Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3221) moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1175, I call up the bill (H.R. 3221) moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, with the Senate amendments thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I will claim the remaining time on behalf of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is a composite package. The President some time ago, a couple of weeks ago, urgently asked the Congress to send him several pieces of legislation, three in particular. One is embodied in the part of the bill that came out of the Ways and Means Committee.

Two, in fact, had previously passed the House from our committee, the bill reforming the government sponsored enterprises--and that came out of our committee and on the floor in a form that the administration mostly liked--and the bill to modernize the FHA.

In fact, the Senate then acted on the bill to modernize the FHA. We went into conference, we ran into some difficulty. Not a formal conference, but a conversation. What we have done because, as we know, the Senate is in a situation where procedurally it's often harder for them to act, so we are acting on the basis of a Senate bill.

We are readopting today two of the pieces we already adopted, reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the FHA modernization. I think it ought to be noted that in both cases they are a recognition by the President that the private sector needs to be able to cooperate with public or quasi-public entities to get the job done. Those who take the philosophy that the market alone is sufficient unto itself, and that public sector intervention will do more harm than good clearly have been repudiated.

The FHA is a government agency. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government creations with both public and private aspects. It is clear that we need both of them if we are to get out of this current crisis in mortgage lending and be able to go forward in a healthy way.

There is one new element today. That is a bill that our committee voted on last week and the week before. We had a markup. It was suggested to us in many ways by some of the regulators. In its essential form it was endorsed last Monday by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and we worked closely with his staff. The administration had an objection to one major piece of an auction mechanism. That's the longer part of the bill. What it says is that holders of loans, not the lenders, because the lenders have unfortunately long since been able to sell off their loans in many cases--and that's part of the problem--if the holders of loans will write down the amount due them in the principal, and if they get to a point below the current value of the home, in many cases these homes have lost value from when they were first mortgaged, and the borrower can be reasonably expected to repay it, we will broaden the right of the FHA to make a case-by-case determination, provide a guarantee so that can then be financed and resold to the secondary market.

It's entirely voluntary on the part of the lender. The lender will retain the right to foreclose. In many cases we believe that it will pay the lender not to foreclose.

In fact, we have legislation in this package sponsored by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) that will ensure servicers who are willing to write down the amounts, that they will not be sued if they write down those amounts to a reasonable level. We think that is very helpful. Again, it's voluntary.

We do believe that knowing if you write this down to a reasonable level, accepting your loss, you will be able then to at least get some guarantee of that to help stabilize the situation. But people should understand, there is not $1 of taxpayer money going to writing down that loan. The holders of the loans have to write it down.

Secondly, the borrower can then go to the FHA if the borrower can pay the new loan, but there is no taxpayer money that will go to help pay off that loan. The taxpayer exposure comes in the fact that there are FHA guarantees. If someone gets an FHA guarantee and subsequently fails to make the payments, his or her house is forfeited to the FHA.

We will lose some money on this, we believe. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that half a million foreclosures will be averted by this program, that would otherwise have taken place, at a cost to the taxpayers of $2.4 billion. That means $4,800 for every foreclosure averted.

We are told, well, this is a bailout, and I want to follow on what my colleague from Massachusetts said. We have seen one bailout this year over investors and speculators. It came when the Federal Reserve, actively urged on by the Treasury, bailed out for $30 billion potentially--we don't know what the losses will be--but $30 billion is at risk of what will ultimately be public money, to lenders, to speculators and investors, people who were partners at Bear Stearns.

Now there may have been some confusion yesterday. I tried to avoid it. I am not critical that we are doing that. I am critical of the lack of sensible regulation that led them to be in that position. I think we do have to examine it, and I want to examine it from the standpoint of what we can do that will make it less likely that we will be confronted with that kind of choice, either provide those funds or see serious further economic debilitation.

But for the administration that engineered $30 billion of bailout for the investors and others who did business with Bear Stearns to say that this $2.4 billion cost according to CBO that will avert 500,000 foreclosures is unacceptable as a bailout is as intellectually and morally and economically inconsistent a policy as we have ever seen. It is true, and some of the Republicans have said in a letter to me in the House, that they wanted to question this.

I would note, by the way, we talked about this, I have looked at the letter that was sent to me. I looked again at the letter, and in no case does it say they were opposed to it. People raised questions. Maybe that's an easy way to kind of cover your bases, but my point is not so much those who wrote the letter, it's the administration.

The administration says they're going to veto this bill, that it's a bailout. It is $2.4 billion versus $30 billion at Bear Stearns.

Now, I believe that Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke have been doing the best they can in this situation. I am not critical of what they have done. Chairman Bernanke has been consistent and thinks this is also a reasonable thing to do.

The President, of course, appointed Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, and for the administration that supported and facilitated the $30 billion for Bear Stearns which went to lenders, went to investors and some of them were speculators--to then object when it's homeowners seems to me to be entirely the reverse of the reality of the situation.

