[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 89 (Wednesday, June 29, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5441-H5445]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 342 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3058.

                              {time}  2038


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3058) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the 
Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Bass (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, the amendment by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) had been 
disposed of and the bill had been read through page 67, line 12.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to 
the bill may be offered except:
  Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the 
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations 
or their designees for the purpose of debate;
  Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 4, 8 and 13;
  An amendment by Mr. Nadler regarding HOPWA;
  An amendment by Mr. Pickering regarding enforcement of the 
Individuals With Disabilities Parking Reform Amendment Act;
  An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding D.C. funding;
  An amendment by Mr. Sanders regarding contracting out flight service 
stations, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
  An amendment by Ms. DeLauro regarding corporate entities chartered in 
Antigua, Panama, Bermuda, Barbados and the Cayman Islands, which shall 
be debatable for 15 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding an OMB Circular, which shall be 
debatable for 40 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Cuellar regarding funding for the Community 
Development Fund;
  An amendment by Mrs. Jones of Ohio regarding HOME Investment 
Partnership Program;
  An amendment by Ms. Waters regarding funding for the Community 
Development Fund;
  An amendment by Mr. Costello regarding cities of Alton and Granite 
City, Illinois;
  An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding for the Supreme 
Court;
  An amendment by Ms. Herseth regarding judiciary funding;
  An amendment by Ms. Hooley regarding increasing funds for HIDTA;
  An amendment by Ms. Velazquez regarding e-travel and small business 
protection;
  An amendment by Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan regarding the sale of 
Unocal Corporation;
  An amendment by Mr. Van Hollen regarding revisions to circular A-76;
  An amendment by Mr. Tiahrt regarding regulations on U.S. business 
competitiveness;
  An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board cut;
  An amendment by Mr. Brown of Ohio regarding reporting on the cost of 
new prescription drugs;
  An amendment by Mr. Hinchey regarding private contractor activity;
  An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding eminent domain;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding the travel ban with Cuba;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding religious exemption on the travel 
ban with Cuba;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding cap on remittances with Cuba;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding enforcement of the weight limit 
on baggage for travel to Cuba;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding amateur sports teams travel to 
Cuba;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding family travel to Cuba by members 
of the Armed Forces;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding trade agreements and their 
relationship with Cuba;
  An amendment by Ms. Lee regarding academic institutions and travel to 
Cuba;
  An amendment by Mr. Rangel regarding enforcement of the economic 
embargo on Cuba;

[[Page H5442]]

  An amendment by Mr. Honda regarding military recruiters and the 
Department of Education;
  An amendment by Mr. Markey regarding transfer of tax activity among 
countries;
  An amendment by Mr. Wynn regarding financial contractors;
  An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding section 12 of the 
U.S. Housing Act;
  An amendment by Mr. Clay regarding FHA loans and abusive lending 
practices;
  An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding funding for the 
FAA;
  An amendment by Mr. Souder regarding enforcement of firearms laws in 
D.C.;
  An amendment by Mr. Simmons regarding private debt collection;
  An amendment by Mr. Souder regarding media campaigns; and
  An amendment by Mr. Knollenberg regarding funding levels.
  Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in the 
request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in 
the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be 
subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on 
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development each may 
offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
the Committee of the Whole.
  Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        Housing Certificate Fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances, including recaptures and 
     carryover, remaining from funds appropriated to the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development under this 
     heading or the heading ``Annual contributions for assisted 
     housing'' or any other heading for fiscal year 2005 and prior 
     years, $2,493,600,000 is rescinded, to be effected by the 
     Secretary no later than September 30, 2006: Provided, That 
     any such balances governed by reallocation provisions under 
     the statute authorizing the program for which the funds were 
     originally appropriated shall be available for the 
     rescission: Provided further, That any obligated balances of 
     contract authority from fiscal year 1974 and prior that have 
     been terminated shall be cancelled: Provided further, That no 
     amounts recaptured from amounts appropriated in prior years 
     under this heading or the heading ``Annual contributions for 
     assisted housing'' and no carryover of such appropriated 
     amounts for project-based assistance shall be available for 
     the calendar year 2006 funding cycle for activities provided 
     for under the heading ``Tenant-based rental assistance''.


