mr. speaker , a little while ago , we had a vote on the manager 's amendment . 
it was a very close vote . 
it was 210 to 205 . 
one member inadvertently voted the other way that he planned to . 
so it was 209 to 206 . 
what i am offering here as the recommit is a close replay of that vote , but it ought to be even clearer for people . 
my recommittal motion leaves the manager 's amendment as adopted entirely intact except for two changes . 
one , instead of requiring that to participate in the affordable housing fund , housing must be the organization 's primary purpose , it says it must be one of its primary purposes . 
if you maintain the requirement that it be the primary purpose , no faith-based organization may participate . 
some of you may remember a familiar passage : thou shalt have no primary purpose above me . 
if you say that you can only do this if you have housing as your primary purpose , by definition the catholic church and the baptists and the episcopalians and the jewish groups , which are collectively today a very important provider of affordable housing , are simply automatically debarred . 
there will be no faith-based groups allowed . 
people are talking about faith-based groups . 
i am aware of no restriction as binding as saying it has to be the primary purpose , and i will insert into the record at this point a letter not just from catholic charities , but from bishop dimarzio , on behalf of the united states conference of catholic bishops , saying that : `` proposals that would limit eligible recipients to organizations that have as their purpose the provision of affordable housing would effectively prevent catholic dioceses , parishes and catholic charities agencies from participating. '' department of social development and world peace , washington , dc , october 3 , 2005 . 
dear mr . 
speaker : i write as chairman of the domestic policy committee of the united states conference of catholic bishops ( usccb ) to urge you to retain the affordable housing fund as part of the federal housing finance reform act of 2005 ( h.r. 1461 ) and bring the bill to a vote forthwith . 
the catholic bishops have historically urged the federal government to help meet our nation 's promise of a decent home for every american family , especially those families with extremely low incomes . 
as i noted in my june 10 letter to the house of representatives , the catholic community -- through our charities agencies , dioceses , and parishes -- serves tens of thousands of men , women , and children who struggle to maintain adequate housing . 
besides sheltering homeless people who turn to us for help , we have built , and continue to maintain , thousands of affordable housing units . 
all of these experiences have demonstrated to us how inadequate , substandard housing hurts human life , undermines families , destroys communities , and weakens the social fabric of our nation . 
despite our efforts -- and the efforts of so many others -- there just is not enough affordable housing available . 
proposals that would limit eligible recipients to organizations that have as their primary purpose the provision of affordable housing would effectively prevent catholic dioceses , parishes and catholic charities agencies from participating in affordable housing fund programs . 
similarly , proposals that would prohibit recipients from engaging in voter registration and lobbying activities with their own funds during the period they are utilizing affordable housing funds would force catholic agencies to choose between participating in affordable housing fund programs or engaging in constitutionally protected voter registration and lobbying activities with their own funds . 
i urge you to oppose inclusion of these kinds of unnecessary limitations and prohibitions in h.r. 1461 as it moves to the house floor for the bishops ' statement , putting children and families first , notes : `` many families can not find or afford decent housing , or must spend so much of their income for shelter that they forego other necessities , such as food and medicine . 
... .. 
[ the catholic bishops ] support housing policies which seek to preserve and increase the supply of affordable housing and help families pay for it. '' we must put in place a sustainable source of funds to build affordable housing and this new fund would do that . 
as i said in my june letter , this legislation presents congress with a genuine opportunity to make the shelter needs of extremely low-income families a national priority . 
i believe that such families who need housing the most should be targeted to receive these limited funds . 
with every best wish , i am , sincerely , chairman , domestic policy committee , american association of homes and services for the aging , october 24 , 2005 . 
dear representative : on behalf of the american association of homes and services for the aging ( aahsa ) , i want to express our members ' deep reservations over an amendment expected to be proposed when h.r. 1461 , the gse reform legislation , is brought to the floor this week . 
the proposed amendment seeks to impose restrictions on the eligibility of non-profit faith-based organizations interested in applying for development funding under the affordable housing fund created in this legislation . 
while on one hand congress and the administration call for greater participation by non-profit , faith-based organizations to carry the load in helping our neediest citizens , the house now seems poised to cut us off from a funding stream that we need in order to continue to provide affordable housing to low-income seniors . 
president bush himself has lauded the faith-based , non-profit housing partnership with government as an outstanding example of successful faith-based programs . 
aahsa has 5600 members nationwide ; all are non-profit organizations and most are faith-based . 
our members serve two million people every day and provide services across the continuum : assisted living residences , continuing care retirement communities , nursing homes , senior housing facilities , and home and community based services . 
