Floor Statements

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

I rise in reluctant opposition to this unnecessarily restrictive rule and to a number of the provisions included in the underlying legislation in its current form. While I appreciate and support the committee's effort to provide for the safety and soundness of our Nation's housing financial system and our broader financial system, this legislation has a number of avoidable shortcomings, and I hope that at least some of them would be corrected during the restrictive amendment process provided for by this rule.

The Federal Housing Administration was created by the National Housing Act of 1934 to broaden homeownership, protect lending institutions, and to stimulate the home construction industry. In addition to providing stability and liquidity to the mortgage market, the FHA's efforts have led to the creation of the 30-year mortgage product and mortgage instrument standardization, both of which have contributed to the growth of our modern housing financial marketplace. And, as one of the very few Federal Government agencies to operate entirely on fees derived from the program, the FHA has accomplished all of this with no taxpayer dollars or subsidy.

The legislation that has been brought to the House floor today includes a number of important modernization provisions that will help American families across this country to own their own homes, like: increasing the FHA loan limit for high-cost areas, providing for flexible down payment requirements, simplified and improved condo loan requirements, and an expansion of the ability to utilize home equity conversion mortgages.

This bill closely mirrors H.R. 5121, Republican legislation that passed overwhelmingly last Congress, and would also supplement the FHA Secure Initiative unveiled by President Bush at the end of August. This program, which is aimed at borrowers who have fallen behind on their payments after a mortgage rate reset, is projected to help a quarter of a million families over the next year. By helping first-time, owner- occupied home buyers refinance into mortgages that they can afford, this already implemented program will help families and stabilize communities, while targeting this support to the real families in need and

away from speculators who do not need help from the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, despite all the positive elements included in this legislation, I do believe that this bill could be vastly improved. Chief among the problems with this legislation is its establishment of a new line of income for a poorly defined affordable housing grant fund linked to increased FHA receipts. FHA receipts are already recognized for future budgeting purposes to help determine subsequent affordable housing program appropriations at HUD, with any extra revenue from these programs deposited in the U.S. Treasury as a benefit to taxpayers. This legislation would divert this revenue to a housing fund with a poorly defined mission, reducing resources available for other existing HUD programs that already assist low-income families and individuals.

I believe it is bad public policy to tie the fate of families that need housing support to the success or failure of the FHA to bring in surplus revenue. Even worse, because the affordable housing funds would come from fees related to conforming loans and reverse mortgages, this bill levies a new stealth tax on the most modest home buyers and on seniors without even disclosing to them the costs associated with this new Federal mandate.

Other problems with H.R. 1852 include its failure to provide the FHA with the flexibility needed to implement risk-based pricing, which limits consumer choice as well as the FHA's ability to help additional home buyers. This bill's proposed 2 percent limit on home equity conversion mortgage loan origination fees proposed in the legislation, which attempts to protect senior citizens from potentially abusive lending practices, may also unnecessarily limit choice and flexibility in a changing marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank committee ranking Republican Spencer Bachus; subcommittee ranking Republican Judy Biggert; and the incoming ranking Republican on the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, my former Rules Committee colleague, Shelley Moore Capito, for all their hard work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will also insert in the Congressional Record the Statement of Administration Policy regarding this legislation and would like to take this opportunity to thank two people for their hard work from the White House, White House aides Chris Frech and Marty McGuinness, who have provided important information not only on this but worked with Members to make sure that they understood the White House's position on this issue.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, September 17, 2007.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1852--Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007 (Rep. Waters

(D) CA and 13 cosponsors)

The Administration supports legislation to modernize and

reform the National Housing Act (NHA) and to ensure that the

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) continues to play a key

role in serving low- and moderate-income homebuyers. The

President has called on Congress to expeditiously pass the

Administration's FHA Modernization bill to assist more

homeowners during this period of stress in the mortgage

markets. H.R. 1852, as reported by the House Financial

Services Committee, includes provisions that are essential to

maintaining FHA's core mission of expanding homeownership

opportunities for borrowers who are underserved, or not

served, by the existing conventional mortgage marketplace.

The legislation makes critical improvements to the statutory

scheme of the NHA, and these improvements have also been

proposed by the Administration. Nonetheless, the

Administration has a number of significant concerns with H.R.

1852, which the Administration looks forward to addressing

with Congress as the bill moves through the legislative

process.

As proposed by the Administration, the legislation

authorizes an increase in FHA loan limits from $362,000 to

$417,000 or 100 percent of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage

Corporation (Freddie Mac) conforming loan limit in high-cost

areas, and from $200,000 to $271,000 in lower-cost areas.

