[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2689-H2718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           GULF COAST HURRICANE HOUSING RECOVERY ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 254 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1227.

                              {time}  1450


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1227) to assist in the provision of affordable housing to low-
income families affected by Hurricane Katrina, with Mr. Baird in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.

[[Page H2690]]

  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I begin by yielding myself 
1 minute, and then yield to the main author of this bill, the 
gentlewoman from California.
  This is a bill which comes to this House about 18 months late. It is 
in response to the problems of the hurricane in the gulf. It is the 
result of very diligent work.
  One week after the committee was organized, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), who is the Chair of the Housing Subcommittee, 
and I began to work on this. We had a very long all-day hearing in 
Washington.
  During the February break, the gentlewoman from California took her 
subcommittee to Louisiana and Mississippi and had very extensive 
hearings. As a result of these very extensive hearings and 
consultations, we have brought forward a bill of which she is the 
primary author, which we believe does as much as can be done to respond 
to the needs of the people in that area that have sadly been, in some 
ways, neglected since the hurricane.
  I am very pleased to be able to yield to the gentlewoman from 
California, who is the moving spirit behind this bill, as much time as 
she consumes as we describe our very belated, but still very necessary 
efforts to respond to these human needs.
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank the Chair of the Financial Services 
Committee, Mr. Barney Frank, for all of the time and attention he has 
placed on making this our number one priority, dealing with the 
aftermath of Katrina. He said to me and to all of the Members of my 
subcommittee, ``Move as quickly as you possibly can. Get the hearings 
going. Let's get a bill to the floor.'' And because of his interest and 
because of his support, we are here today on the floor indeed 
addressing many of those issues that should have been addressed a long 
time ago, and I thank Mr. Frank so very much for that.
  It has been exactly 2 weeks since the Committee on Financial Services 
considered H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 
2007. By a vote of 50-16, the committee passed the bill. I want to 
thank again Chairman Frank for supporting the bill through markup. I 
want to thank the members of our committee from both sides of the aisle 
who voted for this bill.
  There are also many Members of Congress who have expressed major 
concerns about the rebuilding process in the gulf region post-Katrina 
and support this bill.
  This bill addresses many of the obstacles to the rebuilding process 
in the gulf region. Prior to consideration of this bill, the Committee 
on Financial Services held hearings on post-Katrina housing issues, 
followed by 2 days of subcommittee field hearings in New Orleans, 
Louisiana, and Gulfport, Mississippi.
  The bill before you today represents consensus on one major issue; 
that is, for the rebuilding process in the gulf region to ever begin, 
we need to address the affordable housing crisis in the gulf region by 
returning people to their homes. Whether it is a home in need of major 
repair, a public housing unit damaged by the storm, or a home totally 
destroyed, every person who desires to live in the gulf region must be 
given an opportunity to rebuild and to return home.
  We learned through hours of testimony that the reasons for failure in 
the gulf region related to the rebuilding process were often 
bureaucratic, administrative, as well as a consequence of inadequate 
poststorm planning by the Federal Government.
  The hurricanes hit the gulf region in August of 2005, leaving behind 
unparalleled devastation. Many have acknowledged their frustration with 
the speed and pace of the recovery. Others realize that the efforts of 
Congress to provide $110 billion to the gulf region have not 
necessarily resulted in money into the right people's hands, and I 
could not agree more.
  However, this bill does not place blame on anyone, but rather 
recognizes the need to bring efficiency to the process, whether through 
administration of the Road Home program or the Federal Public Housing 
program, so that persons in need are assisted with the financial 
resources that we approved for them months ago.
  I had one goal when I introduced this bill, and that was to see the 
gulf region rebuilt, while addressing the affordable housing crisis in 
the region. The hurricanes destroyed nearly 300,000 units of housing in 
the gulf region, affordable rental units, homes of low- and moderate-
income families, and public housing. The hurricanes did not 
discriminate when it came to destroying the housing stock in the gulf 
region. No income group was spared. Whether the family lived in public 
housing, high-priced homes, or affordable rental housing in the gulf 
region, they were all affected alike. Many of the residents of the 
major affected areas like New Orleans and elsewhere have not recovered 
from the storms, and thousands are still displaced and living in other 
parts of the country months after the storms rather than their formal 
communities. While all of these persons may not choose to return or 
even wish to return, we must provide those who do with an opportunity 
to return.
  H.R. 1227 is about rebuilding communities to allow people to return 
to the gulf region. We should not have to rebuild communities one at a 
time in the gulf, and in some cases that is what it will take. What 
would be worse is not rebuilding any of the communities in the gulf 
region, and that is the path that we are currently on. Housing is the 
key to everything in the gulf region. No housing means zero 
communities. No communities will mean that rebuilding is impossible in 
the gulf region.
  This bill will address a number of issues. The build resolves the 
HUD-FEMA dispute by allowing the Hazard Mitigation Fund to be combined 
with the Community Development Block Grant funds. In addition, the bill 
requires monthly reports by the State of Louisiana on number of 
households assisted through the programs funded with CDBG funds for the 
Road Home program.
  By eliminating the prohibition against the match requirement, CDBG 
supplemental funds can be used in conjunction with other Federal 
programs, including those administered by FEMA. In addition, the bill 
also provides for reimbursements related to an entitlement community's 
use of the Community Development Block Grant funds to provide rental 
assistance to displaced residents.
  Public housing because of the hurricanes. Many public housing 
residents are displaced with no reasonable housing option. Living in 
trailers and doubling up do not qualify as reasonable housing options. 
This bill would provide a means to return for the greater of 3,000 or 
those who respond to the survey who are former New Orleans public 
housing residents. It also establishes the one-for-one replacement 
principle by requiring a plan to be approved by HUD and the residents 
prior to any wholesale demolition or redevelopment efforts of public 
housing units.
  Under the bill, HUD is required to complete a survey of displaced 
public housing residents to determine whether they want to return to 
public housing in New Orleans. In addition, the bill requires HUD to 
report on any proposed conversion of public housing units located in 
areas affected by the hurricane, as well as comply with the bill's 
other requirements related to public housing.
  The bill addresses disaster vouchers and project-based rental 
assistance. It extends disaster vouchers for 3 months until January 
2008. Project-based vouchers would be protected where a project was 
destroyed or is in need of substantial rehabilitation. The bill 
clarifies the voucher allocation formula by requiring HUD to make 
appropriate adjustments consistent with the funding year 2007 
continuing resolution. In addition, the bill requires a number of 
proactive measures related to vouchers that will ensure that no one is 
left without access to housing as a result of hurricanes.