for our many members who are non-profit sponsors of affordable senior housing , the proposal is a slap in the face to their efforts to be active participants in their communities and ensuring the highest possible quality of life for their senior residents . 
as an association , we encourage our members to engage in and sponsor such non-partisan and perfectly legal activities as voter registration , providing transportation to the polls , candidate debates and town hall meetings . 
because of the high concentration of voters , many of our senior housing facilities even serve as polling sites . 
our members should not have to choose between being good citizens and being eligible applicants for the quasi-public monies to be made available under the affordable housing fund . 
furthermore , even if a facility did not provide any of the civic services , the mere fact that it is affiliated with another organization that does , would render the organization ineligible . 
please support h.r. 1461 , but without this restrictive amendment . 
sincerely yours , william l. minnix , jr. , union of orthodox jewish congregations of america , washington , dc , october 24 , 2005 . 
dear leaders of the house of representatives : we write on behalf of the union of orthodox jewish congregations of america to urge you to ensure that the federal housing finance reform act of 2005 ( h.r. 1461 ) contains no provisions which would be disruptive to participation of the many religiously affiliated organizations in affordable housing programs . 
proposals that would limit eligible recipients to organizations that have as their `` primary purpose '' the provision of affordable housing would effectively prevent many jewish community entities from participating in affordable housing fund programs . 
similarly , proposals that would prohibit recipients from engaging in voter registration and lobbying activities with their own funds in order to receive affordable housing funds would force many jewish agencies to choose between participating in affordable housing fund programs or engaging in constitutionally protected voter registration and lobbying activities with their own funds . 
we urge you to oppose inclusion of these kinds of unnecessary limitations and prohibitions in h.r. 1461 and , if they are to be considered by the house on the floor , to ensure that these provisions receive a full debate and up or down vote . 
it is critical to note that such proposals are as objectionable when it comes to housing funds and free speech rights as they are objectionable when proposed with regard to other social welfare program funds and other constitutionally protected rights . 
as is the case with many other federally funded social-welfare programs in which faith-based entities participate , there are appropriate ways to write safeguards into the legislation to prevent the diversion of funds to uses other than what they are intended without requiring recipients to forego their constitutionally protected rights as a condition for participating . 
we urge you to uphold these principles in the context of h.r. 1461 . 
sincerely , & lt ; center & gt ; rabbi t. hersh weinreb , & lt ; /center & gt ; & lt ; center & gt ; nathan j. diament. & lt ; /center & gt ; washington , dc , october 24 , 2005 . 
dear chairman dreier and ranking member slaughter : as you know , the house is scheduled this week to consider h.r. 1461 , the federal housing finance reform act of 2005 . 
the consortium for citizens with disabilities ( ccd ) would like to go on record against language in the proposed manager 's amendment that we believe would be of tremendous harm to community-based non-profit disability organizations across the country . 
ccd is a coalition of more than 100 national disability organizations working together to advocate for national public policy that ensures the self-determination , independence , empowerment , integration and inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of society . 
a large part of our agenda focuses on civil rights and protections for the 56 million people with disabilities in the u.s. it is ccd 's understanding that the proposed manager 's amendment contains language that would require many disability organizations to violate state law if they were to apply for grants made available through the affordable housing fund included in h.r. 1461 . 
this would result from a requirement in the legislation for non-profit organizations that seek funding from this program to certify that they are not engaged in voter registration or voter education efforts , regardless of the source of these funds . 
at the outset , ccd would like to make clear that we oppose efforts on the part of congress to use federal funding as leverage to control how non-profit disability organizations expend other resources , including state and local , as well as privately raised funds . 
such restrictions , in our view , amount to undue federal government control over activities of non-profit disability organizations . 
unfortunately , the language in the proposed manager 's amendment to h.r. 1461 , singling out voter registration activities of non-profit organizations , takes an additional step that would place non-profit disability groups in jeopardy of violating both the constitution and the law . 
in addition , this would also conflict with the `` motor voter '' law . 
the national voter registration act of 1993 ( `` motor voter law '' ) was enacted to facilitate voter registration , with the goal of increasing turnout on election day . 
besides requiring states to allow voter registration at motor vehicle agencies , the motor voter law also requires nonprofit organizations that receive state funds and are primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities to provide voter registration forms as well as assistance in completing them . 
because some of these same organizations would be prohibited from engaging in voter registration activities under the manager 's amendment to h.r. 1461 , the manager 's amendment would force many organizations -- particularly those that provide because voter registration , identification , and get-out-the-vote efforts , as well as lobbying , are constitutionally protected first amendment activities , funding restrictions that would stifle such activities could well be struck down if they are not adequately tailored to further an important government interest . 
