committee and then on the floor. Members should have the opportunity to 
read a $200 billion bill and they should have the opportunity to amend 
it.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, just for purposes of clarifying the record, 
I think it is important to note that a number of amendments were 
considered in the full committee, the Committee on Financial Services. 
And indeed, in the Rules Committee, we considered a number of 
amendments, and have accepted consideration of seven amendments in this 
bill that will be voted on later on. Three are Republican amendments.
  Now I know the other side has focused a lot on delaying tactics and 
procedural maneuvers today, and they would love to open this up and 
have hundreds of amendments considered. A number of amendments filed 
with the Rules Committee were duplicative. We have tailored this 
structured rule in a fair manner.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California, the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I was 
seeking to get the floor from my very dear friend from Florida to 
simply say that all we were asking for was nine amendments. 
Unfortunately, the process that was so eloquently outlined by our 
friend from Savannah, Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is exactly the process 
that is being used on the next foreclosure bill that we have. Having 
completely denied the opportunity for the hearing process, and as we go 
through every single step that should be part of this measure, the 
minority is going to, unfortunately, not have a chance whatsoever to 
offer its motion to recommit.
  We are not asking for hundreds of amendments, Mr. Speaker, we are 
simply asking on this bill for nine amendments. When only a third of 
our amendments were made in order, three-quarters of their amendments 
were made in order, let's have a little more fairness.
  Ms. CASTOR. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, a classmate of mine, Mr. 
LaHood.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to say 
that I wish as a member of the Appropriations Committee, that the same 
procedure that is being followed for helping the housing industry 
whereby the Committee on Financial Services held hearings, allowed 
members to offer amendments, allowed members to read the bill, allowed 
members to have their say about the bill, we on the Appropriations 
Committee would be accorded the same opportunity when it comes to a 
bill that will be considered by the House tomorrow, a $200 billion bill 
that will appropriate money to help our troops and to fund our troops 
and to provide them the equipment they need.
  Now as a member of the Appropriations Committee, none of us will have 
the chance to read the bill, to look at the bill, and those of us who 
have been around this House for some time, and members of the committee 
know that the devil is in the details. We know what happens when bills 
are brought to the floor when Members haven't had a chance to read 
them. Things are inserted, words are inserted, dollars are inserted 
that become a great embarrassment for people as they vote on these 
bills.
  And so tomorrow when this bill comes to the floor, the appropriation 
bill, the $200 billion appropriation bill, I encourage Members to vote 
against it because they will not know what is in it. They won't know 
what words are in it or what money is in it because the Appropriations 
Committee has been shut out from the opportunity to have their say, to 
offer amendments, to offer an opportunity to change the language in the 
bill.
  And really it is disingenuous, I think, to our committee to allow 
this kind of procedure to take place. We have two very experienced 
people on the Appropriations Committee in the chairman from 
Pennsylvania and the ranking member from Florida of the Defense 
Appropriation Subcommittee who will have little or nothing to say about 
the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Now I talked to two of the Democratic leaders about this, 
and I tried to persuade them, let's go through the regular procedure. 
You've got the votes to pass the bill. You're going to pass the bill. 
Why not give all of us a chance to have our say and to at least read it 
and offer amendments and have our say. What are you afraid of?
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the way to run the House. This is 
unprecedented that a bill of this magnitude would come to the House 
like this. I urge the Speaker and the leadership to give us a chance, 
as members of the Appropriations Committee, to have our say, to read 
the bill, to offer amendments.
  Ms. CASTOR. I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 8009]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 6 minutes 
remaining and the gentlewoman from Florida has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. It is not we Members who 
are shut out, it is the constituents that we represent. On this 
Financial Services bill, those constituents that we represent have been 
shut out in committee and not offered an opportunity to offer an 
amendment.
  On the Appropriations Committee, the war funding bill, life or death 
for our troops, the most important question facing our Nation, our 
survival as a Nation and the war on terror, the 19 million Americans 
that we represent on the Republican side have been shut out of the 
process and denied an opportunity to offer amendments in debate on the 
survival of the Nation in the war on terror, on life and death of our 
soldiers in the field.
  I, for one, had an amendment to make the Iraqi Government pay more of 
their own share of this reconstruction and make sure that with oil at 
$120 a barrel, the Iraqi Government, sitting on the world's third-
largest supply of oil, I have an amendment to require the Iraqi 
Government, that I was going to offer in committee, to make the Iraqi 
Government pay for the reconstruction of roads, utilities, schools, job 
training and economic development. Because we have a record debt and 
deficit in this country, that amendment is an important piece of the 
debate in the appropriations bill to pay for the war.
  This is not just any bill that the American people have been shut out 
of the debate on. It is the bill paying for the lives and safety of our 
troops in the field.
  I would, frankly, think that the Democrat leadership of this House 
would be embarrassed to deny the American people an opportunity to have 