                              {time}  1500

  Further, title IV of the bill would provide for the reimbursement of 
landlords who suffered damages related to

[[Page H2691]]

commitments made by FEMA in conjunction with providing rental units to 
displaced residents. Without their commitment to house displaced 
families, what can best be described as a tragedy would have become a 
21st-century horror story.
  I am pleased that the Members of the House are in the position to 
speed up the recovery and rebuilding process in the gulf region by 
supporting this bill. This bill is a small investment to make sure that 
the $110 billion we have spent thus far is not squandered. 
Unfortunately, renters and homeowners alike have suffered in the gulf 
region for too many months. I believe this bill will bring much needed 
relief to those persons who have suffered the most.
  Again, I would like to thank Barney Frank, our chairman, for the 
tremendous work that he has done. I would like to thank all of the 
members of our subcommittee and of the entire committee, and I want to 
thank Mrs. Biggert, the ranking member on the opposite side of the 
aisle, for the cooperation. She went to New Orleans. She sat in those 
hearings, and she visited those public housing projects, and she has as 
much knowledge about this as anyone.
  So I am thankful that we are at this point today, and I would ask for 
an ``aye'' vote on this legislation.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking Chairman Frank for bringing 
this bill to the House floor today and for presiding over a 
constructive debate when the Financial Services Committee considered 
the legislation earlier this month.
  I also want to thank Ranking Member Bachus for his leadership on this 
issue and of course Chairman Waters for all the work that she has done 
in the Subcommittee on Housing on this.
  Let me just kind of return to where we started with the hurricane on 
August 29, 2005. Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans. September 2, 2005, 
President Bush signs into law a $10.5 billion supplemental 
appropriations measure for the affected areas. It was passed by voice 
vote in the House. September 9, 2005, President Bush signs into law a 
second installment, this time for $51.8 billion, again passed the 
House. March 16, 2006, the House passes the third installment for the 
supplemental. May 30, 2006, HUD approves Governor of Louisiana Blanco's 
Road Home Program, and the Governor needed congressional approval for 
the $4.2 billion. Fifteen days later, the House agrees to the 
conference report of voting approval. June 15, 2006, President Bush 
signs into law a third installment for the amount of $19.3 billion. 
June 16, 2006, the Road Home Program is operational in Louisiana. March 
5, 2007, the Road Home enters its ninth month of operation. 112,672 
Road Home applications. How many have closed? 2,790 grants.
  So we have entered a new era where it was very important for us to go 
down and see what was happening and to make sure that we could 
effectively have something happen there.
  The hurricanes that struck the gulf coast in August of 2005 affected 
over 1 million Americans, destroying or damaging some 265,000 homes and 
apartments in Louisiana and Mississippi alone. Since the disaster, the 
Federal Government has committed more than $110 billion to help the 
gulf coast, including $16.7 billion for the CDBG program, which 
provides flexibility for housing and economically rebuilding the 
programs. Unfortunately, getting the money out the door is taking more 
time than it should. With respect to the CDBG funding, for example, 
only $1.2 billion of the $16.7 billion promised has been delivered.
  With respect to the affordable housing stock, Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita left 112,000 fewer rental units in the five-State gulf coast 
region than existed before the storms. As the region recovers, and as 
residents seek to return, there has been a spike in demand for 
nondamaged rental units from construction workers, displaced lower-
income renters, and higher-income homeowners who are temporarily 
renting units in the area while their houses are repaired.
  Since the disaster first struck, the Financial Services Committee has 
certainly played an active role passing much needed legislation last 
Congress that relieved regulatory burdens and shored up the 
government's flood insurance program. During this Congress, the full 
committee and the Housing Subcommittee, on which I serve, have held 
multiple hearings on the reconstruction and recovery area in the gulf. 
Indeed, over the President's Day recess, as Chairwoman Waters 
mentioned, my colleague from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, and I participated 
in field hearings held by Chairman Waters in New Orleans and 
Mississippi. There we heard from residents trying to rebuild their 
lives and communities in the face of considerable obstacles and often 
maddening bureaucratic delays.
  The magnitude of the challenge facing the gulf coast residents 
requires us to rise above partisanship and political finger-pointing 
and develop sustainable solutions to the very serious problems that 
persist in New Orleans and other parts of the region.
  While the committee Republicans share the majority's goal of 
providing displaced families with stability and ensuring there is 
access to safe, affordable housing, a number of provisions in H.R. 1227 
are troubling. Accordingly, the Republicans will offer several 
amendments made in order by the Rules Committee that will seek to 
assist those in need while, at the same time, being mindful of the need 
for fiscal responsibility and for prioritizing among competing demands 
for tax dollars.
  It is important that we act in a deliberative and thoughtful manner 
on this important piece of legislation. Rather than seeking to simply 
reconstitute a public housing system that was clearly broken long 
before Katrina made land fall, we owe it to the residents of the gulf 
coast to build something better. Our focus should be on helping those 
families who lived in the gulf before the hurricanes and wish to return 
home to rebuild their lives and communities.
  Hurricane Katrina not only left physical devastation in its wake; it 
left behind a reservoir of anger, strong emotions and painful 
experiences. Our challenge is to channel these experiences and emotions 
into an appropriate response. Thousands of affected Americans depend on 
us not to get angry, but to do it right. So do the families who in the 
future may themselves experience a Katrina-like tragedy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first for 1 minute I would 
like to recognize myself to acknowledge the spirit in which this 
happened. I think this bill is a very good blend of partisanship and 
bipartisanship, and they are equally important. Partisanship, there has 
never been a democracy in the history of the world where you did not 
have political parties. People who are on trying to govern themselves 
cannot do that as a kind of a random mass. And there are general 
philosophical differences. The key is not to allow those legitimate 
differences of ideology and partisanship to poison the ability to work 
together. I think this bill shows that.
  And I am very grateful to the gentlewoman from Illinois, the 
gentleman from Texas, the gentleman from Alabama. We worked together on 
this. There were some strong disagreements. We had a number of rollcall 
votes. Some of them were close; some of them weren't. We have managed 
to reproduce through the rule most of those, not all I acknowledge, but 
most of those substantive disagreements about this bill, they are in 
here in the rule to the extent that people wanted to redebate them. And 
that is important.
  But I acknowledge the fact that while we had some differences, that 
did not prevent us from coming together on some commonality. There was 
never in this bill any effort to delay or divert. We managed to talk 
seriously. And, yes, there are differences between the parties. There 
is on our side, I believe, a greater willingness to provide some 
funding for some of these things. Those will be legitimately debated.
  Mr. Chairman, let me now yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), who is the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, who has been very helpful, because the lives of FEMA and HUD 
are deeply intertwined, and trying to legislate here requires treading 
this. And the gentleman from Minnesota is an example to others not to 
allow turf consciousness and jurisdictional hypersensitivity to get in 
the way of good

[[Page H2692]]