ensuring that organizations spend federal funds only as congress has intended is , in itself , a legitimate government objective . 
the extreme breadth of the language in the proposed manager 's amendment , however , would do nothing to further this goal . 
it does not seem possible that retroactively prohibiting activities , disqualifying applicants based on their affiliations with organizations that do not receive any federal dollars , or restricting the use of other unrelated funds would ensure that affordable housing finally , the proposed legislation would affect disability organizations that are essential to the successful development of affordable housing and permanent supportive housing for persons with disabilities . 
for example , it would affect non-profit disability organizations that have a direct role in the development and subsequent ownership of affordable rental housing for people with disabilities . 
equally important , the proposed legislation would affect non-profit service provider organizations that are affiliated with affordable housing developers/owners for the purposes of providing essential supportive services to people who are living in the housing . 
many non-profit service providers have structured these relationships with housing providers through formalized memoranda of understanding , management agreements , or other written agreements . 
ccd has supported the affordable housing fund contained in h.r. 1461 since its inception . 
nonprofit disability groups across the country struggle every day to seek out funding to meet the growing affordable housing crisis for non-elderly people with disabilities . 
hud programs such as section 811 , section 8 tenant-based and project-based , home , cdbg and mckinney-vento are critical resources in meeting the needs of extremely low-income people with disabilities . 
however , additional resources are needed to ensure that the increasing demand for affordable rental housing in the community among people with disabilities is met . 
non-profit disability organizations want to be able to access the resources being made available by this important legislation . 
ccd therefore urges you to remove the unfair and unwarranted restrictions on non-profit disability groups in the proposed manager 's amendment to h.r. 1461 . 
non-profit disability groups should not be forced to violate state law in order to compete for affordable housing resources . 
sincerely , curtis decker , secondly , it would say that , yes , the restrictions on electioneering are maintained . 
by the way , with regard to the funds themselves from the affordable housing fund , they can only be used for affordable housing with very strict penalties if they are not . 
we are talking now not about using that money for any purpose other than housing , but whether , if you agree to use that money for housing under those restrictions , you may , with your own money , do other things such as voter registration or get out the vote . 
we maintain the restrictions on electioneering . 
we maintain the restrictions on making a communication vote for this one , a vote for that one . 
we say , however , there should be an exception to this , and copies of the recommit are available over there . 
all we want to say is that when we restrict and prevent electioneering , it does not cover any voter registration or get-out-the-vote activity conducted on a nonpartisan basis . 
those who have a fear of acorn should understand that the acorn florida activity referred to before would not be allowed under this . 
i would rather not be that restrictive , but i accept the reality of it . 
so only organizations that fit in the column of nonpartisan . 
the gentleman from ohio from the republican conference raised the issue . 
under this bill , as it now stands , if you are a religious organization , and you maintain an elderly housing project , which are built with these funds , you can not get a bus to take people to vote . 
that is get-out-the-vote activity . 
you can not have a voter registrar in there . 
so that is what we are talking about , not using the funds for this , but using those funds on your own to help out . 
there is a procedural issue here . 
the leadership in the committee on rules said we did not stop you from voting ; you could vote on the manager 's amendment , and you get a recommit . 
the manager 's amendment , some people were conflicted because it included the preference for the hurricane areas . 
it included restrictions that i reluctantly accepted . 
i am not trying to change here . 
this is the only chance we have to vote cleanly on whether or not we should exclude all faith-based groups and whether or not groups , faith-based or not , that agree to try to provide low-income housing with these funds should be debarred with their own funds from doing nonpartisan voter registration and get out the vote . 
here is the dilemma . 
on the one hand , we say we do not get a vote , and the committee on rules people said , oh , no , you have the recommit . 
on the other , they said to the republicans , but do not vote against recommit ; nice people do not vote against recommittal motions ; recommit is not a real amendment ; recommit is a procedural vote . 
well , this is a test . 
we have this situation . 
i do not believe most members over there want to keep religious groups out . 
i do not believe they want to penalize voter registration . 
a small , conservative , ideological group , and i admire ideologues , sometimes i am one myself , they have held this out , and they have held off the bill . 
here is the one chance , the recommit , to see whether or not members will frankly take back control of the house , because as long as you accept this interchange of events , bill comes out of committee , majority leadership holds it up and insists on provisions that we never got to vote on , and then you do not get a chance to vote just on those provisions , the only chance you get is when we do the recommit , and then what are you told : you can not vote for the recommit ; nice people do not do that . 
the question here is will democracy prevail in the house and when members on the other side vote their conscience and not be told that they simply can not do what they know is right , many of them , because it is in a motion to recommit , when no other alternative was presented to them . 