Again, I want to stress, I was asked by 17 Republicans if the committee would have a hearing. My answer was yes, the committee will have a hearing after we have dealt with the current subprime crisis-- and that will be soon, that was our priority--and a hearing not simply to say what did you do, because we cannot compel them to undo it--to look at what they did in the Bear Stearns thing in the context of figuring out how we are best able to diminish the likelihood that it will recur.

But we are in a recession, and a major cause of that recession is the subprime crisis. We do not see any alternatives to this bill to trying to work on that.

Yes, we had Hope Now, and then we had FHA Secure. The administration had several policies. They have been closer, in many ways, to us. The differences are not as great as they once were.

But the fundamental here is this, foreclosures are causing, have caused and are causing serious economic problems. Diminishing the number of foreclosures is in the interest--not simply of those who will avert foreclosure--but of people in the neighborhood of the cities in which they are located and the whole economy. That's why we are going forward with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida for 3 minutes, I would like to note the use of the figure $300 billion is not a hopeful sign about a rational debate. Three hundred billion is the total value of the mortgages that could be insured. It would cost $300 billion only if nobody made any payments ever, and when the property was taken by the Federal Government, none of it had any value. CBO gave us a score of $2.4 billion. So we can debate this, but I would hope we can debate it with real numbers. The CBO score for the mortgage part is $2.4 billion. Everybody knows that $300 billion is not remotely what is at risk.

I yield now 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

I yield myself first 45 seconds to say that on the scoring, $2.4 billion was the CBO score for the mortgage part. They did say a total of $2.7 billion. The other $300 million is attributable to an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois on mortgage. So the gentlewoman from Illinois is correct. It is $2.7 billion. That includes the $300 million she added to the bill with her amendment, and the $2.4 million in mortgages.

Yes, the gentlewoman is correct.

Now I would yield to the gentleman from Ohio for a unanimous consent request.

Request for Permission to Modify Amendment No. 3

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the parliamentary status is. Has the gentleman objected or not?

Mr. Speaker, I regret that, but sometimes people would rather see things not improved so they can then complain that they weren't improved. Fortunately in this case, we are not constrained.

The gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Ohio said it had not come to our attention fully until after the committee markup. What happened was that they came forward with this amendment, and we heard some concerns from the Comptroller of the Currency, as the gentleman from Ohio has said, and from bankers.

We then talked to the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), talked to the American Bankers Association, the Community Bankers Association, the Mortgage Bankers, the OCC, various of the advocacy groups, the State Attorneys General, the National Council of State Legislators, and they came to an agreement that adding these words would make this something that would work.

Now, the obvious thing in a constructive way would have been with the agreement of all of the stakeholders and the conversations among Members on both sides to be incorporated into the bill. But constructive isn't always the order of the day.

So let me make this announcement which I have also, in anticipation that there might be such an objection, although I had spoken to the ranking member and he told me he thought we should go forward. It was my understanding the gentleman from Ohio had talked to the leadership on the Republican side. They thought it should go forward. So here is where we are. We will vote on the Miller-LaTourette amendment. I will guarantee to the Members that when this goes forward in any discussions we have with the Senate, we will accept this language, the Miller- LaTourette language, or if someone comes up with a better idea, any other language that would be mutually agreed upon by the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from North Carolina, the two bipartisan sponsors.

So while we don't get the unanimous consent agreement, because some people would rather there not be a resolution over an objection, let me announce what may be a first, and I'm not always the most technologically updated person; I don't have a lot of the devices, but I do want to maybe be the pioneer of the virtual unanimous consent agreement. In good faith the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Ohio want to amend this, they were denied unanimous consent, but I am prepared to act as if the body, and I have no question that it would have been adopted had we had a chance to vote on it, that it be incorporated. And as we go forward, we can guarantee Members that this language, if this bill is included, this will be included; and I can report that all of the stakeholders, the community advocacy groups, the banks, and the public officials at the State and local level believe that with the language that was worked out by the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from North Carolina with the Comptroller of the Currency, it will be fine.

So I wish we had got unanimous consent, but I want to assure Members that in this process going forward, our failure to get real unanimous consent, as opposed to virtual unanimous consent, will make no difference whatsoever.

On this point, let me yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina to complete this conversation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kagen of Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, first I wondered how I'd fill 2 hours, but I could do that just responding to the inaccuracies we've just heard. Let me pick a couple.

The gentleman from New Jersey said that the administration wanted FHA reform and GSE reform and this Congress wouldn't get it. Well, he misread the newspaper. Bryan Montgomery, the head of the FHA, was quoted yesterday as saying, if Congress had done what I wanted in 2006, this wouldn't have happened. It was the Republicans who were in power in 2006. It was under the Republicans that GSE reform and FHA reform were frustrated.