                    Project-Based Rental Assistance

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities and assistance for the provision of project-
     based subsidy contracts under the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) (``the Act'' 
     herein), not otherwise provided for, $5,088,300,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the amounts 
     made available under this heading are provided as follows:
       (1) $4,940,100,000 for expiring or terminating section 8 
     project-based subsidy contracts (including section 8 moderate 
     rehabilitation contracts), for amendments to section 8 
     project-based subsidy contracts (including section 8 moderate 
     rehabilitation contracts), for contracts entered into 
     pursuant to section 441 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
     Assistance Act, for renewal of section 8 contracts for units 
     in projects that are subject to approved plans of action 
     under the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 
     1987 or the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident 
     Homeownership Act of 1990, and for administrative and other 
     expenses associated with project-based activities and 
     assistance funded under this paragraph.
       (2) $147,200,000 for performance-based contract 
     administrators for section 8 project-based assistance: 
     Provided, That the Secretary may also use such amounts for 
     performance-based contract administrators for: interest 
     reduction payments pursuant to section 236(a) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1(a)); rent supplement payments 
     pursuant to section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development 
     Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s); Section 236(f)(2) rental 
     assistance payments (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1(f)(2)); project rental 
     assistance contracts for the elderly under section 202(c)(2) 
     of the Housing Act of 1959, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1701q, 
     1701q-1); project rental assistance contracts for supportive 
     housing for persons with disabilities under section 811(d)(2) 
     of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act; 
     project assistance contracts pursuant to section 202(h) of 
     the Housing Act of 1959 (Public Law 86-372; 73 Stat. 667); 
     and loans under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 
     (Public Law 86-372; 73 Stat. 667).
       (3) $1,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital 
     Fund: Provided further, That amounts recaptured under this 
     heading, the heading, `Annual Contributions for Assisted 
     Housing,' or the heading, `Housing Certificate Fund,' for 
     project-based section 8 activities may be used for renewals 
     of or amendments to section 8 project-based subsidy contracts 
     or for performance-based contract administrators, 
     notwithstanding the purposes for which such amounts were 
     appropriated.


                      Public Housing Capital Fund

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the Public Housing Capital Fund Program to carry out 
     capital and management activities for public housing 
     agencies, as authorized under section 9 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437g) (the 
     ``Act''), $2,600,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2009: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law or regulation, during fiscal year 2006, the Secretary 
     may not delegate to any Department official other than the 
     Deputy Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for Public and 
     Indian Housing any authority under paragraph (2) of section 
     9(j) regarding the extension of the time periods under such 
     section: Provided further, That for purposes of such section 
     9(j), the term ``obligate'' means, with respect to amounts, 
     that the amounts are subject to a binding agreement that will 
     result in outlays, immediately or in the future: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount provided under this 
     heading, up to $11,000,000 shall be for carrying out 
     activities under section 9(h) of such Act: Provided further, 
     That $10,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital 
     Fund: Provided further, That no funds may be used under this 
     heading for the purposes specified in section 9(k) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount provided under this 
     heading, up to $17,000,000 shall be available for the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make grants, 
     notwithstanding section 305 of this Act, to public housing 
     agencies for emergency capital needs resulting from 
     unforeseen emergencies and natural disasters occurring in 
     fiscal year 2006: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided under this heading, $24,000,000 shall be for 
     supportive services, service coordinators and congregate 
     services as authorized by section 34 of the Act and the 
     Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act 
     of 1996: Provided further, That up to $8,820,000 is to 
     support the costs of administrative and judicial 
     receiverships.


                     Public Housing Operating Fund

       For 2006 payments to public housing agencies for the 
     operation and management of public housing, as authorized by 
     section 9(e) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 1437g(e)), $3,600,000,000: Provided, That 
     all funds made available under this heading shall be 
     allocated to public housing agencies in accordance with the 
     terms, conditions, criteria and methodology set forth in the 
     ``Post 4th Session Rule'' issued on June 10, 2004 and shall 
     not be allocated using any other formula unless approved by 
     the Committee: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided under this heading, up to $50,000,000 shall be for 
     assistance for the conversion to asset management including 
     project-based accounting, budgeting and management for public 
     housing agencies operating three or more public housing 
     projects, which will under the ``Post 4th Session Rule'' 
     formula experience a loss of subsidy greater than 5 percent 
     from the amount which would otherwise have been receivable 
     under the Performance Funding System regulations superceded 
     by such formula: Provided further, That, in fiscal year 2006 
     and all fiscal years hereafter, no amounts under this heading 
     in any appropriations Act may be used for payments to public 
     housing agencies for the costs of operation and management of 
     public housing for any year prior to the current year of such 
     Act: Provided further, That no funds may be used under this 
     heading for the purposes specified in section 9(k) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended.


