Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2895) to establish the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States to provide for the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of decent, safe, and affordable housing for low-income families.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, this is an historic day. This is an important piece of legislation, broadly and eagerly supported by virtually every organization in this country seeking to expand the supply of affordable housing for low-income people, and also from the leading business groups that understand the need for an increase in the housing supply. So from the Low Income Housing Coalition and all the homeless groups, over to the National Association of Homebuilders and the National Association of Realtors, this is a day they have long waited for; and I submit the following for the Record:

National Association

of Realtors,

Washington, DC, October 9, 2007.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.3 million members

of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS', I urge

your support of H.R. 2895, the ``National Affordable Housing

Trust Fund Act of 2007''. The number of families facing

critical housing needs is significant and growing. Today, one

in seven U.S. households--both owners and renters--spend over

50% of their household income on housing. A dedicated fund to

produce, rehabilitate, and preserve affordable housing could

make great strides towards addressing this crisis.

NAR has consistently maintained that homeownership serves

as a cornerstone of our democratic system of government. We

believe that homeownership continues to be a strong personal

and social priority for most Americans. Living in one's own

home is a measure of security and success in life. The

homeownership rate fell slightly during the recent housing

market slowdown. Despite modestly lower home prices in many

regions of the country, many deserving American families

continue to face obstacles in their quest to own a home.

NAR has equally and forcefully maintained that rental

housing has an immediate and beneficial effect on the

prosperity of a community. Rental housing provides a range of

housing options that not only attract top employers but also

generate local taxes, fees and income that benefit local

economies. Sadly, the stock of affordable and available

rental units is declining. As a result, approximately 25% of

renters spend more than half of their household income on

housing costs. Perhaps even more sobering, there is no

location in the country where a household headed by a single

minimum-wage worker can afford a two-bedroom rental

apartment.

The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS' recognizes

that accessibility to safe, decent and affordable housing at

all levels must be one of our nation's highest priorities.

NAR strongly endorses H.R. 2895 and urges your support of

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

Pat V. Combs,

2007 President, National Association

of Realtors.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friend from Alabama said that there are 30 programs that this would duplicate. I know of one program which helps build family affordable housing. That is what this does. I would yield to the gentleman. Would he name some of the other programs?

The question is, what are the 30 programs that help construct, not Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and FHA, he said there were 30 HUD programs that help build affordable family housing.

I would yield to the gentleman if he would tell me what they are.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I take back my time. I yielded for a specific purpose. He has as much time as I do. I asked him, and he has had time to get the list from people: What is the list of programs that build affordable family housing? Construction.

And I will yield.

Mr. Chairman, I take back my time. I think the gentleman doesn't have 30; he doesn't have three.

Would the gentleman please abide by the rules.

He made a statement, and I am yielding my time. He has equal time. I don't think there are 30 programs. I don't think they can come up with them.

The HOME program, I agree, there are reasons why this must be in addition to the HOME program.

Community Development Block Grants are not supposed to be primarily a construction program. Mayors and city council members and others all over the country will be appalled to be told that they are supposed to put CDBG primarily in housing construction; they aren't. It is for a whole variety of programs. People know that.

We do have programs to build housing for the elderly and for the disabled, but there is simply not a list for housing construction.

Secondly, the gentleman from Alabama says, Why don't we fix these programs? Of course, the Republican Party was in control of both Houses of Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 6 years. Apparently, they didn't do anything.

He then says, Why don't we fix FHA and GSE? Well, I was surprised by that, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman knows that this House has, in fact, passed bills that do make reforms in both the FHA and the GSE. For him to say why don't we fix FHA and GSE when he knows we have passed bills to do it seems, to me, strange because we have done that.

Here is the point. We do have the HOME program. It is subject to annual appropriations. And we do have local

housing trust funds. It is the local housing trust funds that want this bill. The gentlewoman from Illinois mentioned the Low Income Housing Coalition. They are the major driver behind this bill because they understand its importance.

We want to supplement the funds. What is the problem with the one program that builds affordable housing, the HOME program, there is not enough money. It competes with other appropriated funds.

By the way, the argument that somehow we are being unfair to the elderly, in this bill, unlike what happened during the Republican rule, we limit the fees that can be charged to the elderly under the HOME equity mortgage program. We do that. They didn't. We limit what the FHA can charge for mortgage insurance. OMB ordered HUD to raise the fees so they would make even more of a profit. We said you can't do that. We authorized some additional activity. We have limited the fee increases, and we have taken some of the money from the additional activity, not from fee increases.

The fact is this: The Republican Party has opposed any funding for affordable housing construction. They inherited the HOME program. They haven't been very good to it in the appropriations process. This says we need to get back in the business in a major way of helping build affordable housing. There is no 30 programs that build affordable housing for low-income people. That is not what CDBG is intended to do, and it is not what CDBG largely does. Most of the money goes for other things.

This list of 30 programs is mythical. I await its reality, but I don't have any high expectations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia for a colloquy.

First, there was allusion by the gentleman from Alabama to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the bill we passed, which we did do some reforms in, we did say that they should in their secondary mortgage activity be supportive of people at 80 percent of median. We have given them the affordable housing goals, and people who understand this issue understand that there is a distinction, as the gentleman from Virginia understands. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have primarily and historically been aimed at helping people in the more moderate income range. We have actually lowered it to 80 percent of median. This gets to people much below that in general, which is why there is no overlap between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and this program.

Secondly, to the gentleman's argument, what we want to do here is give as much flexibility as we can to the local communities. That is why, yes, we are not creating a Federal bureaucracy here. The Federal Government will largely be passing this money through to the State and local housing trust funds who can focus on the needs of their own community. They would have the ability, with the 15 percent, to spend it where they think best. If they thought it was needed for the lowest income people, they could do that. But if they felt, as in the gentleman's area, this needs to go to people at 60 percent of median, and ultimately when we get the fund up to 80 percent of median, they would have the ability to do that. So the 15 percent is within the discretion of the local communities.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to underline an important distinction that appears to have escaped the gentleman from Alabama: There is a difference between a section 8 voucher program which gives people money to pay their rent on a year-by-year basis and does not encourage the construction of any housing, there is a difference between that and a program to help people build affordable housing. The gentleman now has disclaimed the list to some extent. He says it is not his list; it was when he first mentioned it, it seems to me. Now it is HUD's list.