When we took power as the Democratic majority, last year this Financial Services Committee and this House passed both of those in forms very close to what the administration wanted. In fact, the holdup on the GSE, and I know the gentleman thinks the notion of building affordable rental housing with public help is, as he calls it, a slush fund, and I think it's that lack of sympathy for affordable housing that was one of the contributing factors to getting people into homes they couldn't have owned.

But the fact is that we sent the GSE bill over to the Senate last year with a very large majority in favor, and the Senate hasn't acted, partly because the ranking Republican on the Senate committee hasn't wanted to act. I know the administration has been trying to persuade him to act.

So the notion that the affordable housing trust fund, that's slush fund for the gentleman from New Jersey, housing for lower income people, for elderly people, for disabled people, that's slush fund, well, it was not that that held it up. It was the refusal apparently of the ranking member to act on it.

So this is an example of the inaccurate descriptions you're getting.

I yield.

No, but the gentleman very inaccurately blamed the Democrats. He forgot, Bryan Montgomery said in 2006, the Republicans did it.

I think one ought to be more accurate and less partisan in a description of reality. The fact is that those were defeated under the Republicans when he was on the committee. Then, the Democrats did pass them.

And as to the GSE bill, he said it was the slush fund. I really like that phrase, ``slush fund.'' That's affordable housing for people, for lower income people. He said that's what's holding up the GSE bill. That is not remotely true. The GSE bill was sent by us to the Senate. They haven't taken it up. By the way, the affordable housing trust fund was in the Senate committee version when the Republicans were in power under the current ranking member when he was chairman. So that is just inaccurate.

It is true they have been held up in the Senate as they were held up under the Republican leadership as well. We are closer to passing them. I am confident that they are going to get passed fairly soon. We did finally get to some conversation on the FHA.

My objection was that the gentleman acted as if the world was created in January of 2007 and the Democrats refused to pass the bill, neglecting to note that the head of the FHA himself put the blame much earlier when the Republicans were in power.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

I yield 3 minutes to a very hardworking member of the committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), member of our full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very hardworking member of the committee who contributed to this bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from Texas.

He says, why isn't the $2.7 written into the bill? It is, in effect, because it is subject to appropriation, and no money will be spent until that is provided. The $300 billion is the number of mortgages that could be insured, up to that. We needed to put that number there before CBO could tell us how much it would cost. And written into this bill before it becomes law and becomes operational will be that $2.7 billion figure. That is the way the process works. You get a CBO score, and then you pay for it.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois, a very diligent member of our committee.

If the gentlewoman will yield, I know sometimes conspiracy theories rattle around this place. The reason we put in the legislation to protect disabled veterans who had bankruptcy from being excluded from this program is to protect veterans, disabled veterans who have been in bankruptcy from being in this program. There were people who suggested that the sensitivity people would have in bankruptcy could be a problem. Now I will point out, by the way, that thanks to some very good amendments by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) who has dealt with this problem in a more general way, and he is a bankruptcy expert--from the law side not the subject side. But we thought with disabled veterans, we know this engenders prejudice when people see in some cases people are disabled. So it was there for that reason, to protect people, to make sure that we, the Federal Government, would not, in any way, be discriminating against them and maybe therefore set a good example for everybody else.

If the gentlewoman will yield, absolutely I can guaranty that. I should be clear. I am cosponsor of the bill that would have provided a bankruptcy avenue for primary residences. That is a separate issue as far as I am concerned. No, this particular provision will not be a vehicle for that.

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

I guarantee this provision will only be what it is. If anybody wants to move elsewhere, I might support that. But entirely separate from this, this will not be a vehicle.

In fact, I think it would be dishonorable for anyone. We have had too many examples of people trying to use veterans, and particularly disabled veterans, as a political stick to achieve other objectives. I would find that to be an absolutely outrageous procedure, and I can guarantee you it will not happen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady from Illinois an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), a very active member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who helped put this bill together, the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Democratic omnibus housing bill, and also I rise in strong opposition to the procedure under which it comes to the floor today under a contorted rule, which is designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that's allow no Republican amendments, allow no input, allow no open debate of different provisions with any ability to modify those provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record page 24 of a promise that the Democratic majority made to the American

people. It's a statement of the Speaker of the House in their document ``A New Direction for America.''

Regular Order for Legislation

Bills should be developed following full hearings and open

subcommittee and committee markups, with appropriate

referrals to other committees. Members should have at least

24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the

subcommittee level.

Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure

that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full

amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer

its alternatives, including a substitute.

Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and

conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules

governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a

bill to be considered the following day.

Floor votes should be completed within 15 minutes, with the

customary 2-minute extension to accommodate Members' ability

to reach the House Chamber to cast their votes. No vote shall

be held open in order to manipulate the outcome.

House-Senate conference committees should hold regular

meetings (at least weekly) of all conference committee

Members. All duly-appointed conferees should be informed of

the schedule of conference committee activities in a timely

manner and given ample opportunity for input and debate as

decisions are made toward final bill language.

The Suspension Calendar should be restricted to non-

controversial legislation, with minority-authored legislation

scheduled in relation to the party ratio in the House.

