Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ennis, Texas, the ranking member on Energy and Commerce (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a father and a patriot (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today is a defining moment for an insatiable appetite that the new Democrat majority has for spending, spending taxpayer dollars and going well beyond the mission statement of SCHIP. And that is what the day is all about. It is a defining moment with the new Democrat majority seeking a way to have single payer-funded health care for all America. And that is the road that we are defining and beginning again today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this completely closed rule that fails to even provide the minority with a motion to recommit, and to the underlying legislation that the minority did not receive until 6:30 last night. When I came to the floor in the beginning of August to oppose the previous version of this legislation, I explained my opposition to the way that it had been brought to the floor without a single legislative markup. And, unfortunately, again today that fact has not changed. In fact, neither Republican leadership nor Republican members on the House Energy and Commerce Committee had an opportunity to participate in the crafting of the 250-plus pages of legislative language this entire House was provided with just a little bit more than 12 hours ago. Despite the terrible process surrounding this legislation from start to finish, I would like to once again thank the Democrat leadership for one thing: By cramming this bill through the House for a second time, they are giving every single Member of this body another opportunity to go on record regarding which vision they have for the future of our Nation's health care system that they truly support. The first vision for our future is to slowly shift away as many Americans as is possible into a one-size-fits-all Washington bureaucrat-run program. And, if nothing else, I congratulate the Democrat leadership for their clarity, because that vision is embodied in H.R. 976. Rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children who cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health care needs. H.R. 976 also increases government spending and dislocates the private marketplace, leaving taxpayers holding the bag for these increased costs. This bill generally raises the income threshold for eligibility and allows States to qualify anyone receiving these funds, including childless adults and people making over $80,000 a year, despite the fact that this diverts these much needed funds away from helping our Nation's most poorest children. It would also allow illegal immigrants and aliens to receive these benefits by forcing States to accept nonsecure documents as proof of citizenship for purposes of receiving these funds. I find it both ironic and unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the party of Hillary Clinton and bureaucrat-run health care would float a proposal in which law- abiding citizens are made to show proof of insurance as a condition of employment, while this legislation would open the door for ineligible and illegal immigrants to receive federally funded benefits, no questions asked. All of these problems exist on top of a current system which we know that some States already abuse. This bill grandfathers in New York's standard, which provides Federal assistance to those making four times the poverty level, and in New Jersey at 3\1/2\ times, while allowing every other State to expand coverage to three times the current poverty level. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the crowd-out effect created by this big government bill that replaces private insurance with a government program will not provide coverage to more kids. By the CBO estimate, it simply will shift 2.4 million children out of private insurance and into a Federal program that hurts doctors and hospitals by forcing them to deal with government bureaucrats that short-change both patients and providers by undercompensating them for medical services. If Democrats were serious about ensuring that every American had access to inexpensive and high-quality health care, we would be talking about a different vision today for our health care, one that tackles the system's real underlying problems and revolutionizes our health care system to provide us with better results. This other, Republican vision for improving health access to health insurance includes allowing families to have access to tax exemptions up to $15,000 a year for health care, not just those who work for large employers. The Republican vision includes giving Americans the ability to purchase health insurance across State lines, because healthy insurance options should not be limited to the State you live in or your zip code. It also includes having Congress act to ensure that those who can't get insurance in the marketplace have access to coverage through high-risk pools and low-income tax credits. Mr. Speaker, I am not here to oppose the idea of SCHIP. It was a Republican-controlled Congress that created SCHIP, and I support its original, true mission. But H.R. 976 is a camouflaged attempt at slowly siphoning Americans from insurance plans into a Washington, D.C., bureaucrat-run system. Mr. Speaker, today we fail to address one of the most serious issues facing our Nation: how to make our health insurance system more affordable and accessible for all Americans. And by focusing on the wrong vision for our future, this bill does nothing to address either problem. It ignores the fact that our Nation has produced the greatest health care advantages in the world, many of which have come as a result of our competitive insurance market. The American survival rate for leukemia is 50 percent; the European rate is just about 35 percent. For prostate cancer, the American survival rate is 81 percent; in France, it is 62 percent; in England, it is 44 percent. Rather than trying to emulate Europe and its outdated socialized approach, we should be working on a vision to give every single American an opportunity to take part in our competitive insurance market. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation to drag America into a one-size-fits-all European model. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you know, I do appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, coming in and arguing, but his side has already given in on this point. They have already conceded that they don't like the way the bill is, the self-executing rule. There is already agreement on his side, ``Whoa, this is wrong. We don't agree with this. We will agree to fix it.'' So, I love the gentleman from Massachusetts, he and I are very good friends, but they have already conceded that point. They have already said, ``We think there could be a better way to do it. We agree to fix it.'' So what did we say on this side? ``Thank you very much, Mr. Ackerman. We appreciate this. That is what we have been asking for. We are pleased that we got it.'' I wish we had the agreement here today. I wish we knew what that deal was going to be before you brought the bill to the floor. That's why we held off in the Rules Committee for an extra day waiting for a better answer. Didn't get it, get to the floor. I would say to my good friends on this side, if you want us to be a better minority, you are going to have to be a better majority. We took seriously what Speaker Pelosi said, ``honest, open, ethical Congress.'' We are still waiting for that through the Rules Committee. When she said, ``PAYGO is going to apply to everything,'' it implied that Republicans didn't do that. Then we took that at the surface of the words, not looking for fine print, not looking for how they are going to try and get out of it. So we are trying to make sure that we simply know what we are supposed to count on. They have come to the floor today, and they have said, ``We are going to work on it.'' I am pleased we are going to do that. I am simply saying that it should have been done before it got here. That is sloppy. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I have no additional speakers on the rule. I yield to the gentleman from New York to run down his time, then I will make my closing statement.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow for the consideration of H. Res. 479, a resolution that I have not heard talked about today but the concepts are in that that I will call the ``Earmark Accountability Rule.'' At the beginning of this Congress, a number of promises were made to the American people about the Democrats' supposedly new and improved earmark rules. As the Congress has worn on, however, I have noticed that while the Democrats' rule changes definitely sound good, they have not really lived up to their promise and have not really accomplished much, since the majority has repeatedly turned their head the other way when it comes to their actual enforcement. I acknowledge that the majority has given into the minority demands for enforcement of their own rules a handful of times when it comes to appropriations conference reports. Unfortunately, we continue to see non-disclosed earmarks in all sorts of bills, also. This rules change would simply allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, not just appropriations bills. If we defeat the previous question, we can address that problem today and restore this Congress' nonexistent credibility when it comes to enforcement of its rules, like we have seen once again today. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am going to yield to the gentleman from California, who will help us to understand a little bit more clearly about the uncooked and, I believe, sloppy work that was presented to the Rules Committee such that many, many, many Members on a bipartisan basis questioned the decision that was made, and it will help us to reflect upon an opportunity about how it could be done better. I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from San Dimas, California, the Honorable David Dreier. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this modified closed rule that shuts down debate in the House to every Member of this body, except the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who has already had ample time and opportunity to modify this legislation, and to one token Republican amendment. Two nights ago, in the Democrat Rules Committee, which over the last year has truly solidified its reputation as the graveyard of good ideas in the House of Representatives, we had a wide-ranging discussion from Members on both sides of the aisle about their proposals to improve this legislation. We adjourned this meeting without reporting out a rule so that alternatives to subverting the Rules Committee jurisdiction, while sticking to the Democrat pay-for rule, could be studied. Unfortunately, when the opportunity came for the majority to make good on its campaign promises to run the most honest, ethical and transparent House in history by providing an open and transparent legislative process, Members of this House were, once again, silenced by the heavy-handed Democrat leadership. While I am no longer surprised by the Democrat leadership's decision to allow politics to prevail over good government, I'm still disappointed, because as the sponsor of legislation to extend the TRIA program in the 108th Congress, I fundamentally believe that it has helped the private sector to stabilize our Nation's economy by providing a functioning marketplace for policyholders to acquire terrorism insurance and for insurers to provide it to them. In fact, many of the positive aspects of this bill mimic policy proposals included in my legislation, and in legislation introduced last Congress by my good friend from Louisiana, Richard Baker. Like these Republican bills, today's legislation would extend the current program, providing both policyholders and insurers with the certainty needed for long-term projects and our domestic economic health to move forward. And, like prior Republican legislation, today's bill would eliminate the false distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terror. As we have learned from the London bombings and from the recent foiled terrorist plots in Germany and in New Jersey, no country is insulated from home-grown terrorism, which can be just as destructive and as costly as terrorists from abroad. Other aspects of this legislation, such as the inclusion of nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological coverage, mimic past Republican proposals without including market-based modifications that our proposals also contained in order to make this coverage both taxpayer friendly and cost efficient. Unfortunately, there's one proposal in today's legislation that is unprecedented and that I simply cannot support. Written in the Rules Committee, without any consideration or debate in the Financial Services Committee, and then self-executed by the rule so that it receives no up-or-down vote, this rule contains language that skirts recent Democrat promises to abide by their own self-imposed PAYGO rules by shifting the responsibility of funding TRIA onto future Congresses. By including this mandate on future Congresses, which the Supreme Court has roundly rejected as unconstitutional, the market stabilization benefits of TRIA completely evaporate. Rather than helping to provide insurers and policyholders with the certainty that they need to manage their exposure to the financial costs of terrorism, this bill simply kicks the responsibility down the road and by and large says ``we will let somebody else worry about that.'' Rather than clearly signaling to the private sector what the Federal Government will spend in the event of another attack on the United States and what their own costs and responsibilities would be, this hastily drafted language, shoved in in the middle of the night, reintroduces political risk into this financial transaction by leaving these hard decisions up to the whims of a future Congress. Mr. Speaker, I think this Congress should do better and they can do better than this. Instead of closed rules and artful dodges of the PAYGO rule, I think that Members and their constituents deserve the openness promised by Democrat leadership. Instead of procedural trickery and inserting language of a mysterious origin into this rule without any minority input or open debate, I think that Members and their constituents deserve transparency, which was promised by the Democrat leadership. And, most of all, instead of leaving the hard decisions and potential costs of this program to future Congresses, I believe that Members and their constituents deserve a bill that deals honestly with one of the most serious problems facing the American economy. Unfortunately, this bill provides none of these things and is a far less responsible approach to dealing with the real-world economic problems posed by terrorism to our country, more than past Republican proposals. In fact, about the best thing that can be said about this bill and the process under which it is being considered today is the fact that perhaps it will spur the Senate to provide the American people with a more serious proposal in dealing with TRIA so that all of the flaws of this legislation can be worked out in conference. I oppose this rule and encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman for his fine remarks. As a matter of fact, I agree with him, that I do not believe that it is proper or correct to have a mandatory bill which requires mandatory spending, but discretionary funding that's available. And that is exactly what this new Democrat majority is doing. They are saying we would be absolutely required, mandatory, to spend the money, but discretionary as to whether we're really serious about providing that or not. And I believe that that is a serious question that comes under question today about the serious nature of the policy of this. I don't attack the underlying legislation at all. The legislation does not bother me. I've supported this for years. That's what will be the underpinning of making our country stronger and better and preparing us for what may be in our future. But you can't require something and then not provide the money, especially under PAYGO rules that you had initiated yourself. So this is simply a debate that the new Democrat majority is having within itself about whether they're really serious about their opportunity to bring to the table serious policy issues that face this great Nation. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price. (Mr. PRICE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, once again, another speaker from our friends on the Democrat side, talking with us about how they are going to fix it. We appreciate that. That is what we are asking for today. The best I can tell you is that the Republican Party is in favor of fixing it. We believe the best way to do it is on the floor of the House right now, because right now we could fix it where all the Members will understand what the ramifications are. The ramifications are either that we are going to say that terrorist attacks don't apply under PAYGO rules or that terrorist attacks would be in fine print, that now perhaps the Democrat majority wants to put in that all this spending applies but perhaps not under certain circumstances. I think we could craft a deal here. But now what the gentleman is asking us to do is ``just trust me.'' Well, the first thing I would like to do is get a copy of the letter. It would be appropriate for me to ask for that. I know the gentleman, Mr. Ackerman, does not oppose my getting a copy of that letter. But what we are now being told is, ``now trust us that it will be brought back in a forum where there is debate, but it is either an up or down vote.'' We can't change that decision, nor can any other Member of this body change that. We have heard enough people talk today about how what is happening is wrong, should not happen, is bad policy. We ought to fix it today here on the floor if we are going to move forward and not say, ``trust me, trust me, wait for fine print or disagreement later.'' I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Ackerman. I thought it was not only very nice what he did but well spoken, and I appreciate the gentleman very much. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. 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.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. 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

Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. 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.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. 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.