It is a list that he very carefully reworded, the phraseology, I think. It is a list that assists people who are poor with housing. Yes, it builds shelters for the homeless. That is probably one or two of the programs. It gives section 8 vouchers.

The HOME program is the only one of that list that helps build affordable housing. It helps build it. So the gentleman's list, and he doesn't want to read it, and I understand why. He mentioned Community Development Block Grants. No one familiar with Community Development Block Grants think they are primarily for housing construction. That is not what it does. There are programs that help build housing for the disabled and the elderly. But other than the HOME program, there aren't programs that help build affordable housing.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now aimed at helping people at 100 percent of median and above. We say that should be dropped to 80 percent of median, not 100, but it doesn't help people in the lower income categories. There are no such programs. And so that's the answer to what the gentleman said.

He keeps talking about, Well, we should fix the programs. Of course for 6 years with a Republican President and a Republican-led Congress, they didn't do much.

There are fixes this year. The House did try last year on the FHA. We have repeated that. So we do improve the FHA program. We improve the GSE program, and we also take additional nontax dollars and make them available.

Again, I await this list of programs that help the construction of affordable rental housing. I think I will wait a very long time.

The only other point I make is that I regret we have limited time. I was sorry that the Ways and Means Committee didn't yield time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) since he talked about trade and taxes, none of which have anything to do with this bill. So maybe Ways and Means owes us a few minutes, and when their bill comes up later, maybe I will come talk about housing to offset the gentleman from Texas talking about trade and taxes.

I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to say that the assertion that this is ignoring the private market would be more persuasive to me if it were not for the fact that every organization that is engaged in the private market building of housing disagrees.

The National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Home Builders, neither of which are known for its socialist tendencies, have written letters in support of this bill exactly as it has been presented. They who fully understand the market, and we don't just use boilerplate rhetoric to describe it, understand the importance of interactivity between some public sector participation and the market, and this creates no new government bureaucracies.

This funds existing State and local housing programs. The Federal role will be for HUD by a formula to distribute it. It is a funding mechanism for the State and local authority.

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

Yes, in decades. I thought the gentleman said 30 years. I would not claim that it was the largest in 30 years, but it certainly has been the largest since the Republicans took power 12 years ago since they tried to kill them all.

I would say 20 years.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island, my neighbor, Mr. Kennedy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that my colleague from Alabama does not appear to be familiar with the bills. I will say, this argument that, oh, how can we do this and create a housing trust fund at the moment that we have a subprime crisis has no validity, it's purely tactical, because exactly the same arguments were being made before the subprime crisis. There's an ideological objection to getting the Federal Government in the business of helping build affordable housing.

The gentleman finally named some of the programs: Building intermediate nursing home facilities, housing for people with AIDS.

My question to him, repeated and ultimately unanswered was, where are the programs that help build affordable family housing? It is not an annual section 8 voucher program which doesn't help build housing. It's not intermediate nursing home facilities. It's not help for people with AIDS. It's none of those programs. HOPE VI, yes. It exchanges some kind of housing for others. HOPE VI has not resulted in any net addition to housing. We're trying to prevent it from being a net diminution.

He then says, well, you're taking money from the FHA and they won't help low-income people. Totally and completely false, portraying a total misunderstanding of the bill. In fact, it is the bill that we passed, unlike the bill that passed under the Republicans, that prohibits the FHA from raising mortgage insurance premiums on people and give that money to the Treasury. That was the Republican approach. We capped those fees.

Here's where the FHA money comes from. We take the limit that the Republicans allowed to stand for years on the number of home equity mortgages the FHA can insure. We also, unlike the Republicans, limit the amount that the elderly can be charged for the first time under those by the servicers, and we are told by CBO that as we increase the volume of FHA home equity mortgages at a lower price for the elderly than existed under the Republican rule, we will generate money.

Now, if we didn't pass this bill, this administration would take that money and put it into the Treasury so it could go help fund the war in Iraq; it could go help fund highway projects, agricultural subsidies.

That's the choice. Do we, having created an additional revenue stream for the FHA, while limiting fees, let it go to the Treasury for agricultural subsidies and the war in Iraq, or do we put it into affordable housing?

With the GSEs, until we talked about helping build affordable low- income housing, my Republican friends were very critical of the GSEs on the whole. The stockholders were getting too much money and too much return for too little.

Nothing in this bill will increase the amount that people have to pay on the mortgages any iota. What it says is that out of the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we're going to make them divert some of this for these public purposes. So in direct contradiction to what the gentleman says, there are not 34 programs that help build affordable housing. There is one, now there will be two, and I hope the bill passes.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I don't believe any of these are controversial.

The first thing we do, we had in the committee an adoption of an amount, a minimum amount that would go to each State. Remember, this is largely a distribution to the States. It's not an existing Federal. This would not be administered at the Federal level. It would be sent to the States.

And some of the smaller States raised a question, and the smaller communities that they might be excluded. Indeed, while this is not exactly what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) had wanted to offer, which I thought was perfectly reasonable, it comes close to, it touches on the same area. So this would make sure that no State would go without, and at least one community in every State would get some funding.

Next, we had a provision that really didn't make sense requiring a mixed income requirement in elderly projects. We didn't think that was reasonable, and we take it out.

We have a clarification involving the number of units that go to people who are below 50 percent, and we say that applies to all units.

And finally, in response to concerns in the House, we had language that could be better worded. It was somewhat hastily added at the last minute, and I hope it will be improved as we go forward, which seeks to say that no one who is in the country illegally should be allowed to be a resident of one of these projects.