                  Native American Housing Block Grants

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Native American Housing Block Grants program, as 
     authorized under title I of the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) (25 
     U.S.C. 4111 et seq.), $600,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended. Notwithstanding the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, to determine 
     the amount of the allocation under title I of such Act for 
     each Indian tribe, the Secretary shall apply the formula 
     under section 302 of such Act with the need component based 
     on single-race Census data and with the need component based 
     on multi-race Census data, and the amount of the allocation 
     for each Indian tribe shall be the greater of the two 
     resulting allocation amounts. Of funds made available under 
     this heading, $1,200,000 shall be contracted through the 
     Secretary as technical assistance and capacity building to be 
     used by the National American Indian Housing Council in 
     support of the implementation of NAHASDA; of which $2,308,000 
     shall be to support the inspection of Indian housing units, 
     contract expertise, training, and

[[Page H5443]]

     technical assistance in the training, oversight, and 
     management of Indian housing and tenant-based assistance, 
     including up to $300,000 for related travel; of which 
     $45,000,000 shall be for the Indian Community Development 
     Block Grant program under title I of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5301 
     et seq.), for grants to Indian tribes notwithstanding section 
     106(a)(1) of such Act, to be allocated using the same 
     methodology as fiscal year 2005 funds of which up to 
     $4,000,000 may be used for emergencies that constitute 
     imminent threats to health and safety, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law (including section 205 of the Act): 
     Provided, That of the amount provided under this heading, 
     $2,000,000 shall be made available for the cost of guaranteed 
     notes and other obligations, as authorized by title VI of 
     NAHASDA: Provided further, That such costs, including the 
     costs of modifying such notes and other obligations, shall be 
     as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize the total principal amount of any 
     notes and other obligations, any part of which is to be 
     guaranteed, not to exceed $17,926,000: Provided further, That 
     for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
     program, up to $150,000 from amounts in the first proviso, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses''.


                  native hawaiian housing block grant

       For the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program, as 
     authorized under title VIII of the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4111 
     et seq.), $8,815,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $352,606 shall be for training and technical assistance 
     activities.


           Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section 
     184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 
     U.S.C. 1715z-13a), $2,645,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That such costs, including the costs of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $98,966,942.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, up to $250,000 from amounts in the 
     first paragraph, which shall be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses''.


      Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section 
     184A of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 
     U.S.C. 1715z-13b), $882,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That such costs, including the costs of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $35,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, up to $35,000 from amounts in the 
     first paragraph, which shall be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses.''