their elected representatives participate in this debate. When we 
started this Congress, the Speaker promised the most ethical and open 
Congress in the history of the Nation. We don't see it in the process. 
Over and over again these bills come to the floor without an 
opportunity to debate them or offer amendments on the floor.
  Don't forget, it is not just the Republicans that are shut out, Mr. 
Speaker, but the Democrat members of the Appropriations Committee have 
been shut out, just like the members of the Financial Services 
Committee have been shut out. The American people have been shut out of 
this process, and the Democrat leadership ought to be embarrassed for 
bringing a bill to fund the war without giving us all an opportunity.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, clearly there is enough to 
talk about here, and so I ask unanimous consent that each side have an 
additional 5 minutes.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for that purpose.
  I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman does not yield for that 
purpose.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of my colleague 
from Florida if there are any more speakers on the other side.
  Ms. CASTOR. I am the last speaker for my side, so I will reserve the 
balance of my time until it is my turn to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague if she 
would be willing, since she has time and she is the last speaker, if 
she would yield time to us so we may control that time for the speakers 
we have.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, we have suffered through delaying and 
procedural tactics today, and the business of the American people in 
this housing crisis should be delayed no longer. I do not yield 
additional time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 4 minutes 
remaining and the gentlewoman from Florida has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds, if I 
might, to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Financial Services.
  Mr. BACHUS. Let me introduce into the Record a letter that 16 
Republicans, including myself and Scott Garrett, sent to Chairman Frank 
asking for hearings on the Bear Stearns matter and his response in 
which he said that he had much greater confidence in the decision to 
fund the bailout of the counterparties of Bear Stearns. So the chairman 
at that time expressed his support, and we expressed our concern.
  So now he seems to have changed his opinion and is criticizing the 
administration for something he defended in these letters. We will be 
having hearings on this matter, on Bear Stearns I can assure you, 
because our side is concerned about that bailout.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, April 7, 2008.
     Hon. Barney Frank,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Frank: We are writing to respectfully request 
     you hold a hearing of the full Financial Services Committee 
     regarding the recent collapse of the investment bank Bear 
     Stearns and the subsequent actions taken by the Federal 
     Reserve to facilitate Bear Stearns' sale to J.P. Morgan 
     Chase. These steps have had an immediate impact on the 
     financial markets and are also expected to have a long-term 
     effect on our financial regulatory structure.
       For the first time since the Great Depression, the Fed 
     voted to open its discount window to primary dealers. While 
     this authority has been available to the Fed since 1932, the 
     decision to use it at this time has raised questions about 
     whether and when the Fed should intervene to help a 
     particular industry or firm in the name of market stability.
       With the Fed approving the financing arrangements of the 
     sale of Bear Stearns to J.P. Morgan Chase as well as 
     guaranteeing $29 billion in securities currently held by Bear 
     Stearns, the Fed has possibly exposed the American taxpayers 
     to unknown amounts of financial loss and established a 
     precedent that could lead to future instances of companies in 
     similar financial trouble expecting the same assistance.
       These extraordinary actions have raised a number of complex 
     and multifaceted questions. As members of the committee of 
     jurisdiction over our nation's financial markets and the 
     regulatory bodies that oversee them, we feel it is imperative 
     to have a full and public vetting of this unique situation. 
     Therefore, we strongly urge you to convene a hearing on this 
     subject of the Financial Services Committee on the soonest 
     possible date.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
         Scott Garrett, Spencer Bachus, Donald Manzullo, Walter B. 
           Jones, Michele Bachmann, Ginny Brown-Waite, Randy 
           Neugebauer, Tom Feeney, Tom Price, Ron Paul, Adam 
           Putnam, Thaddeus McCotter, Jeb Hensarling, Steve 
           Pearce, Geoff Davis, Judy Biggert, Dean Heller.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 2008.
     Hon. Scott Garrett,
     Congressman, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Garrett, I received the letter signed by you and 
     sixteen of your Republican colleagues on the Financial 
     Services Committee expressing your concern that the recent 
     actions by the top financial appointees of the Bush 
     administration in the matter of Bear Stearns have ``possibly 
     exposed the American taxpayers to unknown amounts of 
     financial loss and established a precedent that could lead to 
     future instances of companies in similar financial trouble 
     expecting the same assistance.'' It does occur to me as I 
     read your letter that I have somewhat more confidence in the 
     judgment exercised by Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and 
     his aides and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and other 
     officials of the Federal Reserve System than you appear to 
     have, but that is no reason for us not to give this the 
     fullest possible airing, So I do agree that we should be 
     thoroughly examining this matter.
       Where we may disagree is the context in which this happens. 
     That is, I agree with you that we should have a ``full and 
     public vetting of this'' matter, but I do not think it is 
     necessary that we have the hearing ``on the