That's the manager's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time with gratitude to my colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California, in consultation with a number of groups, put this forward, and it's to give more flexibility to the recipients.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California who will explain the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington has been a strong advocate of energy efficiency and reducing excess energy costs. He approached the committee and argued that it would be very useful to have in the bill the language of this amendment, which says that you will take into account, in making the grants, the extent to which the money would reduce utility costs for residents. This would, of course, have the dual advantage of making it less expensive for these low-income residents and also conserving energy. So it seemed to us an entirely reasonable approach, and I was glad to tell the gentleman from Washington that I agree with him and, in fact, to serve as his designee in offering it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California, representing a high-cost area, Marin County, especially, in California, confronts the problem that many others confront, but she has it particularly in her district where workers in a municipality can't afford to live in the city in which they work.

So what her amendment does is to propose that with one- to four- family owner-occupied housing, the grantees who receive this money can give preference to public safety officers, teachers, et cetera.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) so that she can speak for herself.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have in our committee been working hard to try to incorporate pro-environmental, energy- saving measures, measures that would reduce global warming. And this is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island that is very much in tune with this.

Mr. Chairman, for further elaboration, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely right. And that same issue, as he knows, is arising in the context of our work on HOPE VI. We want to do the green building standards. We want to do them in a way that will be sensible and reasonable.

Let's be very clear. There aren't enough law enforcement people in the world to make this work if there isn't a willingness on the part of those involved to do it. If people think it is too rigid or inflexible, it's just not going to work as well. I think we have a wide willingness now on the part of the homebuilders and others to be participating in this.

And, yes, we will make this very much a collaborative enterprise. Of course if the gentleman's substitute were to pass, it wouldn't be relevant. But in case it didn't, we will work together.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), I offer the amendment that is now in order.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very reasonable and thoughtful amendment from the gentleman from Maryland. What it says is that we hope this program is established, we hope that there will be entities that will be repeat applicants. We just want to make explicit that if people have gotten a grant and now come back for another one, they be very explicit about what they have done with it. It is, I think, a very useful kind of oversight that's built into the program. It may seem obvious, but we sometimes read about people getting renewed programs when they haven't done a very good job in the last one. This won't make that absolutely impossible, but it will make it less likely. I think it is a very useful amendment by the gentleman from Maryland, and I hope it's adopted.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this is an unusual amendment. The actual author offered it, and the Member rising in opposition actually opposes it for the first time today. And I appreciate the cooperation we've had.

I want to say that I appreciate, not just that, but the gentleman from Texas, who has been a very constructive member of the committee. We have some differences. That's why we have different parties. But we have a great deal in agreement. And the gentleman's expertise in the homebuilding field has been very helpful as our committee has gone forward. And here is, perhaps, a philosophical difference between us.

The main difference here is that the gentleman's amendment, recognizing, as he does from his own experience, the value of additional housing construction, would do away with our two funding sources. Now, we chose to go in addition to the HOME program, which is the one program where there is a parallel, for a couple of reasons. First of all, the HOME program is, of course, subject to annual appropriations, and that's appropriate for most government work. But we did want to have in the government a program for housing construction that had a little bit more assurance for people than an annual appropriation. Appropriations get caught up in omnibus issues, CR issues. The trust fund will be outside of the kind of deadlock that we have had in the past and may, we hope not, but may have in the future. If you're trying to build housing, the notion that your funding has been slowed down because there has been a fight over some unrelated issue, like the debate about the Iraq war funding, could slow you down, we want to avoid that, so we keep the HOME program. But we have an additional program, and again, it's for the construction of affordable housing, unlike any other program, except HOME, and we want to give it some assurance to operate in a trust fund. And this is, to some extent, modeled after the highway trust fund. It is a trust fund that will still be subject to work by the Appropriations Committee, but it won't be bogged down as the rest of the government gets bogged down, and that's important when you are doing construction when you have an ongoing situation.

Secondly, we do have two additional funding sources. Now, there is some debate about that. I do want to stress, in the FHA bill, which was already voted on by the House, we say in the first place that if any question arises about the solvency of the fund, if the FHA fund should appear to be in trouble, not a penny can go into the affordable housing fund that year. Only after the HUD Secretary has certified that the money won't be needed to hold down premiums or prevent insolvency will this go forward.

We have said that by the creation of a new funding stream, namely, allowing an unlimited amount of home equity and mortgages, we get a lot of money that CBO made available. And I should note, by the way, that some of that money, as the gentleman from Texas, among others, have suggested, has gone to upgrade the computer system of the FHA. Some of it will go for a great increase in counseling to homeowners, which is, again, supported on both sides. A good chunk will be left over, we're not sure exactly how much, we hope it will be $200 million a year. But it only goes to the housing trust fund if it would otherwise have gone to the Treasury. There is zero chance, the way this bill is written, for it to force that kind of an increase. That, by the way, is why CBO gives us a flat score on this. There is no budget deficit situation here at all.

Similarly, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and here I have to say some of my Republican colleagues have been a little inconsistent, the administration, some of them, they've been critical of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They've said, you know, we give all these advantages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a line of credit, some people think they're government-run, there used to be government members on the board, although we will not have that if our bill passes, and here they are, they're making all these profits and they're not doing enough for public purposes. Well, in our Fannie and Freddie bill, we amend that to some extent by increasing the housing goals they have by dropping the credit they get from 100 percent to 80 percent immediately. But we also say, you know what? You've been doing pretty well, you're making a lot of money and your sales are doing well, so without in any way impinging on your mortgage functioning, we are going to take some of the profit you've made and put it in the affordable housing trust fund.

By the way, I find it a little odd that people who have said that we should basically reduce the portfolio of Fannie and Freddie and make them securitize more, which they believe will do more damage to their ability to function

than anything else, that now they become very concerned when we talk about a housing trust fund. I should be clear that that does not describe the gentleman from Texas, who understands very well how best to help Fannie and Freddie. And I think we put through a bill that will enhance their ability to function while better regulating them.