public policy. So I thank the gentleman. I yield him such time as he 
will consume.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding time rather than 
turf. And the gentleman is quite right. I greatly appreciate the 
participation that we had, the partnership between our two committees. 
And I want to compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts and the Chair 
of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), and the Republican 
members on our committee who have all worked together to see to it that 
this critical piece of legislation dealing with addressing the housing 
needs still outstanding, 18 months after Katrina and Rita devastated 
the gulf coast, to see that they can be carried through, that we can 
deliver the needs of the people in the entire gulf coast area.
  We have worked out some concerns that we had on our side through the 
jurisdiction our committee has over FEMA to address the problems of 
people to ensure that we provide new assistance and speed up the help 
from the existing programs, make sure that that money flows more 
vigorously to the people and readily.
  I have been engaged with FEMA since the mid-1980s when the then-
Reagan administration proposed to revise funding under, what we now 
call FEMA was then Civil Defense, as to reduce to zero the Federal 
support for almost every disaster except a very few, and then there 
would be only 25 percent Federal support.
  With the help of a Member of Congress from Pennsylvania, a 
Republican, and the ranking Republican on my Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight, we exposed this failing to the public. We 
rallied support, created the framework which is today FEMA, and that 
Member of Congress from Pennsylvania then introduced a bill we 
developed in committee. We got it enacted. And many years later, he was 
selected by President Bush to be the first Secretary of Homeland 
Security, Tom Ridge. So bipartisanship on this issue goes back very 
deeply to the very beginning of this issue.
  And one of the things I wanted to talk about that was initiated 
through our committee and with the Clinton administration was the 
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, critical funds that help get homes and 
properties out of storms' way, saving properties, saving lives. Over $7 
billion has been invested under FEMA in the mitigation program to over 
1,000 federally declared disasters.
  An independent study of the Institute for Business and Home Safety 
found: ``Mitigation produces significant net benefits to society as a 
whole, to individuals, States and communities in reduced future losses 
and savings to the Federal Treasury in future reduced tax revenues and 
hazard-related expenditures. For every dollar spent on mitigation,'' 
the study found, ``the society saves an average of $7.''
  After the 1993 Mississippi River floods, Hazard Mitigation Grant 
Program funds removed homes, removed entire communities from the flood 
zone. After tornadoes, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds created 
tornado-safe rooms in what is known as ``Tornado Alley.'' We have used 
those funds to great benefit.
  Unfortunately, the Bush administration, early on, proposed to 
terminate hazard mitigation funds. We restore that authority in this 
and previous legislation and will do so in subsequent legislation. But 
this is not the last bill in the House to deal with the devastation 
caused by Katrina, and I hope by the end of next week we will bring the 
Water Resources Development Act to the House floor from our committee, 
some nearly $14 billion in flood control, navigation, environmental 
restoration projects. Of long standing, over 6 years we have waited in 
our committee to bring this bill to the floor. We passed it three 
times. It has never gotten through the Senate; never gotten to 
conference over it and, again, a bipartisan bill. But it will begin 
reconstruction of the coastal Louisiana flood plain and of the 
Mississippi area flood plain. It will authorize construction of the 
Morganza Flood Control Project in central Louisiana to protect people 
from flood damage and from future hurricanes. It will close the 
Mississippi River gulf outlet that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Jefferson) well understands caused salt water intrusion and destruction 
of the marsh land that was the buffering and protective entity against 
floods that came from Lake Borne in and overtopped St. Bernard Parish, 
washed homes away. We will close that off and rebuild it.
  So I would cite those few things. This bill is critically important. 
It deals with very specific aspects. All of us have to continue working 
together to craft the needed protection, both by restoring wetlands and 
putting in place the structures of flood control and wind surge damage 
to the gulf area and particularly to the New Orleans area. I have been 
there many, many times; and I can say that it is disheartening to see 
how slow the progress is coming along in certain areas of that city, 
those that desperately need it.
  This bill, and I take my hat off to the chairman of the Financial 
Services Committee and to the gentlewoman from California for leading 
the charge and making a powerful statement that we are going to address 
these needs, this bill will effectively do that.

                              {time}  1515

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 8 
minutes to my very distinguished and esteemed colleague, the ranking 
member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Bachus of Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Hurricane Katrina was a terrible tragedy for people all along the 
gulf coast, for the people of New Orleans, but it was a greater tragedy 
for those who already were living with a sense of hopelessness and 
despair in the public housing projects of New Orleans. For them the 
tragedy did not start with Katrina. It preexisted Katrina. In those 
housing projects, children actually slept in bathtubs for their own 
protection. Elderly citizens, 10 and 15 years ago, were hiding in 
closets.
  But out of what was this despair in the housing projects of New 
Orleans, and really in many housing projects throughout the United 
States, we can use New Orleans and other models throughout this country 
to do something better than we have done. We have a moral imperative to 
change the standard of public housing in New Orleans, and not only in 
New Orleans but throughout this country. We can do better than simply 
warehousing families in failed large housing projects in crime-ridden 
communities. Our vision should be vibrant mixed-use communities with 
good housing, safe streets, and strong schools.
  Consider these facts about what happens when you concentrate and 
change the face and the environment of public housing: several years 
ago, the New York Times reported that 70 percent of the inmates in the 
New York prison system came from just seven ZIP codes with large 
concentrations of public housing. In other words, where you are born 
and the environment you are born into may put you, in all likelihood, 
on the road to the penitentiary. When you live in a neighborhood where 
poverty and hopelessness prevail, it becomes a breeding ground for 
crime, drug use, and all that goes with it.
  It was the same not only in New Orleans but it was the same sense of 
hopelessness, despair, and high crime in the East Lake community in 
downtown Atlanta. The East Lake public housing project was considered 
so dangerous that police refused to go on patrol there. Then a 
visionary named Tom Cousins, an Atlanta developer, came up with an 
idea: Why not replace a failed project with a 21st-century approach to 
housing, very similar to what we have done with HOPE VI? The answer was 
to create a public-private partnership emphasizing mixed use. With the 
help of HUD, the Atlanta housing authority and Tom Cousins and others 
totally transformed East Lake. They tore down the old projects. Yes, 
they tore down the old projects. They had to demolish some of those 
units.
  This bill restricts our ability to tear down old units. There are 
2,000 units in New Orleans that were not habitable that we have said we 
are going to go in and instead of replacing them with something new, 
something modern, something that offers hope, we are simply going to 
replace what existed there.
  They tore down the old projects. They built new housing, and they

[[Page H2693]]