In this document, the Democratic majority promised to the American people in what was called a Congress working for all America, they made this promise: ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority a right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

Well, that's not what we have here today. Instead, we have what we are calling the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008, but, in fact, it started out as a bill here in the House and passed the House as a bill to move the United States towards greater energy independence and security. Absolutely none of that bill remains, it's a total sham.

Through some, I suppose, back room, front room, side room, smoke- filled room, who knows, but the Democratic leadership, we, the American people really don't know--but at some point they decided to take every bit of that bill out. The only thing that remains of that bill, actually, is the resolution that brings this bill to the floor.

It refers to this bill and the resolution that brings it to the floor. The resolution says, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3221) moving the United States towards greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, increasing clean, renewable energy production. That's all gone. But that's still in the Record. That's still the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the procedure outlined here indeed stifles the democratic process. It corrupts the democratic process. Despite ``A New Direction for America,'' despite a specific promise not to do this, we have a process that not only allows no Republican amendments, no substitutes, it does not allow even a vote on final passage of this entire bill. There will be no vote on final passage. There will be a vote on each of the three amendments that go to make up this package, but as the resolution clearly says, it is sort of self-executing, a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the title, the so-called renewable energy bill, shall be considered as adopted. There won't even be a vote on that. Now that is pretty innovative. That is pretty unusual.

But above all, as strange and as contorted and convoluted as this is, it is a corruption of the democratic process. It is a corruption of our democratic system, and it is a sad day for this House.

It is not the Members of this House who are being denied the full amendment process, it is Americans, those Americans we on this side of the aisle represent. They, as are we, are being shut out of the process.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we had been allowed, and we were not allowed to offer a substitute, if we had been allowed to offer an amendment, one of our first substitutes would have contained some of the things that the Democratic alternative has. It is a Democrat alternative, but there is no alternative, nor was one allowed, so I am not sure that we ought to use the word ``alternative.'' Alternative without an alternative is maybe what we should call it.

But it has FHA reform in it. When we said we would have liked to have offered a stand-alone amendment or offered legislation to do that, the chairman says that has already passed the House. Certainly it has; so did the renewable energy bill. But it didn't pass the Senate. We would like, because there is agreement in this House, and we could have agreed today and almost unanimously passed a FHA reform bill which all Members of this body say will go a long ways toward solving the problems of Americans stressed by lowering housing prices and their mortgage obligations. We could have done that. But in the Senate there has been no movement. We won't do that today because if we start taking those concrete steps, it will diminish the majority's opportunity to take what is a bad situation and adopt and create a tremendously expensive new omnibus housing bill.

GSE reform, we would have liked to have seen that joined with FHA. It is in this bill, and it is offered kind of as a candy or a carrot: take the GSE reform which you want, take the FHA reform which you want and we have all passed, and in doing that, you will have to take a new $300 billion housing program. At a time when we are running a deficit, that makes no sense to most Americans, most of us on this side of the aisle. Most of all what I do oppose is our inability to strike from the overall package this new $300 billion government subsidy that I believe is fundamentally unfair and likely to do more harm than good.

Mr. Speaker, let me explain, and in doing so I do not want to minimize the seriousness of the distress many of our citizens are experiencing. When we talk about distress, we sometimes focus on those who are behind on their mortgage payments. But, Mr. Speaker, let me assure you there are millions of other Americans who are making their mortgage payments; but, nonetheless, they are under an equal stress or a great stress themselves.

Last night the gentleman from Vermont said what we want to do with this bill is we want to spread the pain from those million or 2 million Americans who are behind on their mortgage, we want to spread that pain to all Americans. We want to spread that pain to those 34 million Americans who are renting their homes. We want them to take part of that yoke upon them. We want those who are making their mortgage payments on time, we want them to adopt some of this liability and assume some of this liability. We want those 25 million American families who have paid off their mortgages, many of them elderly citizens, we want them to assume some of this pain. We want them as taxpayers to assume some of these liabilities.

In other words, 110 million American families who are making their mortgage payments on time, who are renting or who have paid off their mortgages, they are being drug into this process and are being made liable and are on the hook now for these bad loans. They have been reading about it, and now they are going to be responsible for them. Now they are going to have to start paying. And the vast majority of Americans who find themselves struggling with mortgage payments, struggling with high gas prices, struggling with high food prices, are now going to assume responsibility for ill-advised financial decisions and misjudgments of other people. Good and decent people who have absolutely done nothing wrong, don't have a bad mortgage, don't have a problem with their mortgage, are going to be trapped in this dragnet.

Now is it necessary to involve the 110 million American families that aren't behind on their mortgages? I say, no. No. In fact, the Federal Government has already extended almost a trillion dollars in guarantees of liquidity. They have brought onto their books, the Federal Reserve, almost a half a trillion dollars worth of these questionable loans and questionable securities backing these loans. And the American people could be on a hook for that.