These changes are needed to adapt the program to increasing

home prices. The Administration strongly opposes amendments

that would authorize FHA guarantees of loans greater than the

conforming loan limit as the program should remain targeted

to traditionally underserved homebuyers, such as low- and

moderate-income families.

Additionally, the legislation authorizes FHA to utilize

risk-based premium pricing to more appropriately match

premiums to borrower risk, based on measures such as the size

and source of their downpayment and their credit scores.

Consistent with current mortgage lending practices, the

legislation includes the option to extend the maximum

mortgage term from 35 to 40 years. Finally, with respect to

FHA's Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) Program, the

legislation removes the statutory volume cap on the number of

reverse mortgages that may be insured by FHA, while

permitting HECMs for use in condominium units and purchase

transactions. Each of these improvements enables FHA to serve

a larger number of targeted homebuyers, in more areas of the

nation, than are being served under the present program.

While the Administration strongly supports Federal

assistance to individuals and families that lack the means to

afford adequate housing, the Administration strongly opposes

the establishment of a new Affordable Housing Grant Fund

linked to increased FHA receipts. FHA receipts are already

credited toward HUD appropriations and a new program that

attempts to divert this revenue would reduce resources

available for other HUD programs that assist low income

families and individuals. Furthermore, tying financing for

the fund to FHA receipts would be counter-productive since

FHA receipts annually fluctuate based on housing market

conditions and bear little relation to any potential

program funding needs. Many of the proposal's details are

also undefined and unclear; therefore, the specifics may

raise additional policy concerns.

The Administration strongly supports flexible downpayment

options, but opposes a provision in H.R. 1852 that limits

their benefits to first-time homebuyers. Such a limitation

would hinder the ability of some current homeowners to

refinance into an FHA-insured loan. By removing this

limitation, FHA could help provide existing homeowners with

additional flexibility in managing the mortgage debt.

The Administration also has concerns that H.R. 1852 does

not provide FHA with the necessary flexibility to implement

risk-based pricing, thereby limiting consumer choice as well

as FHA's ability to help additional borrowers. H.R. 1852

fails to raise the statutory cap on annual premiums from 55

to 200 basis points, nor does it permit caps on upfront and

annual premium combinations that would allow FHA to offer

borrowers a variety of premium structures. In addition, the

provision for mandatory refund of ``excess'' premium to

borrowers with FICO credit scores below 560 whose loans

survive more than five years undercuts the insurance

principle on which FHA is based. This provision also hampers

FHA's ability to serve a greater number of the borrowers this

provision is purported to benefit. Because of these

provisions, H.R. 1852 would lower receipts by approximately

$75 million relative to the President's budget.

Generally, the Administration supports the provision in

H.R. 1852 that permits an increase in mortgage insurance

premiums if HUD determines that, absent such an increase, the

insurance of additional mortgages would require the

appropriation of new budget authority to cover the costs of

such insurance. However, the requirement to do so by

rulemaking is process-laden and onerous and would

significantly delay and hamper HUD's ability to respond to a

changing market. The Administration will work with Congress

to establish a process that efficiently and effectively

allows HUD to increase mortgage insurance premiums as needed.

The Administration also has concerns with the two percent

limitation on HECM loan origination fees proposed in the

legislation. Although the Administration applauds the attempt

to protect senior citizens from potentially abusive and

predatory lending practices, any such limitations should be

flexible enough to respond to a changing market. Accordingly

the Administration believes that such limitations should be

set by the FHA through Federal Register notice or other

appropriate vehicle.

In addition, the Administration is concerned that the Act

revises certain recently enacted asset disposition reforms

for FHA multifamily programs. This would reduce receipts by

nearly $40 million. The Administration is also concerned

about a provision that would make it possible for

correspondent lenders to use FHA without meeting audit and

net worth requirements, which could allow participation by

brokers who are inadequately capitalized or have internal

control difficulties.

The Administration remains committed to modernizing and

reforming FHA, and looks forward to continuing to work with

Congress to ensure that concerns are addressed and that the

necessary reforms are part of any final legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for one additional speaker, and that gentleman has not showed up at this time. I would like to inquire of the gentlewoman if she has additional speakers, or where we may stand. If I could quickly engage the gentlewoman.

The gentlewoman is waiting for an additional speaker, and I appreciate that very, very much.

Mr. Speaker, you know, we are here this morning, almost 11 o'clock in Washington, D.C. I don't know of much else we've got going here on the floor today. I think we're going to have four suspensions in addition to this bill, and yet last night the Rules Committee, our friends in the new Democrat majority, decided that they would shut down debate by having this rule without it being an open rule, shut out a number of amendments and Members who would choose to come down and debate things today. And so I'm disappointed that, in a day where really not much else is going on, that we could not include the full discussion and take this day to talk about affordable housing and where the ideas are that each and every Member might have on how we're going to increase homeownership and protect these homeowners.