opened a new school. Now doctors and lawyers live next door to those 
whose housing is subsidized. In the old projects, there was only about 
a two-thirds' occupancy level. The occupancy level in New Orleans is 
very low because of the shoddy condition of the housing. Now 100 
percent of the subsidized units are occupied, and the overall occupancy 
rate is 93.5 percent.
  But something much greater than that, occupancy levels shouldn't be 
our main concern. It should be the condition of the people that are 
living there, their standard of living. Crime in the neighborhood has 
gone from the worst in Atlanta, 56 out of 56, the worst of 56 
precincts, down to the 11th best precinct. Now, this is an area of 
mixed-use public housing which is actually one of the safest areas of 
Atlanta. The neighborhood has literally come back from the dead. But it 
wouldn't have happened if we had simply gone in like we propose to do 
in New Orleans and put it back exactly like it existed. In the end we 
are serving more low-income residents than we would if we had just 
replaced one on one.
  But it isn't just happening in East Lake. Centennial Place in Atlanta 
is another success story, and the same transformation took place in 
Birmingham, and is taking place, with the Metropolitan Gardens 
development, a neighborhood that is now brightened by a new school, new 
housing, and a new YMCA.
  It can be done. The Housing Authority of New Orleans has been 
dysfunctional for nearly 50 years. There is understandably a lot of 
anger and mistrust among the residents of New Orleans public housing 
after so many broken promises. But the anger, their anger and ours, 
should be channeled into moving forward in the direction of decent 
houses and safe communities.
  HUD has a design for mixed-use communities similar to East Lake, 
Centennial, and Metropolitan Gardens. But that approach was rejected by 
the committee majority in favor of the one-to-one replacement of the 
old houses, in the same place, in the same location, in the same 
conditions. It is time to do better and we must.
  This bill does not meet our imperative to the people of New Orleans 
public housing. If the concern is that some residents who want to 
return to New Orleans may not have a home to come back to, we can make 
provisions for that, but not into the old communities of high crime and 
hopelessness and despair. One-to-one is not the only way to bring 
people back, nor is it the best way or the more imaginative or 
innovative way. What will bring people back is a good place to live 
where crime and fear have been replaced by hope and opportunity.
  Let me close simply by saying no matter what your party is, no matter 
what your political philosophy is, New Orleans can serve all of us as a 
model for improving our inner-city areas, those areas throughout 
America today, high-crime areas, widespread drug use, high 
unemployment. But more important than all those statistics, let us 
improve the standard of living for those people in those communities, 
not only in New Orleans but throughout this country. And our obligation 
should not end with this bill today. It ought to continue next week. We 
ought to continue to look at it until we do it right.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  We agree on all the things the gentleman from Alabama said we should 
do. Nothing in this bill stops them from doing it.
  All we say is this: please don't tear down the houses that people now 
live in before you replace them. We are not in any way opposed to that; 
but if you don't think the housing the people live in now is great, and 
neither do I, understand that they are only there because they can't 
get anything better, and that is the only point of difference. We are 
saying do not displace them before that nice, new stuff is ready.
  And as for one-for-one, we aren't saying it has to be one-for-one 
right on-site. If you get a one-for-one replacement that is in mixed 
housing, that will be fine; but just don't displace people.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane 
Housing Recovery Act of 2007. This bill is just another example of the 
commitment of this Congress to rebuild the city of New Orleans and the 
towns and cities surrounding it.
  I thank Chairman Frank and subcommittee Chair Waters for their 
outstanding leadership on this legislation. I also thank my Republican 
colleagues who came down to New Orleans with our chairlady and who did 
an outstanding job for our people. And I thank them all for the urgency 
they attached to the housing issues in our region.
  The affordable housing rental units lost in Katrina represented about 
30 percent of the destroyed or severely damaged rental housing in a 
city that had 60 percent renters before the storm. The crisis of 
affordable housing in the gulf coast has prevented tens of thousands of 
families from returning, and that is addressed by this bill 
substantially. Additionally, more than 4,000 families that resided in 
public housing have not returned because their developments remain 
closed despite their having valid leases with their rent paid on time. 
Some have made their way back to the city only to discover their units 
boarded up and padlocked.
  Two 60-year-old identical twins, Gloria Williams and Bobbie Jennings, 
came to Washington to explain what happened to them after Katrina. 
These women lived in adjacent apartments in the C.J. Peete public 
housing development for 24 years. After they were forced to evacuate 
for Katrina, they were relocated six times. For several months they 
were separated. They said it was the first time in their lives that 
they had ever been apart.
  HUD officials said the development should be torn down, but the women 
said they have cleaned their units of modest storm damage and believe 
they are habitable again.
  As Mr. Frank has pointed out, nothing in this bill prevents mixed 
housing or prevents reform or redevelopment. What we are most concerned 
about is that people right now have a chance to return home today, 
tomorrow, as opposed to a building that is going to be built within the 
next 3 to 5 years. To do as HUD has proposed across all public housing 
units in New Orleans is tantamount to forced homelessness.
  It has been 19 months since the people of New Orleans and surrounding 
parishes were forced out across 48 States through no fault of their 
own. It is now time for everyone who wants to come home to come home. 
Without passage of this bill, we are giving our implied consent to the 
permanent exile of residents who only wish to enjoy the same rights and 
privileges to a home that everyone else across the country would want 
to enjoy. This bill makes the road home smoother for our people and 
helps a great deal toward getting our people back home.
  I urge passage of this bill.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 6 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the deputy ranking member of the 
Financial Services Committee and who also traveled to New Orleans and 
Mississippi.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Biggert of the 
subcommittee for yielding.
  And I also want to rise and thank Chairwoman Waters, the subcommittee 
chairman of Housing, for having the hearings down in New Orleans and 
over in Mississippi. I see a number of Members in the Chamber that went 
on that trip. That was a very positive trip. But I think what we 
learned while we were down there is we share some common feelings about 
the recovery. And I think that was the frustration that we shared while 
we were down there where we saw very little progress in one area and a 
lot of progress in the other. In fact, I have said to my colleagues 
back home that this is a tale of two recoveries: the recovery or lack 
of recovery in New Orleans in Louisiana and the recovery that is going 
on in Mississippi.
  I want to associate myself with some of the words the ranking member 
just made on the floor awhile ago about the model that needs to take 
place in New Orleans when we are talking about going back and building 
new housing. Some of the proposals that some of the people put forward 
while we were in New Orleans would not meet criteria

[[Page H2694]]

for a new federally subsidized housing project today. We don't do that 
anymore. We don't create these huge pockets where we have impoverished 
people where we see high crime, and we now go to mixed projects that 
provide communities that give diversity to those.

                              {time}  1530

  New Orleans faced a great devastation from the fact that they had a 
catastrophic hurricane. But now they have a great opportunity to 
rebuild, really starting in many places with a clean piece of paper. 
Can this be done without some disruption? No, it cannot, because the 
disruption has already taken place. And there are people who do want to 
return to New Orleans and to Louisiana, and there are people who may 
not return.
  But what we do owe the American people, and I appreciate the fact 
that Ranking Member Biggert laid out a very clear outline of what this 
Congress has done to step up to meet the needs of the people that were 
affected by this hurricane, and the list is long, and the money is 
great, what we owe the American people is to make sure that we take 
that money now that we have put in place for Katrina and make sure it 
gets spent appropriately and that it benefits the people for which it 
is intended.
  One of the things that concerns me about this bill is that every time 
we stand up and get into a discussion about Katrina, we have to 
authorize more money. In fact, this bill authorizes $1.3 billion in new 
money. But money is really not the issue in Louisiana and New Orleans.
  Now, I will admit and agree with the chairman, Chairman Frank, that 
there are some things in this bill that clean up some administrative 
issues that probably need to take place. But let me tell you, the 
reason there is not recovery in New Orleans today is not because the 
United States Congress hasn't passed this bill. What they need in New 
Orleans and in Louisiana is probably leadership more than they need 
more money. But this bill does address some of that.
  There are some amendments that were offered in our committee, in our 
markup, and I want to say this to Chairman Frank, that we had a very 
good markup. He ran that meeting well and allowed a lot of amendments, 
and we had good debate and conversations about that, and I appreciate 
that. But there are amendments that are in this bill that make it more 
fiscally responsible and make it less micromanaging.
  One of the things I get concerned about is we have got a Congress 
right now that wants to run the war in Iraq, and now we have a Congress 
that wants to run the recovery in New Orleans. What we do know is that 
we have to set out some parameters for that.
  What the people need in New Orleans is to get started. Hopefully they 
will begin to do that. We saw some signs they were moving in that 
direction. But what I would say to my colleagues is that what we have 
to do is at some point in time say, you know, this is all of the money 
and resources that we are going to give to this cause until we see some 
tangible results. Unfortunately, when you look at what is going on in 
Louisiana right now, there are not tangible results. It would not be 
something that you would want to put more money into until you see some 
better stewardship of the dollars that have already been authorized. In 
fact, many of the dollars that we have already authorized have not been 
spent.
  So what I want our colleagues to do today as they listen to this 
debate is make sure that we accomplish the goal of what was the 
original intent of H.R. 1227, and that was to fix some slight glitches 
in the process, but not to become more fiscally irresponsible.
  In closing, I would just say there is an opportunity in New Orleans. 
But I will tell you, the American people that are watching this debate 
today, and I hear it when I go back home, they are saying, Congressman, 
how much more money are we going to have to put into this process until 
we begin to see some results?
  As I was riding in with a cabdriver going to the hearing that the 
chairwoman had in New Orleans, I asked the cabdriver, what is going on 
in New Orleans? He said, nothing. I said, what is the problem? He said, 
we have no plan, we have no leadership.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds 
to say I agree with the gentleman that we should not be spending a lot 
more money where it has been badly spent. Also, I did not think we were 
going to be talking about Iraq until later in the week.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Baca).
  (Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Frank and Chairwoman 
Waters for their hard work and dedication in helping the thousands of 
victims that have been left homeless by the hurricane on the gulf 
coast. Thank you for caring and wanting to take action.
  I rise in support of the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act, 
H.R. 1227. Eighteen months have passed since Katrina hit, yet thousands 
are still struggling to get back on their feet. This bill is about the 
thousands of people struggling to get back on their feet.
  Last year, the TriCaucus Chairs, Grace Napolitano, Mike Honda and Mel 
Watt, met in Houston to cohost a townhall meeting on Katrina, where 
they listened to Katrina victims who had been displaced to Houston. 
Since then, we have learned that 99,000 families are still living in 
trailers, including 65,000 in Louisiana, 31,000 in Mississippi, and 
thousands more individuals are still living with relatives in States 
throughout the Nation.
  Families, workers and businesses can't return to the gulf area until 
they have homes to return to. We need to rebuild. Their lives are being 
impacted, and it is affecting their ability to improve their quality of 
life. This is their home. This is their castle. We need to rebuild.
  The administration's slow response has been a major factor in the 
pace of recovery. The President didn't even mention Katrina in his 2007 
State of the Union Address. Billions of dollars are going to rebuild 
Iraq, while American families are waiting for assistance right here at 
home in America. Shame.
  Enough is enough. We can't afford to leave these families behind. I 
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1227.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), who has probably 
seen much more of the devastation than we can ever imagine.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for her courtesy.
  I rise today to make observation that when a hurricane makes 
landfall, most people do not consider it a Republican or a Democratic 
event; that in the aftermath, when you have been devastated from life 
and property and someone comes to help, you don't ask, are you from 
local government, State government or Federal Government, and, by the 
way, are you a Republican or a Democrat?
  The only thing I observed that hurricanes and government have in 
common at this point as a Louisianian is that either one you touch, you 
are going to come away confused, disoriented and possibly hopeless.
  We can do better. I should be quick to add, however, lest these 
comments be misinterpreted, that it was President Bush's administration 
who came to this Congress and asked for the $100 billion of taxpayer 
money to begin the long, slow process of recovery. I also want to 
quickly add that it was Chairman Frank who discussed with me the 
administrative problems of the resolution and incorporated into the 
bill now before us important expediting processes which will make a 
measurable and financial difference to the people of Louisiana.
  I want to express my appreciation to Chairwoman Waters and Ranking 
Member Biggert for their continued effort to understand and respond.
  Not to dismiss that there are problems. In fact, a provision I was 
trying to include in the bill, which was made reference to during the 
debate on the rule, caused the CBO to express concern that we had a 
scoring problem. To make sure I say this the way I intend it, I learned 
that the CBO scoring process is mystical, algorithmic, nonsensical, 
opaque process intended to obstinately delegate common sense to 
irrelevance.
  Short-circuiting all of that, let me say I appreciate Chairman 
Frank's