That is why my companion on the Financial Services Committee and 17 of

us on the Republican side wrote the chairman and said we need to take a close look. We need to urgently look at the Federal Government extending its guarantees and assuming securities and investments that maybe have no market value, just to pump liquidity into the market.

Now what we have agreed to in the past and we continue to agree with and we would have liked to have said let's go further with this, is the Hope Now program. The 1.4 million Americans, those who come closest to making their mortgage payments, they are behind or in default but they were close, and they had an ability to, with adjustments to their mortgage agreements, could make those payments, 1.4 million American families have been helped by Hope Now. And we think that more will be helped.

The FHA Secure program, almost 180,000 families have been helped by that program, at some Federal expense.

Before we create a massive new government program and put billions of additional taxpayer dollars at risk, we need to think long and hard about asking other Americans to assume this burden.

Lenders and securitizers wanted no part of government regulation or interference when house prices were soaring, and they made extraordinary profits. Speculators made millions of dollars. Lenders made millions of dollars. Investors on Wall Street bought high-risk SIVs, securitized investment vehicles, and they made millions of dollars. Sometimes we read where the heads of those hedge funds, private equity funds, and investment banks were paid a billion dollars in profits. They all made a lot of money. But now that the loans that they eagerly made are going bad, this bill offers a mechanism to off- load their problem loans onto the American taxpayers. That is unfair. It is wrong.

Because participation in the plan is voluntary, no investor will part with a mortgage if they think it has a reasonable chance of performing. The incentives are designed to ensure that the taxpayer loses. Investors will place the worst mortgages they have into the program. In fact, that is exactly what they are going to do. They are going to off- load the worst of their loans. If there is any chance of people paying, they won't put these loans into this pool. They will take those loans where people are way behind or have no ability to pay and they will put them into a program that will be financed by FHA-guaranteed loans. We all know when those loans go bad, who pays. It is not the lenders, it is not the borrowers, it is not the investors, it is not the speculators, it is the people we all represent.

Given the substantial risk these loans present, no lender would refinance them without the FHA guarantee. That is what was said on the floor. They are not going to refinance these with a Federal Government guarantee. There is a reason for that. They anticipate a default.

The result is the taxpayers of this country, 110 million American families that acted responsibly during the run-up in housing prices will be left to bear the cost of cleaning up after irresponsible lenders, investors and speculators. That's just not fair.

For all of those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this housing package and I express my disappointment that the Republican Party, the minority, that many representatives here were shut out of the process, denied any opportunity to address the bill's many deficiencies through the amendment process or through the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I rise to urge my colleagues to vote against the tax amendment to this bill. Let me be clear, however, in stating that my opposition to this section is not the result of a disagreement with my friend, Mr. Neal, or with the chairman of the committee, Mr. Rangel. We were able to work together so that the housing bill reported by the Ways and Means Committee enjoyed bipartisan support.

And while that package contains many provisions that do make sense, I think the House should have had the opportunity to consider at least one alternative. Unfortunately, the procedural straitjacket imposed by the majority for consideration of the housing bill today is something that I simply cannot ignore. For that reason, I will be voting against this amendment.

We all understand the severity of the housing crisis. Housing starts declined to 680,000 in March of 2008, the lowest level since January of 1991. Since hitting a peak in early 2006, housing starts have dropped by 62 percent. There is currently a 9\1/2\ month supply of unsold homes, more than double the 10-year average. With those facts in mind, it is not surprising that home prices are falling, and the contraction in the residential real estate market is an anchor around our economy.

The Tax Code didn't get us into this mess, and there is only so much the Tax Code can do to get us out. The package approved by the Committee on Ways and Means contains many well-designed improvements, including improvements to make the low-income housing tax credit more efficient. I also think allowing those credits to be claimed against both the regular tax and the AMT is a step in the right direction.

The language expanding the Mortgage Revenue Bond program and allowing proceeds of the bonds to be used to refinance existing home mortgages, as suggested by the President, is certainly worth doing. And although I have some reservations about the design of the first-time homebuyer's tax credit, the recapture provision, if we include it, makes it more like a no-interest loan and not really a tax credit.

Still, I share the hope of the sponsors that this provision will help induce some home purchases this year and stabilize the market. We desire that because we recognize that potential homebuyers right now are reading the headlines every day, they're waiting on the sidelines to get to the bottom of the market. Well, as prices keep falling, more people who might think about buying a home decide to keep waiting, and so that creates a self-perpetuating cycle of declining home prices. Maybe, just maybe, this tax credit could induce some of those waiting on the sidelines to go ahead, jump in and buy a home. That's our desire. I think it could have been better, as I say, designed as a pure tax credit with no recapture provision, but still, I think it's better than nothing.

I understand the concern raised by some that an artificial temporary floor, so to speak, will not restore long-term stability to the housing market and could even result in further price declines when the temporary benefit lapses. But on balance, I think this provision holds some hope of helping us to reverse this slide in housing prices, or at least stop it for a while and give it a chance to recover.