I find it interesting, however, with some of the speakers that we've had today, that just a few years ago we were, with full knowledge of this United States Congress, very pleased that homeownership was increasing all across America and that credit was being extended to a number of people, including lots of families who would have an opportunity to finally own their own home. And now we find out today that, in fact, it's a lot of people who are to blame, who are these greedy people who were the lenders, who were trying to get people and bring them in to buy houses when, in fact, it was the national will. It was a good thing that they would have, virtually at no cost down, an opportunity to come and be in a house. We heard testimony where people really could get in houses for cheaper than they could living in an apartment. So millions of Americans went and did that. And they willingly signed on the line, yes, I will take this low-cost loan right now, and in 5 years I will have to go to a market-based rate to borrow the money.

This wasn't a mistake. This wasn't somebody being greedy. This was someone who was out offering an opportunity. And as all of us would have to predict the future, we don't know what the future would be, but it got people in homes, and now we do have some problems. And dealing effectively with the problem is, I think, what we should be remembered for, not looking back and saying what a bad idea it was to make sure that millions of families could get in their own homes.

So I respectfully disagree with those that come to the floor here today to argue about greed and all these people who took advantage of these poor and low-income homeowners. I think it was a good thing. I'm sorry it has not worked out in every single case. But guessing what something is going to be like in 5 years means that you have a chance to plan and be prepared for it. And so now we will be judged on how well we do to make sure that we lessen the activity of the number of people who have to bail out of their houses because they can't afford them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had anticipated and hoped that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) might be here. I have been notified that he is in a meeting with constituents at this time.

One of the amendments which Dr. Price brought to the Rules Committee yesterday, which the Rules Committee rejected on a party-line basis, was part of really the debate and discussion that I think needs to take place as we talk about taxpayer money being involved with housing in this country. And the amendment which was rejected by the new Democrat majority universally across the line, every single Democrat said, no, they did not want to hear the debate on this, and it is as follows: the amendment said that it would require that any individual or household receiving money from the affordable housing fund must present verification of legal residency by a secure identification document.

Mr. Speaker, let's be forthright about this. We have had discussion after discussion, debate after debate about health care, about public housing, about housing funds, of virtually every single topic that we get into here on the floor of the House of Representatives where we believe, the Republican Party believes, that people who are seeking assistance and help from funds, whether it be taxpayers or public systems like this that do utilize the attributes of the government, that there should be a verification that somebody is in this country legally and has legal status.

Mr. Speaker, repeatedly this new Democrat majority, whether it's for health care or whether it's now for this new housing fund, they do not want to require that someone even has to present verification of who they are. And we disagree with that. And I am sorry that the Rules Committee made a determination and the Democratic Party decided that they do not want to have to have anyone present verification of who they are or that they are in this country legally.

We disagree with that. I am sorry that the Rules Committee did not allow that in order for the gentleman, Mr. Price, to be able to argue that as part of the debate today.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will be voting ``no.'' I will be voting ``no'' on this rule because I believe that what this new Democrat majority did was to shut down debate even in a day when we have lots of time to get the best ideas on the floor and to make sure that every single Member can be heard from.

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

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

Could the Speaker please provide this body with the information about how the Chair intends to rule in regard to the clock when it says ``time final,'' and yet you have gaveled several times, and yet you are accepting more votes. Could you please describe to us what we can count on. I think it is important for this entire body to understand so that we know when the votes are final and when they are not.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I also did recognize what you were trying to do. I am not opposed to extending courtesies. I am very obviously concerned about the extension of any time after the vote says ``final.''

I thank the gentleman.

So the previous question was ordered.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Point of Order

Madam Speaker, in his 2004 State of the Union Address, President Bush said, ``I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.''

For decades, the people of Taiwan have been living under the tyranny of Chinese repression of their rights to join world bodies and engage in peaceful relations with the international community. Taiwan and the government of President Chen Shui-bian are continuing their pursuit for more than a decade to achieve a seat at the table of the United Nations. However, they have run into obstacles from the UN Secretary General.

For several years, tensions in the Taiwan straits have been escalating due to China's refusal to give up using military force against Taiwan. China has deployed tactical missiles along its coast aimed at Taiwan. In addition the Anti-Secession Act passed by China in 2005 has increased tensions in the straits. These actions have left the people of Taiwan searching for a means of peacefully resolving their differences. One of the world's foremost bodies for resolving differences and promoting peace in the world is of course, the United Nations. Given China's acts of aggression towards Taiwan, it should come as little surprise that the government in Taipei is now turning towards the peacekeeping body for membership.