                   Community Planning and Development


              Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS

       For carrying out the Housing Opportunities for Persons with 
     AIDS program, as authorized by the AIDS Housing Opportunity 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 12901 et seq.), $285,000,000 to remain 
     available until September 30, 2007, except that amounts 
     allocated pursuant to section 854(c)(3) of such Act shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That the 
     Secretary shall renew all expiring contracts for permanent 
     supportive housing that were funded under section 854(c)(3) 
     of such Act that meet all program requirements before 
     awarding funds for new contracts and activities authorized 
     under this section: Provided further, That the Secretary may 
     use up to $1,000,000 of the funds under this heading for 
     training, oversight, and technical assistance activities.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
       Page 76, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 95, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure before I start 
that we have the amended amendment that says $5 million, not $10 
million.
  The ACTING Chairman. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  The ACTING Chairman. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
although I am not going to take 5 minutes.
  This amendment would increase the appropriation for the Housing 
Opportunity For Persons with AIDS program.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the appropriation for the 
Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS program, or HOPWA, by $5 
million.
  I thank Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver for 
recommending a $3 million increase from last year's appropriation, 
significantly more than the administration request. But this follows a 
$13 million cut last year.
  Adequately meeting the housing needs of all those living with HIV/
AIDS would take over $2 billion. More than 100 Members, from both sides 
of the aisle, joined me in asking the Appropriations committee for $385 
million in HOPWA funding in FY06. This amendment, however, seeks only 
to restore the cuts from last year and return HOPWA to the FY04 level 
of $295 million.
  The costs associated with the new AIDS treatments often force people 
to choose between essential medications and other necessities, such as 
housing. HOPWA answers this need. With 91 percent of HOPWA recipients 
having family incomes less than $1,000 per month, program recipients 
simply cannot afford the cuts HOPWA has taken.
  HOPWA is an extremely fiscally sound program. It supplies a low-cost 
alternative to acute-care hospital beds, typically paid for by 
Medicaid. Acute-care facilities cost Medicaid, on average, more than 
$1,000 a day, while assistance under HOPWA costs as little as $55 to 
$110 a day.
  Nationwide, thousands of people are now on waiting lists for HOPWA-
funded housing. The housing crisis facing people living with HIV/AIDS 
imposes enormous costs on individuals with the disease and on their 
families and communities. Without adequate HOPWA funding, AIDS patients 
will continue to flood our emergency rooms and shelters, and our 
Medicaid rolls. Let's get back at least to the FY04 funding level.
  I thank Messrs. Shays and Crowley for co-sponsoring this amendment, 
and demonstrating the bipartisan support HOPWA enjoys. I strongly urge 
the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I was going to add that 
I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for their cooperation, and the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Crowley) for cosponsoring the amendment. I appreciate the 
gentleman's acceptance, and I will take ``yes'' for an answer, happily.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent 
request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment to increase 
HOPWA funding to its Fiscal Year 2004 level of $293 million.

  This amendment is tremendously important for thousands of people 
afflicted with AIDS. I appreciate the good work the Chairman has done 
on this bill, as well as the fiscal constraints of this budget cycle. 
The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is when it comes to the HOPWA program I 
think we should provide more.
  The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, estimates there are between 1 
and 1.2 million Americans living with HIV and AIDS. A majority of these 
individuals will face a housing crisis at some point during their 
illness as a result of increased medical expenses and lost wages. HOPWA 
is the only federal program specifically designed to meet their needs.
  The HOPWA program is one of the most cost-effective ways to provide 
people living with HIV/AIDS with adequate and affordable housing. Acute 
care facilities, under Medicaid cost more than $1,000 a day as compared 
to

[[Page H5444]]

HOPWA community housing, which averages $55 to $110 per day.
  The program keeps those living with HIV/AIDS off the streets and out 
of expensive acute care facilities.
  My predecessor, Stewart B. McKinney, died of AIDS-related pneumonia. 
His wife, Lucie, carries on his work as chairman of the Stewart B. 
McKinney Foundation. This foundation is dedicated to providing housing 
to persons and families living with HIV/AIDS. The McKinney House and 
other HOPWA programs approach the HIV crisis in a truly caring, 
community-based and cost-effective manner.
  Because 90 percent of HOPWA funds are distributed to States by 
formula, States and localities control how money is spent--not the 
Federal Government. Communities, are empowered to use HOPWA funds to 
meet their unique housing needs--from providing short-term supportive 
housing for low-income persons with HIV/AIDS, to building new community 
residences.
  The flexibility has, in large measure, contributed to the widespread 
success of the HOPWA program. The bottom line is that money for HOPWA 
is money well spent. I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                 rural housing and economic development

       For the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development in 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development, $10,000,000 
     to remain available until expended, which amount shall be 
     competitively awarded by September 1, 2006, to Indian tribes, 
     State housing finance agencies, State community and/or 
     economic development agencies, local rural nonprofits and 
     community development corporations to support innovative 
     housing and economic development activities in rural areas.