[[Page 8010]]

     soonest possible date.'' I say this for two reasons.
       First, the Committee, as you know, is now engaged in 
     serious consideration of the appropriate response to the 
     foreclosure crisis that now confronts us. I realize that 
     there are some who believe that we should take no action at 
     all, but I think the recent movement by the Bush 
     administration to expand the reach of the FHA, even though I 
     do not agree with it in all respects--is recognition of the 
     need for some action. I therefore believe that it is 
     important that the Committee continue its efforts on dealing 
     with the current crisis, in cooperation with our Senate 
     colleagues who as you know in a bipartisan way have also 
     moved forward on legislation, although I do not agree myself 
     with all aspects of it. My intention is to ask that the 
     Committee continue to focus on this for the next several 
     weeks.
       Secondly, I do believe it is important for the Committee to 
     begin an investigation, including hearings, into the Bear 
     Stearns issue, but not in isolation. It is important that we 
     look at what happened with regard to Bear Stearns, not 
     primarily as a matter of hindsight because in fact we cannot 
     undo what was done, but rather from the standpoint of 
     anticipating what the public response should be in similar 
     matters going forward. This includes of course discussing 
     whether or not these specific actions taken in the Bear 
     Stearns case were the best ones from the public standpoint, 
     but also beginning the very important issue of what we might 
     do in Congress to make it less likely that a situation of 
     this sort will recur. You correctly note in your letter that 
     what the Bush Administration did in this case did establish 
     ``a precedent that could lead to future instances of 
     companies. . . expecting the same assistance.'' I think it is 
     important that we therefore empower some federal entities to 
     take actions that may make this less likely, and would also 
     allow them to accompany any such intervention if it should 
     later be decided to be necessary with appropriate remedial 
     matters.
       In summary, I agree that the Committee should be looking 
     into this, not from the standpoint of rebuking Chairman 
     Bernanke or Secretary Paulson, but rather as part of a 
     serious consideration of the causes of the current crisis and 
     more importantly, what we can do to make a recurrence of the 
     events that led up to the Bear Stearns response much less 
     likely in the future.
                                                     Barney Frank.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his helpful 
contribution.
  We have heard countless members of the Appropriations Committee come 
to this floor and demonstrate their outrage. And why? Well, for the 
first time in the history of this institution, 219 years old, for the 
first time in the history of the institution, we are bringing up 
tomorrow, in the Rules Committee I suspect today, I don't know if we 
have a meeting scheduled or not, we are bringing up a wartime 
supplemental under a process which doesn't ask, as my friend from Tampa 
said, for hundreds and hundreds of amendments. We are simply asking for 
one simple bite at the apple, Mr. Speaker, a motion to recommit which 
was promised at the beginning of this Congress which was designed to be 
a great, new, open Congress with an opportunity for regular order to 
proliferate and succeed. And, unfortunately, what we are doing with 
this process is completely obliterating the right, as my friend from 
Houston said, of millions and millions of Americans to be heard.
  We have seen the committee process completely abrogated as we look at 
this wartime supplemental, and now here we are saying that there won't 
even be an opportunity to consider, that sacrosanct one opportunity for 
Members of the minority to be heard. It is an absolute outrage that 
this would proceed, and that is why so many of our Members have 
demonstrated their concern.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I again inquire of my 
colleague from Florida if there are any more speakers on her side.
  Ms. CASTOR. I am the last speaker on my side, so I will reserve the 