So, in other words, we have 800 or $900 million, we hope, in the first year, and we hope it will go up. And this is the main difference between us, it doesn't come from appropriated funds. And I believe we have written it so it will not interfere with either Fannie and Freddie or FHA's ability to function. And we do not create a new bureaucracy. We distribute it to the State and local housing funds. Indeed, many of the amendments that we've adopted here in agreement by both sides, and some that we adopted in committee, I was looking it over, in committee we adopted a number of amendments, more from the Republican side than the Democratic side because I don't have to worry about other people telling me where we are on that. We have, in every one of these amendments, increased the flexibility for the local housing trust funds.

So with that, I hope that the substitute is defeated and that we will continue to improve this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to try to save the bill from this effort to kill it.

Yes.

First, if this were a serious effort to put on a work program, it might have been offered as an amendment to the bill. It wasn't offered before the Rules Committee.

Secondly, it would have said ``report back forthwith,'' and it would have been voted on and it would have been

added. It says ``promptly.'' Now it is true that if we were to adopt a motion to recommit that says ``promptly,'' it would go back to the committee.

Our committee is a fairly busy one. We have the subprime issue before us. We have credit card reform issues. House floor time is fairly busy. I am told there are Members who don't think working here on Friday is the best thing that has ever happened to them. We are getting towards the end of this session. We have the appropriations bills. So the choice of ``promptly'' rather than ``forthwith'' is clearly motivated by animus against the bill.

Having failed in several tries to kill the bill as a whole, they now say, let's do it this way. And on its own merits, here is the problem. I have not been a supporter of the work requirement within the public housing area, but at least in public housing you have administered a framework where it can be applied, although I think inappropriately.

Here we are talking about a program whereby the Federal funds will be distributed. And by the way, they are not mostly taxpayer; they are shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dollars in the largest amount. But what we are going to do is distribute this money to hundreds of local housing funds, State and local funds. You talk about unfunded mandates. This says to all of the grantees, the Catholic Church in some places, or B'nai Brith housing or other local housing groups, Habitat for Humanity or any of the others, you must, in addition to building the housing, undertake to administer this kind of volunteer work program. Lest anyone think this is something that they can do easily, read the third page of the recommittal motion.

``Administration. A grantee providing assistance with Trust Fund grant amounts may administer the work activities requirement under this subsection directly, through a resident organization, or through a contractor having experience in administering work activities programs within the jurisdiction of the grantee.''

This takes some of the limited amount of money that would be available for housing and creates another new set of contractors. Maybe Blackwater will lay down their guns and come over here now when they get run out of Iraq and so a whole new set of contractors will be dealing with this. And the organizations that get this money, they are religious organizations, they are nonprofits, they are homebuilders. They will now have this new mandate to go and make people work, and it becomes a complicated one.

Here's what it says. For example, if you are ``a single custodial parent for a child who has not attained 6 years of age,'' then you have to go out and do this volunteer work for 20 hours a week, unless you can show that you couldn't get child care. You've got to show that it's unavailable. There are three different kinds of paragraphs. It's a very complicated thing to administer.

So you say to people, you know what, thank you for helping build affordable housing, thank you to the archdiocese, thank you to the Methodists, thank you to Habitat for Humanity, thank you to these charitable groups. Oh, and by the way, you are now in charge of making the parents of small children go to work unless they have first shown to you the unavailability of child care, and you have to go out and hire somebody to administer this for you.

So, even if it were ``forthwith,'' I would be opposed to it, but ``promptly'' means that the people who are opposed to using funding to help build affordable housing want to at best delay the bill, and maybe if they're lucky enough, because they can combine this with other filibusters, kill it.

This is a very difficult program to administer. It is not one for which there has been any demand. I guarantee you it will be strongly opposed by all of the organizations, the charitable and nonprofit organizations, that will be told to administer this housing. It is an unfair imposition on some of the best-motivated organizations and people. It doesn't give them any money to do it. It gives them this very difficult task. It delays the bill at best, and I hope it is defeated for what it is meant to be, an effort to derail a bill that can't be derailed in a more straightforward fashion.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, is there anything in this recommittal motion that would allow me, as chairman of the committee, to ignore the rule that requires a 3-day notice before there is a markup, which would seem to me to make it impossible for me to report it tomorrow, on the day of a funeral, very sensitive, but is there anything in this amendment that would waive the 3-day requirement for a markup before we could proceed?

Well, then, let me ask in general. Does a recommittal motion waive the rules----

Further parliamentary inquiry. Is there anything in this process that would allow the chairman of the committee to waive the requirement in the rules that there be at least 3 days before there can be a markup in committee?

So much for tomorrow, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, can the standing rules of a committee be waived by actions on the floor?

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as we start this discussion or debate about this new program, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund program, I think it is important to distinguish between what we disagree on and what we agree on.

The first thing that we agree on is that Chairman Frank and the members of the majority have a sincere commitment to meeting the housing needs of

low-income Americans, to make housing more affordable for low-income Americans, and we share that need. What we debated in committee, what we have debated on the floor of this House on two previous occasions and now, is how we meet those needs.

What this legislation does is it creates a new National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This is a new Federal program. In fact, Chairman Frank has said this is the largest expansion of a housing program I think in the last 30 years.

Mr. Chairman, this is a multi-billion dollar program. We say that this is not the way to do it. If we are to address the unmet needs of low-income Americans for affordable housing, this is not the way to go.

Why do we say that? Because presently there are over 30 Federal programs addressing affordable housing for low-income Americans. In addition to those 30-something programs at HUD, we have FHA and we have the GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What this legislation proposes to do is not reform any of those programs. What it proposes to do is take money from FHA and from the GSEs, Fannie and Freddie, and transfer that money into a new program.

So we end up with all the programs we presently have, which it ought to be obvious to everyone apparently are not working. You are talking about the majority of the $35 billion. And when I say ``not working,'' let me say this to the chairman: They are not meeting the needs, or we wouldn't need to create a new program.