[[Page H2695]]

staff working diligently and the Rules Committee allowing that 
provision to be made in order and to be included in this legislation.
  That problem is not the only one for taxpayers. Let me explain to you 
that when you send us a dollar, we don't get a dollar. At best, we get 
80 cents, because FEMA has been keeping at least 20 percent of all the 
money intended to help people recover for their operational expenses. 
The American public needs to know that, that we are not wasting $100 
billion. Certainly we can be more efficient in rolling out a response 
to a devastation that we have seen never before in this country, 90,000 
square miles. I would say where we are today is not a hopeless mess, 
but indeed it is a mess.
  My hope is that the small pilot program contained in this 
legislation, which will enable the collection of disparate tracts of 
property to be cleaned off and sold back into the private market, can 
be a way to kick-start a free-market recovery that to date has been 
impossible with government interference and obstinate regulation. There 
is a faster, better way, a more efficient way, to combat this scale of 
devastation and human suffering.
  Maximizing taxpayer expenditures while minimizing benefits to those 
in need doesn't seem possible to the extent that we have seen in the 
current circumstance. If there is to be any long-term benefit to the 
resolution of this matter for all the affected taxpayers around this 
country, it is to construct a response mechanism that when the next 
devastating event occurs, we will be able to deploy resources, get 
people the help they need in an efficient manner, and get government 
the heck out of the way and let free markets function.
  The bill before us today incorporates provisions that I believe will 
help get us closer to that goal. Are we there yet? Of course not.
  Webster charges this House of Representatives with a very clear 
mission: Let us develop the resources of this land, call forth her 
powers, build up her institutions, promote all her great interests, and 
see whether we also in this, our day and generation, may perform 
something to be worthy of remembering.
  Webster got it. We need to leave this place in a better condition 
than when we found it. We can do better than this. And before the next 
disaster strikes, we must.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds 
to thank the gentleman for his work on this and to say that one of the 
things the gentleman talked about last year when I worked with him and 
we decided whoever would be in the majority, we need to straighten out 
going forward the FEMA-HUD relationship with regard to housing. Part of 
the problem is, in fairness to FEMA, they should not still be in the 
housing business. That was not their expertise.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I would just observe the gentleman is 
absolutely correct. There is FEMA-ese and HUD-ese and they don't 
apparently have a translator.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we will work that out.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for his important leadership on this bill.
  I rise in strong support of the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery 
Act. This bill was marked up earlier this month in the Financial 
Services Committee and was passed by a strong bipartisan vote.
  I not only thank the chairman and Ranking Member Bachus, but 
Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member Biggert. Chairwoman Waters led 
many hearings and meetings and conferences on this, going to New 
Orleans and Mississippi, meeting with the families, with the 
authorities, and working with really great devotion and determination 
to move this bill to the floor to help the people in the gulf region.
  This bill is a victory for those people who have suffered so greatly 
not only through Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but an awe-inspiring 
amount of bureaucratic red tape, trying to get the help and the 
assistance that they need.
  This bill will finally provide comprehensive housing relief for the 
hurricane-impacted areas of the gulf coast, and it will expedite and 
move forward and cut through the red tape so that the money and the 
services get to the people they were intended for.
  It provides increased flexibility and oversight, while preserving 
Federal housing assistance and providing assistance to landowners and 
communities who helped evacuees. It provides flexibility by freeing up 
$1.2 billion in funds for Louisiana's Road Home program for which FEMA 
is currently withholding use by transferring the funds to the Community 
Development Block Grant account, and it eliminates an unnecessary 
restriction imposed by the prior Congress against CDBG funds being used 
to meet matching requirements under other Federal programs.
  It increases oversight by requiring the Louisiana Recovery Authority, 
the entity that administers the Road Home program, to report on their 
progress every 30 days on exactly what they are doing to help the 
people.

                              {time}  1545

  It preserves Federal housing assistance by including a number of 
provisions to rebuild the stock of affordable housing and to ensure 
that the administration will not shrink the level of housing assistance 
that supports that housing stock.
  It provides assistance to communities that assisted evacuees by 
authorizing reimbursement for communities that used their own CDBG 
funds to provide rental assistance to evacuees after the storms hit, 
and it also provides such reimbursement to landowners who assisted the 
people.
  This is a good bill. It cuts through the red tape. It provides 
assistance to the people, and I congratulate all who worked on it, 
particularly the Chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Waters.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that going down there was quite an 
experience and something I never would have dreamed had happened. To 
see that firsthand, to go into the public housing and to see the 
interiors that had been sitting there for over 18 months that had been 
underwater for several days, particularly in New Orleans. In 
Mississippi, it was just a storm surge so the wall of water went in and 
then it went out, taking with it the homes.
  But in New Orleans where the water sat, and to see the debris that 
was left inside, the clothes, the furniture, the food and cupboards and 
the mold will take an enormous amount of fixing.
  When I was talking about it to someone, they asked, Are the cars 
still in the trees? I said, No, the cars have been removed from the 
trees, but the buildings are still standing just as they were 
untouched. So it is a big job.
  As Ranking Member Bachus said about finding mixed-use housing, to 
move public housing into the 21st century I think should be all of our 
goals, to be able to provide a place where those who need subsidized 
housing can live in what would be a larger unit. The units that we saw 
were tiny. Water heaters were in the kitchen next to the stove with all 
of the wires where little kids would be playing. So to have larger 
units for a family, to have open spaces, and to have the services.
  Right now they are in a quandary because people want to come back, 
but there is no housing. People want workers in their community, and 
there is no place for the workers to live. So until we can break this 
cycle, and that is what takes leadership from those that are in the 
community, to break that cycle so there is housing, there are workers, 
and there are services.
  At least seven hospitals were destroyed in New Orleans. They don't 
have the medical services or the groceries stores. So even if someone 
comes back, and they have restored some of the housing and some of the 
units, they may remain empty because they are living in a place that is 
almost empty and there are no services. You can't just go to the 
grocery store. We have to jump-start this, and I think this bill goes 
well on its way to get over the bureaucracy and to have the leadership, 
the grass-roots leadership, begin to do that.
  In Mississippi we saw a different situation where the storm came in 
and out.