At the same time, there are elements of this package that, frankly, I would prefer not be in here. Given the nature of the housing crisis, I think the House should follow the Senate's lead and waive PAYGO, for example. I think this is an emergency. We shouldn't be responding to this emergency situation with tax increases.

And there are specific items in here that if it were up to me might not have made the cut. But democracy is about compromise, and the bill produced by the Ways and Means Committee was something that I supported and would like to vote for again here on the House floor today. But the decision made by the majority leadership to debate this legislation as an amendment to a Senate-passed bill deprives the House of the chance to consider ways to improve it, even to the extent of denying the minority a motion to recommit.

Now, I recognize that tax bills traditionally come to the floor under restrictive rules, and I support that. But as I documented in a letter last year to the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, in years when Republicans were in the majority, on one tax bill after another the Republican majority offered the Democratic minority not only a motion to recommit, but a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to insert the text of that letter to the chairwoman of the Rules Committee into the Congressional Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, August 1, 2007.

Chairwoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, The Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Ranking Member David Dreier,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Longworth

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter and Ranking Member Dreier: This

week the House is expected to consider H.R. 2776, the

``Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act of 2007.''

This will be the first tax bill, reported by the Ways and

Means Committee, to be considered under a rule in the 110th

Congress. As you are aware, the House has a long history of

supporting rules for tax bills which make in order an

amendment in the nature of a substitute. Numerous examples,

dating back to the 104th Congress, include:

1. Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005;

2. Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005;

3. Charitable Giving Act of 2003;

4. Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003;

5. Social Security Protection Act of 2003;

6. Pension Security Act of 2003;

7. Tax Administration Good Government Act;

8. A bill to extend permanently the marriage penalty relief

provided under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief

Reconciliation Act of 2001;

9. Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004:

10. A bill to permanently extend the ten percent individual

income tax bracket;

11. Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004;

12. Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001;

13. Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act of 2001;

14. Care Act of 2002;

15. Death Tax Elimination Act of 2001;

16. Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of

2001;

17. Permanent Death Tax Repeal Act of 2002;

18. Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002;

19. Pension Security Act of 2002;

20. The WORK Act of 2002;

21. Retirement Savings Security Act of 2002;

22. Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000;

23. Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000;

24. Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000;

25. Foster Care Independence Act of 1999;

26. Financial Freedom Act of 1999;

27. Fathers Count Act of 1999;

28. Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000;

29. Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act of 2000;

30. Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 1998;

31. Taxpayer Relief Act of 1998;

32. Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995;

33. A bill to permanently extend the deduction for the

health insurance costs of self-employed individuals, and for

other purposes;

34. Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995; and,

35. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of

1996.

While the usual practice has been to provide for the

consideration of an amendment in the nature of a substitute,

I recognize that there have been instances where such

consideration was not allowed under the rule. In many of

these cases, the amendment was either non-germane to the

underlying bill, was not an actual substitute amendment, or

was not compliant with the Budget Act.

I have submitted an amendment in the nature of a substitute

to H. R. 2776. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation,

the amendment complies with Clause 10 of House Rule 21,

otherwise known as the ``paygo rule.'' In addition, through

consultations with the Office of the Parliamentarian, I am

assured that the amendment is germane to H.R. 2776. To my

knowledge, it would violate no rules of the House.

I hope that the Committee will make in order my amendment

as part of the consideration of H.R. 2776. Please do not

hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

With kindest regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

Jim McCrery,

Ranking Member.

At the same time, I recognize that it is not uncommon to resolve differences between the House and the Senate by sending amendments back and forth across the Capitol. That's what's being done today. But what makes today's procedure so unusual, and to some of us so frustrating, is that this House never had a chance to work its will on housing legislation. This is not a housing bill that went to the Senate, was amended, and then sent back to us. This was an energy bill for heaven's sake. It was gutted in the Senate, replaced with housing provisions, sent back to us, and that is what has created this unusual opportunity for the

majority to deny the minority even a motion to recommit, and it's wrong.

So Mr. Speaker, I think that action reflects poorly on this House. It's a trampling of the rights of all of our Members, not just the minority. And I, therefore, plan to vote against all of these amendments and urge my colleagues to do the same until we can get a fair hearing, a fair rule governing the debate of these very important matters.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent at this time to allow the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, to control the remainder of time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1175 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1175.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1175 provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008.

The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, to concur in the Senate amendments with three House amendments. The rule provides 3 hours of debate on the motion, with 2 hours controlled by the Committee on Financial Services and 1 hour controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule also provides for a division of the question on the adoption of the three House amendments listed in the Rules Committee report.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all know why this rule and the underlying bill are so important. Millions of Americans are confronting the growing prospect of losing their home. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have already lost their home in a foreclosure epidemic that is the legacy of the subprime mortgage crisis.