But what we are saying is if there is something wrong with the existing program, if there is something wrong with the $35 billion we are presently committing under the HUD programs, if FHA or the GSEs are not doing their job, why come along and create another program? And then if FHA and the GSEs are doing their job, why take money from FHA and the GSEs, particularly because at the same time we are saying to those programs, we want you to play a larger role in the mortgage crisis, the subprime mortgage crisis in America, but at the same time we are taking money from those programs.

So that is what we are debating. We are debating whether or not with all these programs, with the large Federal role in creating low-income affordable housing, why it is necessary to create another large program. As Chairman Frank actually says, this is one of the most significant expansions of Federal programs for low-income Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Let me say this to the chairman.

CDBG, those programs under HUD, designate money to all of the States, to many local governments, and to our different territories.

In addition to that, you have the HOME program. You have patterned this bill, if you look at it----

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself because I would like to make one statement.

Mr. Chairman, as I said at the start of this debate, the trust fund will be the largest expansion in Federal housing programs in decades. That is what we are debating.

Also at this time I would like to introduce, and I asked back in July for

HUD to produce the list of programs which today promote affordable housing. They sent me a list, and it has actually 34 programs which in some way assist low-income Americans with their housing needs. That is not my list; that is their list.

But let's again focus on, we have all of these programs. Do we rehabilitate these programs or do we shift money from one program to another? And if we are shifting money from one program to another, I don't see how this is the largest expansion of Federal housing programs in decades, or as the gentlewoman from California said, the most significant new program in over 11 years.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want us to be clear about something. We hear from the majority this is a historic moment, and I will say to the majority I believe that it is. I believe that it is very significant. I don't believe that what we're debating here is insignificant at all. In fact, I want to yield the chairman 15 seconds to respond, but I believe the chairman himself has said, my recollection, that this trust fund would be the largest expansion of a Federal housing program in decades, and I yield to the chairman because when I said that before, he shook his head and I don't know if he was shaking his head at that.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Back in June, when you released your press statement, you said this trust fund would be the largest expansion of Federal housing in decades and that was June 28.

What we're doing here is we're taking money to fund this large expansion of Federal housing, we're not taking it from the 30 existing programs that specifically address low-income housing, elderly, disabled, AIDS, senior citizens.

We're taking it from FHA and from the GSEs which actually that money presently today promotes an affordable mortgage for all Americans. So we're taking from low-income, middle-income Americans, we're taking from programs which promote affordable housing for them, and we're transferring it to other Americans.

In doing it, we're not reforming. There are 80-something programs. The gentleman had said how many programs, are there 80 or 30. There's 80 housing programs, 34 of which specifically address low-income Americans.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to another of our Members.

Let me say this about Members. Two Members on our side have spoken in favor of this program. It is very difficult for Members to oppose a program that actually creates or has at its purpose creating affordable housing. You will see that by the two Members who are speaking.

Again, I will say that the majority of our Members believe that if you have 80-something programs and they are not working, you have a program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program which, actually, this program actually says that if HUD doesn't adopt regulations, just simply adopt the regulations and the distribution of that program. So they almost mirror each other.

If those programs aren't working, why take money from FHA, which is one of the most successful affordable housing programs in America? Why take money away from middle- and low-income Americans to create yet another program? In fact, if you think about that, you are creating two bureaucracies, two programs with all the Federal employees that go into those programs, and you are putting money in one program, and then you are taking it out of that program and you are putting it in another program. That, in itself, involves a cost to the taxpayers.

In fact, when you take from one Federal program and put it in another, as opposed to appropriate money, to me that's the worst of all worlds from an efficiency standpoint.

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I have been in this House for 15 years. I have never asked that a Member's words be taken down, but I will tell you that I came as close to doing that as I have any time in my 15-year career. For a gentleman to get up and say that we Republicans today have said we don't care about low-income Americans and we think too much money is being spent on these programs, no one has said that.

I don't know where he is getting that. I wish he would talk about the

merits of the program as opposed to slamming Republicans, going into Medicaid, Medicare, and those. But I didn't do that, but I will tell you that those last remarks did not represent what anyone on this side has said.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here today is creating what the chairman of the committee said back in June was the largest expansion of a Federal housing program in decades. How the chairman proposes, and I don't question his motivation, because I know that his motivation is helping low-income Americans. There is a need for low-income affordable housing.

He has disputed my representation that there are 30 some-odd programs that address low-income affordable housing.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to include the response to my inquiry to HUD, which is a list of 34 programs.

HUD Programs--Promoting Affordable Housing Opportunities

Program Area: Community Planning & Development

1. Home Investment Partnerships Program.

2. Supportive Housing Program.

3. Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy.

4. Rural Housing and Economic Development Program.

5. Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program.

6. Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS.

Program Area: Housing

7. One- to Four-Family Home Mortgage Insurance.

8. Mortgage Insurance for Disaster Victims.

9. Rehabilitation Loan Insurance.

10. Loss Mitigation.

11. Mortgage Insurance for Condominium Units.

12. Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Insurance.

13. Good Neighbor Next Door Program.

14. Section 202--Supportive Housing for the Elderly

Program.

15. Assisted-Living Conversion Program.

16. Cooperative Housing.

17. Multifamily Rental Housing for Moderate-Income Families

Mortgage Insurance.

18. Existing Multifamily Rental Housing (Section 207/223

(f)).

19. Mortgage Insurance for Housing for the Elderly (Section

231).

20. New Construction or Substantial Rehabilitation of

Nursing Homes, Intermediate Care Facilities, Board and Care

Homes, and Assisted Living Facilities; Purchase or

Refinancing of Existing Facilities..

21. Supplemental Loans for Multifamily Projects.

22. Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities

(Section 811).

23. Multifamily Mortgage Risk-Sharing Program.

24. Mark-to-Market Program.

25. Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance.

Program Area: Public & Indian Housing

26. Housing Choice Voucher Program.

27. Homeownership Voucher Assistance.

28. Project-Based Voucher Program.

29. Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing

(HOPE VI).

Program Area: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

30. Section 3 Program.

Program Area: Policy Development & Research

31. Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing

(PATH) Initiative.