[[Page H2696]]

All you see are slabs and concrete stairs from those slabs going to 
nowhere. About the only thing remaining were oak trees, beautiful, 
beautiful oak trees that did survive. All of the other foliage is gone.
  There they have been able to rebuild. A lot has been done. Maybe it 
is because houses didn't sit in the water. The water came and went, and 
they were able to remove the debris. But there I think we had some of 
the leadership that is needed on the local level.
  From the hearings, it gave us hope. After 18 months, they have the 
money. Congress has done their job and we will be able to get them back 
on a track and not set precedents that will be unwieldy if there are 
other such disasters.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman 
of the full committee, the Chair of the housing subcommittee, as well 
as the ranking members.
  I used to serve on both of these committees when I was on Financial 
Services, and my heart longs to address many of the same issues. From 
the Ways and Means Committee, I hope to try to do some of that.
  I have traveled to the Hurricane Katrina area on three occasions. The 
first time I went, I went to visit some of the folks that were put out 
of their homes and they were staying in arenas across Houston and 
across Baton Rouge and across New Orleans.
  The second time I went, I went with Leader Pelosi when a group of us 
had an opportunity to tour the areas about 9 months later. I sat down 
and talked with officials.
  The third time I was there when the people of New Orleans were dying 
to have an opportunity to vote for the mayoral candidate of their 
choice.
  Louisiana is important to me because a lot of my father's and 
mother's friends lived in Louisiana when they grew up in Alabama. But 
the thing I think we need to remember about Louisiana, Mississippi and 
Alabama, that is America. That is the United States of America, and the 
people of those communities deserve to be treated royally. They deserve 
to have the services and housing that they need. I think that this 
piece of legislation goes towards that effort.
  More importantly, I have run into people from Louisiana who say, 
Congresswoman Tubbs Jones, I want to help rebuild New Orleans, but 
somehow I have to be gone. I want to come back and live, and people are 
coming from all over the world working in New Orleans rebuilding my 
hometown. I want to be there to have the opportunity to do that.
  I believe this legislation gives us an opportunity to do that as 
well.
  I have introduced a piece of legislation, H.R. 1043, which is called 
the Community Restoration and Revitalization Act of 2007. What that 
legislation does is allows us to use the historic preservation tax 
credit in conjunction with low-income housing tax credit so that when 
we rebuild the historic areas of New Orleans, we won't just rebuild for 
the people who are coming in with money who want to live in those 
areas, the gentrified areas; but there will be dollars to provide for 
people who stayed in the community and want to be there for a while and 
need to be able to afford to live in those areas.
  This is an important day for us. Just as we rebuilt New York after 9/
11 and everybody bought into the process, and I don't make a comparison 
between 9/11 and a hurricane, but what I will say to you is that the 
people of this area are Americans just like the rest of us, and they 
need a place to live, and they need to be able to bring their children 
back and restore that culture that is so rich a part of the United 
States of America.
  I stand here today encouraging, urging, pleading with my colleagues 
to not let this opportunity pass. Don't let it be said that on March 
20, 2007, when your children and grandchildren asked where were you and 
what did you do for the people of New Orleans, Mississippi and Alabama, 
and you say, I did nothing.
  I am glad to stand here in support of the legislation. I celebrate my 
colleagues and thank you for an opportunity to be heard.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 
1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act and commend my 
colleague Congresswoman Waters and the Financial Services Committee for 
bringing this very important legislation to the House floor today.
  The devastation of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma has required 
an unprecedented response from the Federal, state and local 
governments, as well as the private sector. While, there has been 
progress, there is still widespread dissatisfaction in the government's 
response to providing emergency and long-term recovery, especially 
housing. There are still tens of thousands of families that cannot 
return to their homes or any home because there is still a major crisis 
in the public housing sector. As their needs were not met in the 
immediate wake of the storm, many of the former residents of public 
housing units in the Gulf Coast have continued to find their needs 
severely neglected over the past 19 months.
  The Gulf Coast Recovery Act addresses the concerns that were 
expressed by disaster victims at hearings held in the affected areas. 
This bill includes provisions that will address the crisis of 
affordable housing in the Gulf Coast, including freeing up $1.175 
billion appropriated for the Louisiana Road Home program. Another 
important provision is the extension of the September deadline that 
would cutoff 12,000 families currently receiving Disaster Voucher 
Program assistance. This also helps the thousands of citizens who 
generously opened their homes to those in need, when our own government 
did not step up to the plate to assist.
  Relief, recovery and reconstruction efforts for Hurricanes Katrina, 
Rita and Wilma are ongoing--and will continue until the Gulf Coast is 
completely up and running again and all displaced victims are once 
again living in a permanent home. H.R. 1227 helps us to achieve this 
goal. I urge passage of the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007. Among 
other things, this legislation includes provisions designed to speed up 
the repair and rebuilding of homes and affordable rental housing in 
areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma; ensures 
continued rental assistance for both families that have moved back to 
their home areas and for families displaced by such hurricanes, and 
provides reimbursements to communities and landlords that were generous 
in providing assistance to hurricane evacuees in the aftermath of the 
storms.
  Mr. Chairman, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit landfall in 2005. In 
the immediate aftermath of the storms, Congress provided substantial 
sums through the Federal Emergency Management Administration, FEMA, to 
address emergency needs arising from the devastation that the storms 
created, and to provide a housing safety net for families who lost 
their homes or were otherwise displaced. Later in 2005 and in the 
summer of 2006, Congress approved two emergency spending bills 
providing more than $16 billion in CDBG funds for affected states, to 
provide assistance for home repairs and reconstruction and for repair 
and rebuilding of a depleted stock of affordable rental housing. 
Congress also appropriated $390 million for the Disaster Voucher 
Program, which provides voucher assistance to formerly HUD-assisted 
families that have been displaced by these hurricanes.
  However, some 18 months after these storms, the pace of recovery of 
housing repair and reconstruction is not as robust in many areas as 
many had hoped. The pace of home repair, particularly in areas within 
Louisiana, has been slow. The repair or rebuilding of many damaged 
federally subsidized public and assisted housing units, affordable to 
lower income families, has still not taken place. And, tens of 
thousands of federally assisted evacuees from these hurricanes face 
impending deadlines later this year for continued eligibility for 
rental assistance.
  The Financial Services Committee has held a number of hearings over 
the past year and a half, including two in September 2005, two in 
December 2005, two in January 2006, one in February 2006, and three in 
February 2007 to explore the pace of the housing recovery effort in the 
Gulf Coast. The hearings included representatives of Federal agencies, 
State and local government officials, housing developers, nonprofit 
organizations, and representatives of low income housing. Witnesses 
testified as to the current state of the housing recovery in various 
communities in the Gulf Coast and offered legislative suggestions for 
addressing housing problems in those areas. The bill ultimately 
reported out of the Financial Services Committees relies extensively on 
the hearing record and these suggestions.