Madam Speaker, I hope the Secretary General will reconsider his position on Taiwan's membership to this international body dedicated to maintaining a peaceful world. Taiwan must be allowed to join this body to protect its political and economic development, as well as, its peace and security. Acceptance of Taiwan into the United Nations will allow the two governments to work with the international community on equal and neutral terms to resolve the tensions in the Taiwan Strait. The United States has much to gain from a demilitarized Taiwan Strait. UN membership for Taiwan can help U.S. and Taiwanese interests. I wholeheartedly support this application for United Nations membership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Malaysia's 50th anniversary of their independence from the United Kingdom that was recently celebrated on August 31, 2007.

I am proud to serve as a Co-Chair of the Congressional Malaysia Trade, Security, and Economic Cooperation Caucus along with my good friend, the Honorable Gregory W. Meeks of New York. This is an important tribute from the House of Representatives to the people of Malaysia, as we honor a landmark day in their history. The United States was one of the first countries to establish diplomatic relations with the newly independent Malaysia 50 years ago, and I am proud of how the United States/Malaysian relationship has prospered since their independence.

Malaysia has a population in excess of 25 million, and is a moderate- Muslim democratic nation in a key geo-politically sensitive region of the world. Malaysia is currently our 10th largest trading partner, and I hope that our trade relationship with Malaysia will expand. We have inked a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement with Malaysia, and our countries are currently in talks for a free trade agreement. I am hopeful that these talks will produce a free trade agreement accord that Congress will be able to pass. This enhanced economic partnership would be of great benefit to the businesses and citizens of both countries.

Malaysia has been a regional leader in many areas of mutual concern to the United States and Malaysia, they are a leader in counter- terrorism and counter-narcotics in Southeast Asia. Through intelligence sharing, close cooperation in law enforcement, participation in joint exercises and training, and other cooperative endeavors with its neighboring countries and the United States, Malaysia is a leader in many of our shared interests.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank our recently departed Ambassador to Malaysia, Ambassador Christopher J. LaFleur, for his service of representing the interests of the United States in Kuala Lumpur. Moreover, I would like to thank the current Charge d'affaires ad interim for the American Embassy in Malaysia, David B. Shear, and the Malaysia Desk Officer at the State Department in Washington, Michael P. Taylor, for their service and hard work. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet our new Ambassador to Malaysia, Ambassador James R. Keith. Ambassador Keith has my full confidence and gratitude; he is a seasoned diplomat of great skill, and I wish him a good start to his duties in representing the United States in Malaysia.

I have also had the pleasure of working with many fine diplomats from Malaysia; I would like to recognize the current Ambassador from Malaysia to the United States, H.E. Datuk Dr. Rajmah Hussain. I would also like to note her immediate predecessor, who I worked with for several years, H.E. Tan Sri Ghazzali B. Sheikh Abdul Khalid. Ambassador Ghazzali was Malaysia's long-tenured representative in Washington, and I am pleased that he is currently engaged in the free trade talks between our two countries. I thank Ambassadors Rajmah and Ghazzali for their services in representing Malaysia in Washington.

I congratulate the people of Malaysia on the occasion of this landmark day in their history, and firmly believe that our bilateral relationship will only continue to grow and prosper.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my fellow colleagues in mourning the passing of the Honorable Jennifer Dunn. My friend and an honorable representative for the people of the 8th district of Washington passed away on Wednesday. I was greatly saddened when I was told the terrible news of her passing. This Chamber, and the State of Washington has lost a friend and one of our most capable and dedicated former Members.

Words cannot fully express the sorrow that is felt by those who have known and loved Jennifer. My heart goes out to Jennifer's husband, Keith Thomson, her two sons, Bryant and Reagan Dunn, her stepson, Angus Thomson, and her two grandchildren during this difficult time. I will be keeping her memory and her surviving family in my thoughts and prayers. I pray for her former Washington, DC, and Washington State congressional staffers who served her and the people of the 8th Congressional District of Washington.

Congresswoman Dunn was a highly-respected Member of Congress, dutifully serving six terms before she retired in 2005. She achieved an inspiring career of many firsts: first woman to chair the Washington State Republican party; first freshman woman to win a place in the House Republican leadership team; and the highest ranking Republican woman in leadership as the vice chair of the conference. More than anything, Jennifer will be remembered for her generosity and compassion for others. She is leaving us for a better place, but leaves behind a lasting legacy of service to this House. Words cannot fully express my sorrow in her passing. God Bless.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in heartfelt sorrow to mourn the passing of the Honorable Paul E. Gillmor, a true friend and a wonderful statesman for the people of Ohio. I was greatly saddened when I was told the terrible news of his passing this morning. The House of Representatives has lost a hardworking leader who was a friend to many on both sides of the aisle in this chamber.