Program Area: Government National Mortgage Association

32. Ginnie Mae I Mortgage-Backed Securities.

33. Ginnie Mae II Mortgage-Backed Securities.

34. Ginnie Mae Multiclass Securities Program.

You look over those programs and you find HOPE VI, which, I think all Members would agree, supplies low-income housing for America. We have got section 8. We have got programs to rehabilitate nursing homes, to build intermediate care facilities, to establish boarding and care homes, on and on, support for persons with disabilities, persons with AIDS, disaster assistance or homes for those caught in disasters.

As the gentleman from Illinois said, $35 billion is going into those programs. But out of all those programs, this program, if you look at where the money is going to be distributed, it actually says that if HUD does not write regulations that will basically take the HOME investment program, it will be distributed to the same agencies for purposes of low-income housing, which is the exact purpose of the HOME program. If the HOME program isn't working, why wouldn't we appropriate money for the HOME program? If these programs are not working, why would we do that?

Why? Several people have said, the gentleman from Texas on the other side said over 50 percent of Americans today are struggling to meet their housing needs. Most of those, most of those low- and middle- income Americans are homeowners, and they are struggling with making their mortgage payments.

You open the newspapers, you find that foreclosures are at a historic high; yet what is proposed to us today?

What is proposed is that we take money from FHA and from Fannie and Freddie, which are both used. One is, FHA, as we all know, is affordable mortgage for low-income, middle-income Americans.

The GSEs promote mortgage liquidities. I don't see how you can take money from FHA, take money from the GSEs, fund this program without it affecting FHA and the GSEs. Diverting GSE funds to an affordable housing fund is essentially a tax on the GSEs.

Who has to pay that tax? That's a tax on their mortgage business. That ultimately is going to be paid by low-income borrowers. The proposal to take FHA receipts, it's going to mean fewer low-income Americans will have access to affordable FHA mortgages in the long run.

You can't create something from nothing. You can't create a program funded from an established program which supplies Americans with low- income mortgages or supplies liquidity to the mortgage market. You can't take money from those programs without affecting those programs. There are always costs.

You can't, as the chairman said, have the largest expansion of Federal housing programs in decades, take it from FHA and the GSEs, which supply mortgage liquidity. You can't take that kind of money without affecting those programs.

With all these programs, including the HOME program, which, as I said, mirrors the proposal before us today, we need, in conclusion, let's ask ourselves two questions: If all the efforts today, all these programs, 80 programs in all, 30-something programs addressing this, plus FHA and the GSEs, which also have a mission to loan money for

mortgages for multifamily units, if those aren't working, why wouldn't we fix those existing programs?

And even if we conclude that we need a new program, a national housing trust fund, why in the world would we go to FHA and the GSEs and ask them to fund those programs at the very time when we're having a subprime mortgage crisis in this country? And we have all asked, we have directed FHA and the GSEs to address this problem, and now we're taking money away from them and ultimately from low- and middle-income Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the manager's amendment to H.R. 2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment. I think some of us had a concern early on that converting any of these monies to operating monies was a precedent we didn't want to move down. I think the purpose of the bill is to build housing. Although I believe this does help some of our very low income families, we would hope that they would not have to use any of that allocation for that. But this amendment does give them the flexibility to do that, and so we will support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think anytime that we can make sure that our people involved in housing, homeowners, renters, everybody, has the appropriate counseling is a good strategy, because in many cases what we find is people lose their assets or lose opportunities because they did not take advantage of some of the things that are available to them.

So I thank the gentleman from Florida for introducing that amendment. We support his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, certainly I think that anytime we are

going to be investing Federal dollars in any housing in the future, we need to make the sure the houses are as energy efficient as they possibly can be. And as I understand the gentleman's amendment, this would be about making sure, in consideration for granting funds for that, that the construction, the design, all of the phases of creating housing in this country would take into account the utility costs and, hopefully, the overall operating costs of those projects.

So with that, we support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with the chairman of the full committee that we do need to make sure that our first responders and teachers and people that we rely on to serve our communities be able to live in the communities that they are working in.

I think this is a good amendment, and we are not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say, again, I think we want to make sure that any new housing that's done is energy efficient and also meets as many green criteria.

One of the things I would encourage and would hope that the chairman would work with me in is in the final version of this bill I would hope that, once we conference that, the National Association of Home Builders has been involved in green building for a number of years and has set up a lot of information.

So one of the things that you and I have talked about is we want to try to make this money go as far as we possibly can and avoid as much duplication as we can.

I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very good amendment. Accountability in any government program is always welcome, and I thank the gentleman for offering this.

We need to make sure that, as we are passing out these monies, we want them to go as far as they can, we want them to go to people that can actually deliver what they said in their grant proposals and in their quest in their housing proposals, and so I support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I was really tempted here to let the chairman be my designee on this, with the hopes that I would have the same success on my amendment as he had on those that he was acting as designee on, but since I'm here, I'll act in my own behalf.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things we've heard a lot today about is that there is a need for making sure that we are taking care of our most neediest Americans when it comes to their housing needs. What we've also learned, though, is that there are a lot of programs out there, 70 something housing programs, 30 some odd that may be addressed as some form of housing for our low-income citizens.

One of the things that I think the American people are kind of concerned about is they keep hearing that government solution to all of the problems. If we're not doing a good job with the programs we have, let's add another program, and I think they're getting kind of tired of that. So one of the things that my amendment does is it makes an existing program, it incorporates many of the good ideas, and may I say, Mr. Chairman, there are some good ideas that have come in this particular piece of legislation, updating it. And what I'm talking about is the HOME program. The HOME program currently does a lot of the functions. In fact, when you look at the HOME program in this bill, many of those overlap. And yet we're now going to separate into two different funds an affordable housing fund and a HOME program. Instead of using the combined resources of those two programs to help further the housing situation, we're going to have two different.

When we talk about the fact that we're already spending over $28 billion for affordable housing, low-income housing, and then we're going to take money out of one pocket and put it over to an area separate from that, quite honestly, Congress will not have the opportunity to really sit down and assess, hey, where are the American people, where are the people that are the recipients of low-income money, the people who are benefiting from this housing, where are we getting the best bang for our buck? But instead, we are separating those programs. I don't think that is good policy.