According to recent reports, the most severe real estate recession in decades is going to continue to weigh down the economy, the pace of foreclosures is going to continue to rise, and homes continue to lose their value at increasing rates. This foreclosure epidemic has spread to virtually every major city in the United States.

What the Committee on Financial Services has done here is brought us a bill that addresses this problem directly. It's not a bill that intends to lay blame. There is plenty of that to go around. It's a bill that's intended to solve a problem.

Here are some of the sobering facts about the problem:

The number of homes entering foreclosure in the first 3 months this year was double the same period as last year.

One in every 194 homes received a foreclosure filing in the first quarter of this year.

And home prices are down, on average, 12.7 percent, which is basically the first time that's happened since the Great Depression in the early 1930s.

As the foreclosure trends intensify, the problem can only get worse. As foreclosure signs go up in neighborhoods, the value of the property in that neighborhood declines, even if the creditworthiness and the ability to pay of the homeowner is as strong as ever.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about, as I mentioned, solving a problem. It creates opportunity for the lenders and the mortgage servicers to minimize their loss; it provides an opportunity for homeowners to stay in their homes, but it shares the pain as well as the opportunity. In order for lenders to take advantage of the opportunity presented in this bill, they are going to have to write down the value of the loan consistent with the current appraisal value. In order for homeowners to have an opportunity to participate in this program, they are going to have to give up the equity that they thought they had, including any moneys they had paid in downpayments.

House Resolution 1175 provides for the consideration of three House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008.

Amendment No. 1 includes H.R. 5830 regarding the FHA refinancing, H.R. 1852 regarding FHA modernization, H.R. 1427 regarding government- sponsored entity reform, those being Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and H.R. 1066 regarding community development investments, among other bills. Each

piece of legislation in this amendment has already been passed by the House so we are really going over work that this entire body has considered before, or it has been rigorously debated and amended through the committee process in Financial Services and Ways and Means.

Amendment No. 2 includes H.R. 5720, the Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008 under which middle-class families would be eligible for a loan of up to $7,500 toward the purchase of a new home, and homeowners filing jointly would receive an additional deduction from their property taxes of $700. States will also receive a temporary increase in low-income housing tax credits and $10 billion of additional tax exempt bond authority for low-interest loans to build low-income rental housing and to refinance certain subprime mortgages.

One of the underlying causes of the subprime crisis was that more and more Americans who wanted to rent couldn't and had to get themselves housing by getting into loans they couldn't afford.

Amendment No. 3 is a bipartisan amendment offered by Congressman Miller and Congressman LaTourette regarding the preemption of State laws regulating foreclosure.

The centerpiece of this legislation is H.R. 5830, the FHA Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act included in amendment No. 1. That bill would enact a voluntary program, voluntary, for homeowners and lenders, and I emphasize voluntary, nothing is being forced on anyone except the opportunity to work this out. The process would begin with a homeowner or servicer of an existing eligible loan with an FHA- approved lender, and the FHA-approved lender would then determine the size of the loan that meets the requirements of the program and that the borrower could reasonably repay. The plan targets a group of homeowners who would be able to stay in their homes if they had a reduction in principal and monthly servicing charges.

The Congressional Budget Office says that this legislation could save 500,000 mortgages from foreclosure. Other estimates put that number much higher, at over a million.

Just as important as keeping Americans in their homes, this legislation protects American taxpayers. The government's liability under this program is limited and only applies if a borrower defaults and the amount recovered in foreclosure is below the outstanding debt still owed. This is a program that will be paid for largely by the folks participating in it and benefiting from this option as an alternative to foreclosure, and that is through a series of financing and copayments that will be assessed at the time of closing as the life of the loan continues through fees for a period of about 5 years.

There are going to be about $300 billion made available under this bill for guarantees, but the CBO scored the legislation as having an outside risk to taxpayers of about $2.4 billion. And I would like to have my colleagues think about that for a moment in the context of the $29 billion that was made available to back the rescue of the investment banks when Bear Stearns collapsed.

The biggest cost to the taxpayer would be to let the economy unravel, to let neighborhoods decay, and to let thousands if not millions of homes go into foreclosure.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5830 and other critical parts of this legislation provides an avenue to stability, to restoring economic stability to our neighborhoods, to our working families in this country, and to our lenders. We all thank the excellent leadership of the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Ways and Means for working together, Republicans and Democrats, to bring this legislation to the floor for consideration.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

I have at least one, and some who have requested but who have not yet arrived on the floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I thank my friend from Texas. We have no additional speakers at this time, and I will be the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Mr. Frank. In the 30 years that I've known him, I've yet to meet anybody who has done a better job of mastering the most arcane detail of complicated housing policy. In fact, in some measure, we're here today because of the energy that he's brought to the task at hand.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in support of this housing assistance tax package which has been reported by the Ways and Means Committee. I want to thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership on this very important national issue.

There is little doubt that the sagging housing industry, now at historic lows, has been a drag on our national economy. This legislation would stimulate that industry and help families who have been caught up in this struggling economy.