My heart goes out to his wife Karen, and their children Linda, Julie, Paul, Adam, and Connor during this difficult time. I will be keeping his memory, and his surviving family in my thoughts and prayers. I pray for his Washington, DC and Ohio Congressional staffers who have served him and the people of the 5th Congressional District of Ohio.

Congressman Gillmor never forgot his roots and he was always a champion for the people who he represented in Congress. He won his first primary election for Congress by only 27 votes; the grit and determination that carried him to victory on that day never left him for the remainder of his service in Congress. When I first arrived to the House in 1997, I was instantly impressed with the plain-spoken gentleman from Ohio. He leaves behind a strong legacy of service to this House. I have lost a friend, and words cannot fully express my sorrow in his passing. God Bless.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding his time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this unnecessarily restrictive rule and to parts of the potentially unconstitutional legislation that the Democrat majority is bringing to the floor today.

I would like to note at the outset of this debate that this legislation accomplishes a number of positive things, including making the Indian Housing Block Grant program more flexible and helping Native American tribes become less dependent on the Federal Government by giving them the tools that they need to exercise greater autonomy over their own affairs. I would like to commend my friend from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for his hard work on this legislation on behalf of his well-represented constituents and for Native American tribes across the United States.

However, this legislation does include language that places funding for Native Hawaiians at great risk because of its extremely suspect constitutionality. In 2000, the Supreme Court decided in Rice v. Cayetano that the current configuration of justices would likely strike down most Federal benefits flowing to Native Hawaiians as an unconstitutional racial set-aside, if given a chance.

I am already aware of this problem because these exact same constitutional concerns plagued H.R. 835, the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007, which the Democrat leadership allowed to fail under suspension of the rules earlier this year.

Title VIII of today's bill contains this same language and opens up today's legislation to all of the same concerns that were leveled against H.R. 835. I understand that my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) has submitted an amendment to correct this problem, and I look forward to hearing the debate on its passage later this afternoon.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned by the open-ended nature of this authorization. I understand that about $650 million has been appropriated annually for Native American housing over the last few years. Today's bill authorizes an unlimited amount of spending for the next 5 years for these programs.

While I understand very well the need for funding in a number of impoverished communities across this country, I believe that in the current fiscal climate, a climate in which Democrats have proposed an enormous $26 billion of additional new spending over last year, that authorizing an unlimited amount of money for the program is simply irresponsible.

Limits need to be set, Mr. Speaker, and it's the job of a majority to make tough decisions as to where spending is most needed and from which other programs it should be taken. By authorizing as much money as the appropriators care to spend, this legislation shirks its responsibility to provide guidance to an appropriate level of spending. As a fiscal conservative who is greatly concerned about runaway spending in this Democrat Congress, I believe this is simply wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule that is not an open rule, despite Democrat claims to the contrary. I understand that they are in the majority and that the Democrat leadership has the ability to pressure their Members into supporting a resolution stating that Congress believes that two plus two equals five. However, that simply does not make it so and true.

In this same vein, despite their protests when they came to the floor and the claim that this modified open rule is open, that too is simply not so. It restricts Members who have ideas about how to improve this legislation during the debate from having their proposals heard, and there is simply no denying that fact.

I oppose this restrictive rule and the unconstitutional and irresponsible spending provisions included in the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), one of the sponsors of this bill and the leader behind this effort.

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire from my friend from Massachusetts about additional speakers that he may have, I do not have any additional speakers at this time.

I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 8020 of this legislation which would have the same anticompetitive effect as language already included in almost every other one of the Democrat majority's appropriations bill by preventing funds from being spent to conduct public-private competitions.

In this case, it would prevent funds from being used to allow the private sector to compete against the government for commercial jobs by limiting the Defense Department's ability to spend money on this taxpayer friendly activity by putting arbitrary time constraints on the length of time that these studies can take place.

While this policy may be good for increasing dues to the public sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on their core missions when Congress uses this opportunity to take competition away from them.

In 2006, Federal agencies competed only 1.7 percent of their commercial workforce which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire civilian workforce. This very small use of competition for services is expected to generate a savings of $1.3 billion over the next 10 years by closing performance gaps and improving efficiencies.

Competitions completed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7 billion in saving to taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of almost $31 for every dollar spent on competition with annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion.

This provision is obviously intended to stall public-private competitions for an entire fiscal year rather than allowing a proven process to work as it was intended, and it would harm taxpayers by denying the Department of Defense the ability to focus its scarce resources and funds and expertise on its core mission.

This concerted effort to prevent competitive sourcing from taking place at the Department of Defense demonstrates that the Democrat leadership is hearing clearly from labor bosses that the Defense Appropriations bill represents simply another good opportunity to increase their power at the expense of taxpayers and good government.