The other issue here is that many communities, almost every State in the Union, and I think like 350 or 360, maybe it's a larger number, I don't have it in front of me, communities are already participating in the HOME program, they already have some familiarity with that program. And so now we're going to take the ramp-up time of having to learn a new program, to write the rules for it, to do all of the things that it takes to get a new program off the ground. We're going to have to form a new branch of government within the Department of Housing to be able to ramp up and have the employees that it needs to do this, another inefficiency of adding additional programs to something that maybe we're not satisfied with. And I would agree, there may be some things that need to happen in the HOME program that would make it more relevant today. But, quite honestly, adding a new program I don't think is in the best interest of the American people. It's not a good, wise use of their taxpayer dollars. And I believe we can create a more efficient delivery system using an existing program.

What my amendment also does is says, look, GAO, go in and analyze what's going on, work with the various housing partnerships, let's determine some of the things that we need to do to the HOME program. Let's make those changes, and then let's make the HOME program a better program incorporating many of the good ideas, even that we've seen in some of the amendments here.

Mr. Chairman, we had, I believe, seven amendments from the Democratic side, unfortunately, and I appreciate the Rules Committee making mine in order, but I think we had some other good ideas from some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle that we could have incorporated into this legislation.

So that's the reason I'm down on the floor today offering this amendment. I'm encouraging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you're really serious about two or three things, and let's talk about those things; one, are you interested in making sure that we have the most efficient delivery system to our low-income families to make sure that they have housing? If you're interested in that. Secondly, if you want to do that in a way that's a good steward of the American taxpayer's dollars, that's another reason to vote for this amendment. And thirdly, if you believe that we ought to be able to prioritize our spending and not separate into a different fund, separate and aside from what we're already doing for a lot of our low-income housing families, then the Neugebauer amendment is the amendment that you should vote on. It will actually move us more quickly in a direction of being able to implement a lot of the things that I think people on both sides of the aisle want to do, and that is, make sure that we get the money out to these families that need our assistance and help.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), who is the former ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by saying that 50 States, 585 local communities, are already using the HOME program as a model for building and developing low-income housing in their communities. It just makes sense that we take an existing program, make the revisions that have really made, there are some good ideas that have come through this legislation, let's incorporate those ideas into the HOME program. Let's take an existing vehicle. Let's ask the United States Congress to prioritize where they think that we are getting the most bang for our bucks as we deliver low-income housing programs for the American people and for the people that need them so badly. Let's do it right. The right way to do it is to take this existing program and fold into it many of the good ideas that have come from that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, Chairman Frank, who just spoke, is absolutely correct. This is a very exciting day, a day that so many housing advocates and working people and poor people have been waiting for. They get a chance to see their government responding to one of the most critical needs in our society.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2895, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007, and I sincerely thank Chairman Frank for his unrelenting efforts to get the Federal Government back in the affordable housing production business.

I am so proud to be part of this committee, to be a cosponsor of this bill and to work with Chairman Frank in not only producing housing under this National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, but for all the other work that has been coming out of this committee under his leadership.

The need for this bill could not be more urgent. Mr. Chairman, last week you joined me when I chaired a hearing in the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee that demonstrated that when affordable housing is not produced, homelessness is. The stark bottom line that emerged from the hearing, focused narrowly on reauthorizing the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, is that, nationwide, we haven't made demonstrable progress in reducing the number of households experiencing homelessness in the past two decades. While some homeless people face personal challenges that require social services or other support, every homeless individual and family shares one common need: Housing they can afford. And there simply is not enough of it.

For example, there are 9 million renter households who earn less than 30 percent of area median income, but only 6.2 million units affordable to them. This leaves an absolute deficit of 2.8 affordable rental housing units for our poorest families. This kind of math leads inevitably to widespread homelessness. But I want to emphasize that the National Housing Trust Fund addresses the affordable housing crisis as it affects every level of society.

Right now, housing costs are outstripping wages for more households than ever before in recent memory. According to the ``Harvard University Study on the State of the Nation's Housing in 2007,'' 17 million renters and homeowners are paying more than half their incomes in housing costs.

Working is simply no longer a guarantee of being able to afford housing. In Los Angeles, for example, it takes an hourly wage of over $22 an hour to afford a moderately priced two-bedroom apartment, when the minimum wage in California is only $7.50 an hour. Put another way, a two-parent family with both parents working full-time at minimum-wage jobs puts that family less than two-thirds of the way to being able to afford decent housing.

Finally, as a recent Center for Housing Policy study ``Paycheck to Paycheck'' dramatically shows, many of our Nation's essential workers cannot afford to live in or near the communities where they work. In high-cost communities like Los Angeles where the median home price is $523,000, the income needed to afford a home is far higher than that earned by teachers, police, firefighters, nurses and other key occupations studied. The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund addresses this full range of housing crises, providing relief to overburdened renters and homeowners, while targeting funds where the need is greatest.

Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that H.R. 2895 does so at no additional cost to taxpayers. It is a trust fund in the truest sense, a dedicated source of revenue, separate and apart from the annual appropriations process, reflecting the need for the Federal Government to make a long overdue commitment to affordable housing production.

We have clearly demonstrated that the fund will be drawn from moneys from the affordable housing fund proposed as part of the GSE reform bill, H.R. 1427, from Federal Housing Administration savings and other existing revenue streams. I am prepared to debate with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle whether such revenues should be diverted to uses other than addressing the housing needs of America's working families and poorest, disabled individuals. I do not think there is any better use for them, particularly since both GSE and FHA revenues derive from housing activities that the Federal Government and government-sponsored enterprises engage in, at significant profit to both, I might add.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it has been 17 years since the Federal Government last enacted a major affordable housing production program, spearheaded in 1990 by, Mr. Chairman, your predecessor, Chairman Gonzalez. The time has long since passed to enact another one.