balance of my time to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago Speaker  Nancy Pelosi promised Americans a 
Democrat plan to lower gas prices at the pump. Democrats have 
controlled Congress for 16 months but we have still not seen the plan. 
Meanwhile, the cost of gas has gone so high it is setting record after 
record.
  Since Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007, the cost 
of gasoline has gone up by more than 50 percent. In fact, the cost of 
gasoline has gone up more in 16 months than it had gone up in the prior 
6 years.
  Despite Speaker Pelosi's promise of a ``commonsense plan'' to ``lower 
the price at the pump,'' this Democrat Congress has put forward no 
plan, taken no action, and passed no bills to lower gas prices.
  It is time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices and it 
is time for Democrats to reveal their promised plan.
  By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to 
allow any amendment to be made in order on the underlying bill that 
``would have the effect of lowering the national average price of 
gasoline.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted in 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, on April 21, 
CNNMoneyline.com had a poll, and the things that Americans were most 
concerned about from a financial standpoint were: the cost of gasoline, 
65 percent; the cost of food, 16 percent; the cost of health care, 13 
percent; and the cost of housing, 6 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, that makes the case in my view for defeating the 
previous question so we can respond to the 65 percent of Americans who 
are concerned about the rising price of gasoline. This will give the 
House of Representatives an opportunity to debate ideas to reduce the 
cost of gasoline. So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question so we can consider this vitally important question for 
American families, for workers, truckers, small businesses, and for the 
entire economy.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008 and this rule today so that we 
can provide our communities with the tools they need to protect our 
neighborhoods during these economically turbulent times.
  And I urge my Republican colleagues not to turn a blind eye to the 
hardworking families across America that are being squeezed, and your 
delaying tactics and your procedural maneuvers that are simply delaying 
our efforts to address the housing crisis for America's hardworking 
families.
  I salute the leadership of Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Waters 
during this housing crisis and our swift action through this 
comprehensive housing package that has been encouraged by Federal 
Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and under Democratic leadership. This 
demonstrates that we are committed to ensuring that families across 
America can obtain and keep the American dream of homeownership in a 
safe and secure neighborhood.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule 
and the underlying bill to H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization 
Act of 2008.
  This legislation will provide $15 billion in HUD-administered loans 
and grants for the purchase and rehabilitation of owner-vacated, 
foreclosed homes.
  This bill is a win-win for our communities. Not only will it help 
provide a bottom for local housing markets: by removing foreclosed 
properties that continue to drag down the housing values of whole 
neighborhoods, this program will allow for the creation of much needed 
affordable housing.
  Our communities are looking to us to help provide a solution to the 
subprime mortgage meltdown. They need relief now.
  I support the rule. This bill is the best vehicle for direct relief. 
I urge its adoption.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 
1174, the Rule Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5818, the 
``Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008'', introduced by Congresswoman 
Maxine Waters, of California. I would also like to thank Chairman 
Barney Frank for his leadership on the Financial Services Committee.
  As evidenced by the numerous housing and financial services bills 
introduced this Congress, we are in economic turmoil. I have been 
concerned over recent developments in