This legislation provides tax credits for first-time homebuyers, and it boosts credits for construction of affordable housing. It allows families to deduct property taxes who couldn't do so before.

It increases mortgage revenue bonds and it allows the States to refinance troubled subprime loans.

This assistance is targeted to those who need it most. It will also help bring economic stability to our communities. And these provisions are revenue neutral, I emphasize ``revenue neutral,'' using a provision from the President's own budget to pay for much of the cost.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been endorsed by the Home Builders, the Realtors and State Housing Administrators. It passed with the support of 12 Republican members of the Ways and Means Committee, including my friend and the distinguished ranking member, Mr. McCrery. It is broadly supported, it's bipartisan in nature, and I am proud to bring it to this House today.

There are but two changes to our amendment. One is a package of technical improvements from the Financial Services Committee to better coordinate the various housing tax and HUD programs. The other is--and I hope that everybody will listen to this suggestion--a provision approved by the Veterans Affairs Committee to extend from 90 days to 1 year the protection against foreclosure for servicemembers returning from active duty. I can't imagine that there is a voice in this body who would not be supportive of that initiative, the idea that in Afghanistan and/or in Iraq, that a servicemember who is doing all that's asked of him or her every day would find themselves facing mortgage foreclosure because of their military service.

As chairman of the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, again I stand in strong support of the legislation that's before us today. It includes a number of improvements to the affordable housing program.

Our subcommittee considered these provisions last summer. And at the urging of housing officials, developers, and advocates for low-income families, they have all been included in the Ways and Means amendment that we consider today. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do offer some acknowledgement of the constraints that we find ourselves within today on the House floor, and I think there's some accuracy as to what Mr. McCrery had to say. However, there is another very important point, and that is, that the issues were vetted at the committee level and there was ample opportunity and a full and vigorous debate ensued in the Ways and Means Committee in which every opinion was welcomed.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the audience, including the Members that are on the floor, that this procedure was fully vetted in the Ways and Means Committee. It passed 35-5. That means we picked up 12 members of the minority who supported this legislation.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, just briefly in reference to my friend Mr. Reynolds' comments, the constraints that we are operating on today, as he criticizes them, are entirely legitimate; but they are institutional problems, as opposed to just the will of the majority.

I was asking a Member of the minority last evening, ``Is it possible to be an aggrieved Member of the majority?'' In these instances I think you can be an aggrieved Member of the majority.

But I want to emphasize a very important point: This legislation received overwhelming support from the minority in the committee, and I think based upon news accounts this morning that there was some conflict in two major dailies as to whether or not the administration would, in fact, veto this legislation, but I can't overstate enough this simple point: There was ample opportunity for the minority to participate in the debate at the Ways and Means Committee; and, in fact, they succeeded in amending the legislation that has come to the floor today, and every voice was heard.

Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to yield to the gentleman from Vermont via Springfield, Massachusetts, one of the most distinguished families in Springfield, my friend, Mr. Welch, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I must tell you I swore to myself I was going to resist what I'm about to say until I heard the term ``bailout.'' The minute I heard the term ``bailout,'' I thought to myself the speed with which the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury came to the aid of Bear Stearns in a 48-hour period. And to use that same example of making it an analogy here is striking.

With that, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me see what I can do to lift the spirits of the gentleman from New York, my friend, Mr. Reynolds.

In fact, I think what is sad is that you are leaving us, that you're retiring. And I was searching hard to figure out the meaning of that acronym, based upon the fact that the Ways and Means Committee took this legislation up, and I want to reiterate, for the fourth time today, 12 of the 17 Republicans on the committee voted for the very bill that they are now all saying they are going to oppose. Forgive me. That is sad. How can you come to the floor and argue against the proposal that you voted for in the committee when you agree with just about every part of the bill?

That's what's before us here. We have heard these arguments, and they have all said, we support most of what's in the bill, but they are prepared because of an institutional constraint with the Senate to vote against the legislation that they favor.

In my home State of Massachusetts, it's sixth in the Nation in foreclosure activity. In Springfield, the largest community in my district, 300 homes have been foreclosed this year and over 2,000 mortgages will reset to higher interest rates by the end of next year.

In response to the worsening housing crisis, Massachusetts this month initiated a new law that extends the foreclosure moratorium from 30 to 90 days. Other States are taking similar action, but, like Massachusetts, they need help from Congress.

Reports seem to suggest that the housing slide won't turn around until 2010. These tax provisions we are considering today for families and communities will help turn it around, I hope, much sooner. It certainly will help our economy and markets in general.

The President's housing proposals really haven't worked. It's time for the Congress to act. We are often accused of having a short memory, but I think all Members in this chamber remember the recent government- backed bailout of Bear Stearns, yes, the bailout of that mom-and-pop operation called Bear Stearns. If we can, with great urgency and enthusiasm, come to the aid of Wall Street, we have no excuse not to help the people who reside on Main Street.

I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).