                              Flexibility

  H.R. 1227 includes a number of provisions designed to improve 
flexibility with respect to previously appropriated funds for hurricane 
recovery efforts on the Gulf Coast. The bill would free up for use 
$1.175 billion in funds

[[Page H2697]]

previously made available for use to the State of Louisiana under the 
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, but which has been held up by FEMA. 
Louisiana has proposed combining these funds with CDBG funds under its 
Road Home program for grants to homeowners, but FEMA will not approve 
use of the funds because of Road Home provisions that provide 
incentives for homeowners to commit to returning to the state to live. 
Under the program, homeowners would receive a 40 percent reduction in 
any Road Home grant money if they leave the state. However, this 
provision excepts homeowners over the age of 65. The bill would 
transfer such funds to CDBG, to expedite the availability of such 
funds.
  The bill eliminates an unduly restrictive ``duplication of benefits'' 
provision that has resulted in homeowners in Louisiana receiving less 
than the funds they need to rebuild under the Road Home Program, while 
instating a prohibition against any person receiving a ``windfall 
gain'' from assistance under that program.
  The bill eliminates a provision from a previous CDBG appropriations 
bill that prohibits CDBG funds from being used as a match for other 
Federal programs, a change that could help cash strapped communities 
without a tax base that are unable to meet these other match 
requirements.
  The bill provides that $15 million in CDBG funds made available to 
the State of Louisiana shall be transferred to the New Orleans 
Redevelopment Agency, for a pilot program to leverage private capital 
to assemble, redevelop and resell parcels of land in New Orleans.
  Finally, the bill expedites the handling of loss claims for lenders 
in the case of FHA insured 1- to 4-unit properties where there are 
problems with the conveyance of title.


                   Preservation of Affordable Housing

  H.R. 1227 includes a number of provisions designed to preserve the 
supply of rental housing that is affordable for low income families. 
The bill requires HUD to give timely approval of all feasible requests 
to restore project-based rental assistance or transfer such assistance 
to another site, in the case of damaged or destroyed federally assisted 
housing developments. The bill authorizes 4,500 new housing vouchers 
for the purpose of project based assistance for supportive housing 
units for seniors, disabled persons, and the homeless. The bill 
requires HUD to provide replacement vouchers for every public housing 
and assisted housing unit that is not brought back on line.
  Similarly, with respect to public housing, the bill provides resident 
protections and preserves the availability of public housing units in 
hurricane affected areas by preventing the transfer of such units 
without preserving long term affordability requirements. It also 
conditions demolition of public housing units on providing alternative 
housing units for residents of the units being demolished and on 
replacing such units either with other public housing or with 
comparable units providing comparable affordability for low income 
residents.
  Specifically, with respect to the Housing Authority of New Orleans, 
the bill also requires the Authority to survey pre-Katrina residents to 
identify which residents want to return and when, and to provide public 
housing or comparable units to those residents that want to return, but 
in any case no less than 3,000 units by August 1st. Funding is also 
authorized for repair, rehabilitation, and development of HANO public 
housing units.
  The bill also authorizes $5 million in each of the next two years for 
Fair Housing activities, to ensure that housing activities in areas 
affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are carried out in a manner 
that furthers fair housing.


                       Rental Housing Assistance

  Faced with a looming September deadline for the cutoff of some 12,000 
families currently receiving Disaster Voucher Program (DVP) assistance, 
H.R. 1227 extends this deadline through at least the end of the year, 
and authorizes replacement vouchers to affected families when the 
program terminates, which will continue as long as the family is 
eligible for voucher assistance.
  These vouchers are attached to each individual and family and will 
``disappear'' when the individual or family is no longer eligible for 
the assistance. The bill also provides a clarification that HUD should 
make adjustments in the voucher formula funding allocation changes made 
in the Continuing Resolution, so that Gulf Coast housing agencies will 
not be adversely impacted by the hurricanes.
  The Continuing Resolution provided such authority for HUD to make 
such adjustments, and this bill requires the adjustments be made. 
Finally, the bill requires HUD to make a good faith effort to identify 
families that are eligible for Disaster Voucher Assistance but are not 
receiving such assistance, and make such assistance available.


                               oversight

  H.R. 1227 includes a number of provisions to ensure that Federal 
funds are used efficiently, effectively, and legally. The bill requires 
the State of Louisiana to submit monthly reports on the progress of the 
Road Home program in making funds available to homeowners. The bill 
requires the General Accountability Office (GAO) to complete quarterly 
reports identifying any waste, fraud, and abuse in connection with the 
program. And, the bill requires a GAO study to examine methods of 
improving the distribution of Federal housing funds to assist states 
with hurricane recovery efforts.
  Finally, the bill requires that any funds used under Title II with 
respect to public housing construction or repair must have verification 
that all workers have an immigration status that allows them to be 
legally employed.


   Reimbursement for Communities and Landlords that Assisted Evacuees

  A number of communities and private sector landlords throughout the 
country played a critical role in providing housing assistance to 
evacuees in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This 
assistance was critical at a time when housing was in short supply and 
hundreds of thousands of families were displaced. It is important to 
encourage such actions in future disasters.
  Therefore, H.R. 1227 authorizes funding for reimbursement of 
localities that used their own CDBG funds to provide rental housing 
assistance to such evacuees. The bill also authorizes reimbursement to 
landlords who participated in the FEMA Section 403 program under which 
local communities co-signed private lease agreements--but who suffered 
financial losses arising from FEMA subsequently breaking their 
agreement to provide reimbursements under this program.
  For all these reasons, I am proud to rise in strong support of H.R. 
1227 and I urge all members to vote in favor of this important and much 
needed legislation.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1227, the 
``Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007.'' This legislation 
institutes long overdue reforms in our response to the devastation that 
hurricanes have inflicted on the Gulf Coast region.
  I have been an outspoken critic of the way this Administration has 
mismanaged Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, and their resulting 
aftermath.
  Anyone who has traveled to the Ninth Ward in New Orleans, as I have, 
can tell you about overwhelming devastation in that community. Entire 
city blocks were flattened, with their rooftops smashed and scattered 
on the ground.
  The lives of millions were similarly fractured, when governmental 
systems that were already weak broke down under the pressure from the 
storm.
  The entire Nation and the world watched with dismay as news reports 
chronicled the gross mismanagement and abuse thrust upon the people of 
New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
  I told President Bush then that I did not think God would be pleased 
with our response to the disaster.
  Sadly, I am not convinced that He would pleased with our current 
response.
  One and a half years after the hurricane hit, thousands of Americans 
remain displaced, their lives and families torn apart first by the 
storm, and second by the resulting bureaucratic mismanagement.
  We do not know for sure how many families remain displaced, but our 
most conservative estimates indicate that at least 150,000 are still 
affected.
  Make no mistake: The people of the Gulf Coast region want to return 
home, but many of them cannot find affordable housing to which to 
return.
  Public housing was decimated by the storm. Approximately 70 percent 
of the 300,000 homes that were severely damaged or destroyed by 
Hurricane Katrina belonged to low-income families.
  Homeowners who want to return have been asked to do the impossible. 
We have appropriated the necessary funds to help rebuild the region, 
but the money has yet to trickle down to the people.
  Today, we will take an important step in rectifying this situation by 
considering the ``Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007.''
  The bill would institute much needed reforms, including: freeing up 
$1.2 billion in funds for Louisiana's Road Home Program, a program that 
compensates eligible displaced homeowners up to $150,000 for their 
losses; providing a stock of affordable housing by prohibiting the 
demolition of public housing until there is a plan in place to replace 
the current units; and most importantly, extending the Disaster Voucher 
Program, DVP, for former public housing and Section 8 voucher holders, 
until January 2008.
  We have a moral obligation to restore a sense of normalcy to those 
whose lives have been affected by storms in the Gulf Coast region. They 
have already suffered for far too long.
  For this reason, I support and will be voting in favor of H.R. 1227, 
the ``Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007.''