                       Community Development Fund

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For assistance to units of State and local government, and 
     to other entities, for economic and community development 
     activities, and for other purposes, $4,151,500,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2008, unless otherwise 
     specified: Provided, That of the amount provided, 
     $3,859,900,000 is for carrying out the community development 
     block grant program under title I of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (the ``Act'' 
     herein) (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.): Provided further, That 
     unless explicitly provided for under this heading not to 
     exceed 20 percent of any grant made with funds appropriated 
     under this heading shall be expended for planning and 
     management development and administration: Provided further, 
     That $1,600,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital 
     Fund.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Waters:
       Page 77, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $6,944,000)''.
       Page 157, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $6,944,000)''.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment that is basically known as the 
section 108 loan guarantee amendment. This is an amendment that is 
offered to the Community Development Grant Fund for cities and counties 
that would allow them to continue to have a section 108 loan guarantee 
program for the purpose of big-scale developments in the cities that 
would be guaranteed by the CDBG funds.
  These are very important economic development funds. In the past, we 
have had a substantial amount of money in this fund, and it has been 
used by the cities to create jobs and to rebuild downtowns, to 
rehabilitate old towns, to basically not only create jobs, but 
revitalize cities.
  So we are simply asking that we take a small amount of money from the 
advertising section of the drug policy section of the budget so that we 
not only not transfer, but we keep some money in this fund by which to 
keep section 108 a viable program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose any amendment to continue the section 108 loan 
program which is recommended for elimination as part of a broad sweep 
of lower-priority programs. We must reduce or eliminate these programs 
in order to free up the funds for the highest priorities in HUD: 
assistance to extremely low-income families and restoring funds for 
community development.
  There are many good reasons for terminating the program which the 
administration has proposed to do for the last 4 years. This program 
has been rated as ineffective, underutilized, and lacks accountability.
  First and foremost, this program duplicates several others that, 
relatively speaking, have a long history of success. CDBG economic 
development loans and grants average about $500 million annually. New 
markets tax credits, $15 billion in subsidy over 5 years. Empowerment 
Zones, enterprise and renewal community tax credits and SBA loans are 
part as well of this successful side.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to state further that section 108 loans are 
among the most expensive forms of financing relative to tax-exempt 
State and local borrowing. The program is contrary to the Department of 
Treasury rules and principles in effect today for all loan programs.
  The program is already in decline. Last year, only 74 took out 
section 108 loans, 74 out of 4,000 eligible communities.
  Finally, the program will not end in 2006 even if there are no funds 
in 2006. Ample funds from prior years will carry the program forward 
for at least the next 2 years. Over $13 million is still available to 
guarantee over 550 million in new loans, even if no new funds are 
provided.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote against restoring this program. 
I know the gentlewoman wants it very badly, but we really do not have a 
need for it; and we want to preserve HUD's highest-priority programs 
instead.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I also want to talk briefly about the 
offset from ONDCP, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the 
national ad campaign. This was funded under former President Clinton at 
a level of $180 million back in the 1990s. What we have seen is it is 
reduced all the way down to $120 million in this bill, which means that 
it is barely able to sustain itself, given that advertising costs have 
gone up.
  There is an amendment later in this bill that the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) and I are doing in a bipartisan way to try to 
increase the dollars so we can afford and fund anti-meth campaigns 
around this country, as we are also doing under ONDCP in the High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking area.
  This amendment, though it is not a large amount, would potentially be 
an absolutely crippling blow to this particular program and certainly 
would end any chance for us to do any meth advertising in this budget. 
Thus, I ask people who support our efforts to combat methamphetamine to 
vote against this amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Michigan has described 
something other than section 108 loan guarantee programs. Section 108 
loan guarantee programs are considered one of the most potent and 
important public investment tools that HUD offers to local governments. 
It allows agencies to transform a small portion of their CDBG funds 
into federally guaranteed loans large enough to pursue physical and 
economic revitalization projects that can renew entire neighborhoods. 
It is a very effective public investment.
  The small amount of money that I am asking to be taken from the drug 
program is from the advertising budget. I do not want to spend a lot of 
time

[[Page H5445]]

talking about the ineffectiveness of that program; I simply can say 
that that program has not reduced drug use in this country, despite the 
millions of dollars that we have spent.
  Again, $120 million is a lot of money for an advertising program that 
does very little to deter anybody from using drugs. I would hope that 
some day there will be some restructuring of that program to try and 
make it more effective, because I really do think it is a waste, 
practically, of the taxpayers' money.
  Having said that, I would advise my colleagues that many of you have 
section 108 loan programs in your districts that are providing funds 
for great revitalization; and should these funds not be available or we 
not continue this program or show some support for this program, in 
addition to whatever dollars are remaining, I think you will find that 
your cities will be very disappointed, because this is the only money 
that they have been able to count on that is not scored against the 
budget to do this kind of revitalization and job creation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________