Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1461, Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 1/2 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this restrictive rule and to the manager's amendment made in order under the rule. H.R. 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, as reported out of the Committee

on Financial Services, was a thoughtful, reasonable, bipartisan piece of legislation. As evidenced by the 65-5 committee vote in favor of the bill on May 25, H.R. 1461 clearly has the support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank worked together to craft bipartisan legislation that provides real oversight and a stronger, more powerful regulator for Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and the Federal home loan banks. The Federal Housing Reform Act, as reported out of the committee in May, is the kind of legislation that the Framers intended Congress to pass. Not only is it legislation that will do good and will improve people's lives, it is legislation that was created out of bipartisan negotiations and compromise.

I commend Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their actions on the Financial Services Committee and for producing an excellent bill.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republican leadership cannot handle bipartisan success. Despite overwhelming bipartisan support in committee, the Republican leadership held the bill hostage for 5 months, merely because a radical faction of their party opposes affordable housing and, specifically, opposes the Affordable Housing Fund included in the bill.

Unfortunately, after being strong-armed by the Republican Study Committee, the Republican leadership forced changes that not only weakened the Affordable Housing Fund provision, but will actually restrict the ability of low-income people from voting in future elections. Here is the deal: They have a manager's amendment that has some very good things in it, but tucked in that manager's amendment there is included some language that many of us find offensive. And the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, wanted to have an amendment made in order to strike that offensive language and was denied that opportunity last night in the Rules Committee.

The language that I am talking about specifically denies faith-based and nonprofit groups from funding simply if they express their first amendment rights. Under these restrictions, any nonprofit community group, or church would be ineligible to receive funding if either they or their ``affiliates'' have engaged in nonpartisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities. Furthermore, affiliation is defined so broadly that it includes having overlapping board members sharing physical space or other public communications.

It is worth noting that for-profit companies are exempt from these restrictions. Why would we protect companies from these restrictions, and impose them on low-income and faith-based communities, the very people who this legislation is supposed to empower? I would ask my colleagues, what do you have against faith-based organizations? We need to enhance access to affordable housing, not reduce it.

Mr. Speaker, these restrictions are undemocratic. They are part of a pattern by the extreme right in the Republican Party in an attack on poor people. They are written with the intent to deny poor people the access to vote. These provisions are a direct affront on the democratic principles upon which this country was founded.

It seems clear that these restrictions are unconstitutional. They would require any organization that wanted to receive funding from the Affordable Housing Fund to sacrifice their freedom of assembly, which protects their right to associate with one another in groups for economic, political, or religious purposes.

We can provide and expand the affordable housing market without trouncing on the Bill of Rights. Just as easily as these restrictions were added into the legislation, they can be removed without affecting the goals of the Affordable Housing Fund or the overall legislation.

A multitude of organizations across the country, ranging from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, have expressed their strong disapproval of these egregious provisions. For one reason, these groups realize how harmful these restrictions would be toward fighting homelessness.

Homelessness cannot be combatted unless our Nation's affordable housing stock is increased. Affordable housing cannot be expanded if we bar nonprofits and community organizations from tapping into the appropriate resources.

Mr. Speaker, affordable housing should not be a partisan issue, but, unfortunately, the Republican leadership has made it so. The battle against homelessness and the expansion of affordable housing needs to be addressed through a coordinated effort between the government and nonprofit and faith-based communities. This language in this manager's amendment severely restricts the ability of affordable housing professionals to fulfill their role.

After Hurricane Katrina, President Bush and the leadership in the House talked about the need to help poor Americans rise out of poverty. They talked about improving people's lives. Well, Mr. Speaker, their actions clearly do not match their rhetoric. When the Republican leadership had a chance to help the poorest of Americans to receive affordable housing, they acted to restrict access to a proposed affordable housing fund. When the Republican leadership had a chance to stand up for people who do not have a voice, for people who need help making ends meet, they made a conscious decision to turn their backs on them.

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this debate is the ability to provide affordable housing and access to voting for low-income families. One of the icons of the civil rights movement, Rosa Parks, died on Sunday. We all mourn her passing. But it is hard not to see the irony that 2 days after her death, we are going to debate and vote on a bill that will restrict the ability of the poor to have access to affordable housing and to vote in democratic elections in this country.

This is a lousy way to run this Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote against this undemocratic and restrictive rule.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas keeps on saying this is about policy, not politics; but what would be more political than the language in here that denies poor people the right to vote?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, over the past 5 years, we have seen 100,000 Federal housing units lost. We are down 50 percent in real terms in elderly and disabled housing at a time when the leadership on the other side of the aisle has tried to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant Program. They have significantly cut back on the number of section 8 vouchers for low-income housing assistance, and they have tried to limit housing assistance overall, so it is important that this underlying bill pass and at the same time that this reprehensible provision, this attack on poor people, be struck from the bill.

Mr. Speaker, to prohibit organizations from receiving funding for housing, many of these organizations, faith-based organizations, that participate in nonpartisan activities, as the New York Times said today, has no place in our democracy. We can do so much better. The fact of the matter is that many of these faith-based organizations that do an incredible job in housing will be barred from participating because of this provision. Vote down the rule. Let us fix this provision.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source