In this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, Congress should be looking to use all of the tools it can to find taxpayer savings and to reduce the cost of services that are already being provided by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer- first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public sector union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition available to the government.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding me time, and I do know that we are here today, among other things, to seek immediate resolution from the United States Congress to help the wonderful people of Minnesota in their time of grief by authorizing money that will be spent to immediately rebuild the bridge that collapsed over the Mississippi.

All Members of this body watched the horror the other night as we saw not only the collapse but also the heroism of men and women, first responders and others, as they joined in to help the people of Minneapolis-St. Paul as they struggled with this.

I would note that the committee action, regular order, has taken place to make sure that this bill would be before not only the Democrat majority but also we as Republicans participated in each of these activities.

The gentleman stood up and talked about how great and wonderful and what normal and regular things happen around here, but these are not normal times.

Once again today, here we are on the floor of the House of Representatives almost as a new low, I would say, Mr. Speaker, being asked to debate a rule on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and we don't even have a copy of the bill. So I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida, can we please see a copy of the bill?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand this. This new Democrat majority that comes to town, talks about open and honesty, ethics above reproach, all the things that they would do differently than what the Republicans have done, and they have not lived up to that.

I would yield to the gentleman if he will answer the question: Where is the copy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that we're doing the rule on today that we're expected to vote on today?

Reclaiming my time, I would yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman from California for his words.

Mr. Speaker, this Democrat majority has simply not lived up to the words that it spoke when it became the new majority. And it was a campaign promise that is reiterated on a regular basis all through this Chamber and all the committees. Most disappointing among these is the forgotten promise that Democrats promised to be the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history.

And I will now quote Speaker Pelosi from page 24 of A New Direction for America, and I quote, ``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.''

I further quote the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter, on November 12, 2006, just a week after election. She said, ``My fellow Democrats and I have long felt that the Rules Committee was failing its major obligations. We publically argued that it was being used to shut down the legislative process for partisan purposes. But now that the Democrats will control the committee we will have a chance to change all that.''

Mr. Speaker, they have not changed it. They've made it worse.

We do understand right now, as we speak, we have a copy of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that evidently has only now been given to the minority.

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

You know, Mr. Speaker, we talk about this genuine desire to solve the problem, but the fact of the matter is we're about as close as midnight and noon in our thoughts and beliefs as parties for doing that.

I hearken back to just a few days ago in the Rules Committee, where some of the questions from my good friends on the Democrat side are: Well, what about the constitutional rights of some of these people who live in other countries who are known terrorists, what about their constitutional rights? And we need to take those into account.

Mr. Speaker, it's amazing how we're sitting here debating something that's in the best interests of this country, and some people are more concerned about the terrorists' rights than they are about protecting this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard it straight out: You don't need to see the bill. You will see it whenever we want to give it to you. You don't need it. All we are doing down here is playing tiddlywinks with national security.

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with that. We disagree with that. I think this is an unfair way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.

It is my understanding that the Speaker may, has options available to him or her as it relates to electronic voting to where the Speaker could make a decision to have the Clerk record those votes manually by rollcall.

Continuing my request.

Mr. Speaker, how am I recorded?

Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry. When the electronic voting system is inoperable or is not used, the Speaker or Chairman may direct the Clerk to conduct a record vote or quorum call as provided in clause 3 or 4; is that correct?

Point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, would it be correct to say that normal procedures of this House are not currently, as it relates to voting, in place and available to Members at this time?

Point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the question is whether the Speaker or the Speaker's designee has the authority to make a decision to enact what we would call to conduct or direct the Clerk to conduct a record vote or quorum call as provided in clause 3 or 4.

Point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, could you please outline those options that are available to you and your thinking? Because we are in a circumstance where we believe an inoperable voting system is presently being----

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Members having an inability to know what time remains, can the Chair please advise us what time remains in this vote?

Further parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, can you please advise me how much time remains in this vote?

I will, Mr. Speaker. Can you please tell me how much time remains in this vote?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing the circumstances that we are under, can you please advise me how much longer you will hold the vote open for Members?

Point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, can you please at this time tell us the vote total?

Mr. Speaker, in response to the majority leader, I would go to the rules of the House. I would quote them on page 32 of the rules of the House: When the electronic voting system is inoperable, or is not used, and I believe it is at this time inoperable and has been for the past 40 minutes or so, the Speaker or the chairman may direct the Clerk to conduct a record vote or quorum call as provided in clause 3 or 4.

I wonder why the gentleman would not suggest we follow the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make sure the majority leader understands that, for the last months, this majority that is on this side of the aisle has routinely asked and spoken with the majority about the way we would like to see things happen.