I am so proud of this legislation. I am so thankful, Chairman Frank, for your leadership. And I am so proud and pleased to have the opportunity at this time in my career not only to work on the committee with you and to chair this subcommittee, but to be able to stand here today and see something about to happen that has been needed for so long.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

Chairman Frank, I applaud you for your willingness to modify the trust fund proposal as it has moved through this Chamber to reflect the realities of the housing market while simultaneously keeping your eye on the prize, a significant increase in the production of affordable housing for the very poorest Americans. This amendment continues to maintain such a balance.

Let me share some simple math with my colleagues. The monthly SSI payment in California is $836. As the Brooke amendment established, the Federal Government considers an affordable rent to be 30 percent of that income, or $250 per month. Nobody can operate housing anywhere in California, much less in high-cost areas like Los Angeles, for $250 per unit monthly. It doesn't matter whether you're a nonprofit or for- profit or whether you have significant debt service on loans for the capital, or if someone has just handed you a brand new building for free. As the green eye shade types in the real estate business say, it just ``doesn't pencil out.''

This need to address the operating cost shortfall in projects targeted to the lowest income folks, especially those at SSI income levels and below, is not news to those of us who have been fighting for a national affordable housing trust fund for over half a decade. Nor, to be clear, does it suggest that there's any shortage of need for plain old low-cost bricks and sticks capital grants which will comprise the vast majority of funding under H.R. 2895, even if this amendment is adopted. What has become clear, though, is that the State and local housing agencies need some flexibility with the trust fund dollars to address the operating shortfall issue in order for the trust fund to generate the greatest number of new units for the poorest, most disabled residents of trust fund projects.

Critically, neither this amendment nor the underlying bill discourages grantees from seeking other sources of operating subsidies or rental assistance. Indeed, it requires as much. Even the full 10 percent of the trust fund in a given year, should States and localities choose to use the maximum permitted to operate accounts, will not come close to providing the total amount of operating subsidy needed to achieve the trust fund's targeting goals. So grantees like my own California Housing Finance Agency or Los

Angeles City Housing Department will have no choice but to leverage trust funds with section 8, McKinney-Vento subsidies and State or local rental assistance programs.

But this flexibility will ensure that some projects can move forward that otherwise could not in the current environment, where section 8, for example, has been under attack since the moment the trust fund movement began. That is the essence of the trust fund bill that you have championed, Chairman Frank, recognizing and overcoming the obstacles to affordable housing production for the poorest people in this country. This amendment is wholly consistent with that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support that.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 720 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 720.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 720 provides for consideration of H.R. 2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007.

As the Clerk read, the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order the Financial Services reported substitute. The rule makes in order eight amendments, including a complete Republican substitute. The amendments are each debatable for 10 minutes, except for the Neugebauer substitute, which is debatable for 20 minutes. The amendments are not amendable or divisible.

All points of order are waived against the amendments, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, so many American families today are facing a critical housing crunch. The cost of an apartment or a home is out of reach for so many, but there is good news. Many of us in this Congress understand and will keep fighting for a new direction for America and more affordable housing.

Today we will create a landmark affordable housing trust fund under H.R. 2895 in this rule, which will provide over 1.5 million new affordable homes for hard-working folks across America over the next decade. I would like to thank Chairman Barney Frank and Chairwoman Maxine Waters for their dedication to American families in their efforts to make housing affordable and available to those who could use a helping hand.

They pledged at the beginning of this new Congress that they would focus on affordable housing, and they have stayed true to their word.

Four other bills in addition to this one that will be considered today expand American homeownership and provide relief to our neighbors, many of whom have been subjected to foreclosure due to predatory lending in the subprime loan crisis.

This new affordable housing trust fund will focus on construction, rehabilitation and preservation of affordable housing in our hometowns and communities across America. The trust fund will pool monies, together with State, local and private housing initiatives to target housing to families with the greatest economic need.

The innovative, dedicated funding mechanism for this new trust fund comes at no new cost to taxpayers. Our efforts come at a critical time. Federal money for affordable housing has largely disappeared under this current administration. Health care costs are out of sight, the cost of living is higher, and many of our neighbors have not received raises that keep up with these rising costs.

We have heard from so many Americans across this country. For example, in south St. Petersburg, just recently, I was talking with a police officer that works for the City of St. Petersburg. He said it was his dream to have his young son move into his neighborhood nearby. Unfortunately, affordable housing in that neighborhood is all but gone, and he will just not be able to swing it.

In addition, local housing agencies across America have thousands upon thousands of Americans on waiting lists for affordable housing. In my hometown of Tampa, Florida, during a 1-week open enrollment session, more than 10,000 seniors, families and veterans indicated a need for affordable housing. But there is just no inventory.

Instead of receiving housing, they are placed on a waiting list. That waiting list takes 4 years, and it makes affordable housing completely unreachable for the other people that simply never made that call for help.

The number of American households paying more than half of their incomes on housing increased to 17 million in the year 2005, with one in seven U.S. households being severely housing-cost burdened. This imbalance is very troubling, and when combined with predatory subprime loans, it has caused many homeowners to lose their homes. In the Tampa Bay area alone, in the first 6 months of this year, over 10,000 of my neighbors have found that their homes have fallen into foreclosure.

This new affordable housing trust fund will provide for the new construction, preservation of existing housing and homeownership, assistance, emergency housing repairs and housing-related services. Help is on the way.

H.R. 2895 is a positive step in a new direction to ensure that more families are able to find clean, safe, stable and affordable places to live. I am proud to support this bill and this rule, and I urge the Congress to pass this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will inquire of my colleague from Washington if he has any additional speakers. Otherwise, he can proceed to close.

That's correct, we have no speakers. We have requests as well, but they are not here in attendance, so I think it's safe to proceed to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite the threatened veto by the White House, we will continue to stand on the side of America's hardworking families today and pass this landmark affordable housing trust fund bill. This will help our States and our communities achieve over 1 million new affordable homes for our neighbors over the coming years.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

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

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.