[[Page 8011]]

the housing and mortgage markets and worked with my colleagues to 
ensure that not only are my constituents' needs addressed but that all 
Americans are able to get relief.
  Bills such as H.R. 3019, the Expand and Preserve Home Ownership 
Through Counseling Act by Congresswoman Judy Biggert, and H.R. 3666, 
the Foreclosure Prevention and Home Ownership Protection Act by 
Congresswoman Betty Sutton, include sections that speak specifically 
about foreclosures. These bills would authorize studies on current 
defaults and foreclosures, as well as possible causes.
  I am pleased to support this much needed legislation from fellow 
Congressional Black Caucus member, Congresswoman Maxine Waters. H.R. 
5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008, establishes a loan 
and grant program, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, to help States purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed homes 
to stabilize as many properties as possible.


                     amendment language and purpose

  I had offered an amendment to H.R. 5818 that would provide for those 
who have been struggling to keep up with the rising price of gas, the 
downturn of the housing market, and the incredible cost of healthcare. 
My amendment would not exclude from eligibility, individuals and 
families based solely on credit ratings or their credit histories.
  Many individuals and families have credit ratings and histories that 
are less than required for the most-advantageous lending terms. These 
individuals should not be faulted for their struggle to make ends meet 
in these troubling economic times.
  They have less than stellar credit due to the financial stress they 
have experienced trying to save their home from foreclosure. As a 
result, they have marred their credit. Families who have struggled to 
decide between paying their mortgage or paying for healthcare, families 
who have struggled to balance their need for shelter with their need 
for food are rarely able to maintain a credit score that qualifies them 
for a basic credit card, let alone a home or rental property.
  At least 50 percent of the grant money must be targeted to house 
families at or below 50 percent of AMI, and not less than half of this 
money must target families at or below 30 percent of AMI. Most of the 
people covered under this bill and at these income levels will not 
qualify if it is not clearly stated that they can be considered even 
with less than stellar credit.
  This bill already gives preference to homeless persons, but I ask 
you, how many homeless people will qualify under this program if we do 
not make it clear that States can and should consider them even with 
credit histories that are not perfect. My amendment may appear to state 
the obvious in the preferences sections, but it adds clarity to the Act 
and I believe is necessary to ensure that ALL Americans are truly aided 
by this bill.


                            BILL BACKGROUND

  The bill would establish a $15 billion, HUD-administered loan and 
grant program for the purchase and rehabilitation of owner-vacated, 
foreclosed homes with the goal of stabilizing and occupying them as 
soon as possible. $7.5 billion of the funds would be for loans, and the 
other $7.5 billion would be for grants.
  Each State's loan and grant authority would be based on the State's 
percentage of nationwide foreclosures over the last four calendar 
quarters, adjusted to account for the State's relative median home 
price. States could allocate funds to government entities (e.g., 
housing authorities) and nonprofits for the purchase, rehabilitation, 
and resale of homeownership housing and the purchase, rehabilitation, 
and operation of rental housing. A State would be required to direct 
funds to a city within its bounds if that city is one of the 25 most 
populous in the Nation according to a formula based on the city's share 
of total State foreclosures and relative home prices.
  Loans would be non-recourse, zero-interest loans to finance 
acquisition and rehabilitation costs. The federal government would be 
paid back from resale or, in the case of rental properties, refinance 
proceeds. Grant funds could be used toward property taxes and insurance 
during the pre-occupancy phase; operating costs such as property 
management fees, property taxes, and insurance during the period a 
property is rented; property acquisition costs; and State and grantee 
administrative costs. Grants could also cover closing costs.
  Homes purchased for resale must be sold to families having incomes 
that do not exceed 140 percent of area median income (AMI). Properties 
purchased for rental must serve families having incomes at or below 
AMI.
  However, States would be required to give preference to activities 
serving the lowest income families for the longest period and 
homeowners whose mortgages have been foreclosed.
  Thank you, Congressman Frank and Congresswoman Waters, for this 
timely housing legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 
1174 providing for consideration of H.R. 5818.

                              {time}  1345

  Ms. CASTOR. 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. 1174

                 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution or the operation of the previous question, it 
     shall be in order to consider any amendment to the substitute 
     which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the 
     effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of 
     regular unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes 
     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 of rule XXI.
       Sec. 5. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall 
     introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill 
     to provide a common sense plan to help bring down 
     skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the 
     appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause I 
     of rule X.
                                  ____

       (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 form 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.''
       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.


[[Page 8012]]

  Ms. CASTOR. 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, 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.

                          ____________________