Regularly, we are told that it will be done the way you choose to do it. You are attempting now to make a decision about what you would like to do.

It is our request to the majority leader that we follow the rules of the House at this time, and this minority is making that request at this time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to continue debate on H. Res. 600.

I would like to inquire as to how much time remains on both sides, please.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the Republican minority is very aware, as a result of Speaker Pelosi's Web site that is called Congress Working for All Americans, WWW.SPEAKER.GOV, that the Speaker has announced very publicly her intention to follow regular order for legislation. I would like to quote from that Web site at this time: ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill in a conference report text prior to floor consideration.''

Madam Speaker, just minutes ago, we began the debate on this rule. Just before we began debate, as we began debate on this rule just hours ago probably, but as we began, we received the text of one of the most important bills to come to the floor of the House of Representatives at the time we began debate on the rule, which seems absolutely, just completely backwards from what the Speaker describes on her Web site.

Number two, the Suspension Calendar should be restricted to noncontroversial legislation.

Madam Speaker, here we are today on the floor of the House of Representatives not only with a bill that we had not seen the text to until we began debate but, secondly, the Suspension Calendar has very controversial legislation that we are handling today.

I would have to make a motion if we were in Rules Committee, and we did, we tried, that we should receive all of these bills. And, of course, we have not.

Very interestingly, part of the debate about this bill that we are on with foreign intelligence surveillance activities, there was a discussion just days ago in the Rules Committee whereby a Member of the Democrat majority, as part of the conversation, asked a Republican that was there: ``So you're asking to basically reduce probable cause and just basically throw probable cause out as a reason that we are trying to change the FISA rules?''

The Republican answered: ``You shouldn't be having to get a warrant to listen into phone conversations between someone from Saudi Arabia calling somebody in Sudan, when neither one of them are Americans.'' The response from the Democrat was: ``Well, I don't know if I agree with that.''

Madam Speaker, we are here on the floor today to also talk about the directions we are headed, the directions we are headed for protecting this country. And today, we are on the floor of the House of Representatives with the language only just given to us. On top

of that, it is one of the most controversial items that has come to the floor of the House of Representatives in the years that I have been here.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Land of Enchantment, Mrs. Wilson.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he would like to run down some of his time at this time or if he's through with his speakers.

I would like to inquire of the gentleman if he would like to get the time even and to run down with another speaker. We're a little bit ahead.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, it is about doing the right thing. In doing so, I would like to make sure that we get it right this time.

Despite what someone may have been told, I have a statement by the Director of National Intelligence that was issued this afternoon at 4:30. The gentleman says, ``I have reviewed the proposal that the House of Representatives is expected to vote on this afternoon to modify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The House proposal is unacceptable, and I strongly oppose it.

``The House proposal would not allow me to carry out my responsibility to provide warning and to protect the Nation, especially in our heightened threat environment.

``I urge Members of Congress to support the legislation I provided last evening to modify FISA and to equip our intelligence community with the tools we need to protect our Nation.''

They cannot have it both ways. They cannot have it where they say it's a complicated issue. Protecting this country should not be complicated when people who are trying to do the right thing are asking and showing people what to do.

The Republicans have made our choice known today, and that is we are going to stand behind the Director of National Intelligence.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this highly unorthodox rule and the unnecessary limiting process that is being proposed and that was even talked about here on the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, today, for the first time since my service in Congress, the House is considering a rule for the Agriculture appropriations bill that is something other than an open rule. It is also the first time since I began my service that the Rules Committee reported out a limited rule for an appropriations bill that self-executes amendments and revisions to the base text of the bill that may not have withstood the scrutiny of this Congress.

One of the self-executing amendments of particular concern that was inserted late last night in the Rules Committee is included in part A of this rule. It is described as adding a limitation, and I quote, to effectively eliminate three West Virginia earmarks from the committee report accompanying the bill.

Upon further review, it turns out that these three earmarks total more than $1.5 million and were requested by Congressman Alan Mollohan and would benefit the Canaan Valley Institute, a nonprofit established by Congressman Mollohan.

This highly irregular inclusion of this self-executing provision of the rule is particularly troubling, because the Canaan Valley Institute is currently under investigation by the FBI. In March, when he requested this funding, Congressman Mollohan certified that he had no financial interest in any of the earmarks and affirmed the worthiness of each project.

I strongly believe that this late-night maneuver was not properly vetted through the regular order processes. As a result of that, several serious questions have arisen.

I would like to engage the Democrat Member of the Rules Committee, my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), on a few questions about this process.

The first question that I would yield to the gentleman on is, who asked the Rules Committee to take this highly unusual action and what explanation did they provide to justify the removal of Representative Mollohan's earmarks?

I am going to continue asking you questions, and I will continue yielding to you. I appreciate the gentleman.

Did anyone on the Rules Committee inquire as to whether Mr. Mollohan's certification of no financial interest had been proven in any way deficient or inaccurate?

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time and continuing my dialogue with the gentleman, in other words, you had figured out that they were inappropriately inserted?

Continuing my dialogue with either gentleman, in as much as the Mollohan earmarks were approved by the entire Appropriations Committee, does the gentleman know whether the appropriation Members on both sides of the aisle have been advised about the reasons for canceling funding for the projects which they have overwhelmingly approved with the knowledge that it was appropriate at the time?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, another question which I wish to ask is whether the Rules Committee could advise Members seeking to remove Member-supported earmarks from other pieces of legislation, whether they might take

advantage of the precedent we are setting here today and whether they might expect the Rules Committee to look favorably on similar requests for self-executing provisions in the future?

Mr. Speaker, the reason why we ask these questions is because the self-executing provisions of this rule are highly unusual and I believe raise lots of questions. We look forward to asking these questions and hope we get forthright answers.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike language included on page 3 of this legislation, which would have the same anti- competitive effect as language already included in almost every other one of the Democrat majority's appropriations bills, by preventing funds from being spent to conduct public-private competitions.

In this case, it would prevent funds from being used to allow the private sector to compete against the government for jobs by limiting the Agriculture Department's Chief Financial Officer's ability to spend money on this taxpayer-friendly activity until he provides a redundant report back to Congress on the Department's contracting policies.

While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to public sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on their core missions when Congress takes the opportunity to use competition and takes that ability away from them.

In 2006, Federal agencies competed only 1.7 percent of their commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire civilian workforce. This very small use of competition for services is expected to generate savings of over $1.3 billion over the next 10 years by closing performance gaps and improving efficiencies.

Competitions, completed since 2003, are expected to produce almost $7 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every $1 spent on the competition with an annualized savings of more than $1 billion.

This provision is obviously needed to stall public, private competitions for an entire fiscal year, rather than allowing a proven process to work, as it was intended, and it would harm taxpayers by denying the Department of Agriculture the ability to focus its scarce resources and expertise on core missions.

This concerted effort to prevent competition sourcing from taking place at the Department of Agriculture comes just a week after the House passed an agriculture bill that goes way beyond the Federal scope and strips States of their ability to use competitive sourcing to improve their own food stamp programs, demonstrating that the Democrat leadership is hearing clearly from labor bosses that the Agriculture appropriations bill represents yet another good opportunity to increase their power at the expense of taxpayers and good government.

In this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, Congress should be looking to use all the tools it can to find taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of savings that are already being provided by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters of support for this amendment from the Fair Competition Coalition.

The Fair Competition Coalition,

August 2, 2007.

Hon. Pete Sessions,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Sessions: The Fair Competition

Coalition supports your efforts to remove from Title I the

anti-A-76 language from the Fiscal Year 2008 Agriculture,

Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 3161).

We are writing to express our strong opposition to the

language in Title I under the Chief Financial Officer

section, which would stop all funding of the Department's

FAIR Act Inventories and all A-76 competitive studies. On

behalf of the thousands of companies and hundreds of

thousands of employees represented by the associations listed

below, we urge adoption of this amendment.

The Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act was

enacted during the Clinton Administration, and received

strong bi-partisan support in the Congress as well as union

and industry support. The law simply requires each Federal

agency to publish an inventory of all its commercial

activities.

This prohibition will hinder the agency's ability to

identify and access the best and most efficient sources for

the performance of its commercial activities. All relevant

studies have shown that the competition process itself,

regardless of outcome, results in savings exceeding 20%. The

prohibition on identifying and studying these positions is

thus highly inappropriate and unfortunate for the taxpayer,

as well as a restriction on the ability of any President to

manage the Federal government.

FCC supports adoption of your amendment to remove this

harmful language from HR. 3161.

Sincerely,

Aerospace Industries Association, American Congress on

Surveying and Mapping, Airport Consultants Council,

American Council of Independent Laboratories, American

Council of Engineering Companies, American Electronics

Association, American Institute of Architects,

Associated General Contractors of America, Business

Executives for National Security, Construction

Management Association of America, Contract Services

Association of America, Design Professionals Coalition,

Electronic Industries Alliance, Information Technology

Association of America, Management Association for

Private Photogrammetric Surveyors, National Association

of RV

Parks and Campgrounds, National Defense Industrial

Association, National Federation of Independent

Business, Professional Services Council, Small Business

Legislative Council, Textile Rental Services

Association of America, The National Auctioneers

Association, United States Chamber of Commerce.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense taxpayer first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public union sector bosses by keeping cost savings competition alive to the government.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I ask what time remains.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.