[[Page H2698]]

  I would like to thank Chairwoman Maxine Waters and Chairman Barney 
Frank for their leadership in introducing this vitally important 
legislation and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I stand today in opposition to this rule 
and the underlying legislation, H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane 
Housing Recovery Act of 2007. The stated goal of H.R. 1227--to 
facilitate the speedy recovery of renters and homeowners who are still 
displaced by Hurricane Katrina--is a worthy one. However, this 
legislation will not achieve this goal, and will in fact make matters 
worse.
  The Disaster Voucher Program is currently a temporary program, but 
H.R. 1227 would extend it into a permanent voucher. Furthermore, it 
would require HUD to provide tenant replacement vouchers for all public 
housing units not brought back on line, including those slated for 
demolition prior to the storms. In other words, this bill mandates the 
reconstruction of a previously flawed public housing system in New 
Orleans, rather than addressing root problems and looking for new 
solutions.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1227 not only calls for the 
reconstruction of a failed system, but it does so in a very costly 
manner. The CBO estimates that H.R. 1227 would increase direct spending 
by $224 million in 2007 and by $469 million between 2007 and 2012.
  H.R. 1227 simply ignores ``pay-as-you-go'' rules and provides new 
funding without finding a way to pay for it. Chairman Frank, the 
distinguished Chair of the Committee on Financial Services, has stated 
that H.R. 1227 was symbolic of a commitment to helping the poor no 
matter what other priorities Congress has. Rather than offering those 
who face hardship a symbolic and irresponsible gesture, we should be 
looking at ways to encourage reform of New Orleans' public housing 
system and ensure a workable, sustainable program that actually meets 
the city's needs for quality housing.
  In the 109th Congress, the Republican Majority put in place a system 
to do exactly that. We provided more than $110 billion to hurricane-
devastated Gulf Coast, including $16.7 billion for the Community 
Development Block Grant program. However, rather than simply attempt to 
re-establish a failed system, we required that states develop a 
comprehensive plan for addressing their housing needs. We demanded 
accountability, so that Katrina victims would have quality housing to 
return to.
  As HUD Secretary Jackson said last year, everyone who wants to return 
home to New Orleans should be allowed to do so. The Republican Majority 
offered the opportunity for a better home to return to. We should be 
focusing on how to implement a comprehensive, long-term plan to address 
this range of issues that challenge the Gulf Region. We can accomplish 
much of this with the funds that we already made available in the 
previous Congress. This bill, however, simply appropriates new funds to 
recreate old failures. It is not a solution; it is the perpetuation of 
problems.
  Mr. Chairman, Members were given notice late Friday that their 
amendments to H.R. 1227 would be due by early Monday morning. Hardly 
enough time for Members to formulate substantive amendments. I 
requested last night during the Rules Committee hearing that we grant 
this bill a modified open rule--one that allows any Member the 
opportunity to submit their amendments for consideration by preprinting 
them in the Congressional Record the day before. Unfortunately, we were 
denied, amendments were shut out yet again, and I believe this bill 
could suffer for it.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I oppose this restrictive rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of 
House Report 110-53, is adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1227

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing 
     Recovery Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON USE OF AUTHORIZED AMOUNTS.

       None of the amounts authorized by this Act may be used to 
     lobby or retain a lobbyist for the purpose of influencing a 
     Federal, State, or local governmental entity or officer.

              TITLE I--COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS

     SEC. 101. FLEXIBILITY OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ROAD HOME PROGRAM.

       (a) Prohibition of Restriction on Use of Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Director of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency may not prohibit or 
     restrict the use, by the State of Louisiana under the Road 
     Home Program of such State, of any amounts specified in 
     paragraph (3) based upon the existence or extent of any 
     requirement or condition under such program that--
       (A) limits or reduces the amount made available to an 
     eligible homeowner who does not agree to remain an owner and 
     occupant of a home in Louisiana; or
       (B) waives the applicability of any limitation or reduction 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) for homeowners who are 
     elderly or senior citizens.
       (2) Savings provision.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (1), all other provisions of section 404 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5170c) shall apply to amounts specified in paragraph 
     (3) that are used by the State of Louisiana under the Road 
     Home Program of such State.
       (3) Covered amounts.--The amounts specified in this 
     paragraph are any amounts provided for Hurricanes Katrina and 
     Rita under the Hazard Mitigation Grant program of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency to the State of Louisiana.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) Louisiana road home program.--The State of Louisiana 
     shall submit reports under this subsection regarding the Road 
     Home Program of such State to the Committees identified in 
     paragraph (5). Each such report under this subsection shall 
     describe and analyze the implementation, status, and 
     effectiveness of the Road Home Program and shall include the 
     information described in paragraph (3) regarding such 
     program, for the applicable reporting period and for the 
     entire period of the program.
       (2) Other states' household assistance programs funded with 
     cdbg disaster assistance.--Each State that received amounts 
     made available under the heading ``Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development--Community Planning and Development--
     Community Development Fund'' in chapter 9 of title I of 
     division B of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2779) or under 
     such heading in chapter 9 of title II of Public Law 109-234 
     (120 Stat. 472) shall submit reports under this subsection 
     regarding each grant program of the State for assistance for 
     individual households funded in whole or in part with such 
     amounts to the Committees identified in paragraph (5). Each 
     such report under this subsection shall describe and analyze 
     the implementation, status, and effectiveness of each such 
     grant program and shall include the information described in 
     paragraph (3) regarding each such program, for the applicable 
     reporting period and for the entire period of such program.
       (3) Contents.--The information described in this paragraph 
     with respect to a program is the following information:
       (A) The number of applications submitted for assistance 
     under the program.
       (B) The number of households for which assistance has been 
     provided under the program.
       (C) The average amount of assistance provided for each 
     household under the program and the total amount of 
     assistance provided under the program.
       (D) The number of personnel involved in executing all 
     aspects of the program.
       (E) Actions taken to improve the program and 
     recommendations for further such improvements.
       (4) Reporting periods.--With respect to any program 
     described in paragraph (1) or (2), the first report under 
     this subsection shall be submitted not later than the 
     expiration of the 30-day period that begins upon the date of 
     the enactment of this Act. Reports shall be submitted, during 
     the term of each such program, not later than the expiration 
     of each successive (A) 30-day period thereafter, in the case 
     of the program described in paragraph (1), and (B) calendar 
     quarter thereafter, in the case of the programs described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (5) Receiving committees.--The Committees specified in this 
     paragraph are--
       (A) the Committees on Financial Services and Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives; and
       (B) the Committees on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
     and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
       (c) New Orleans Redevelopment Authority Pilot Program.--
       (1) Availability of amounts.--The Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development shall require the State of Louisiana to 
     make available, from any amounts made available for such 
     State under the heading ``Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development--Community Planning and Development--Community 
     Development Fund'' in chapter 9 of title I of division B of 
     Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2779) or under such heading in 
     chapter 9 of title II of Public Law 109-234 (120 Stat. 472) 
     and that remain unexpended, $15,000,000 to the New Orleans 
     Redevelopment Authority (in this subsection referred to as 
     the ``Redevelopment Authority''), subject to paragraph (3), 
     only for use to carry out the pilot program under this 
     subsection.
       (2) Purpose.--The pilot program under this subsection shall 
     fund, through the combination of amounts provided under this 
     subsection with public and private capital from other 
     sources, the purchase or costs associated with the 
     acquisition or disposition of individual parcels of land in 
     New Orleans, Louisiana, by the Redevelopment Authority to be 
     aggregated, assembled, and sold for the purpose of 
     development by private entities only in accordance with, and 
     subject to, the Orleans Parish Recovery Plan, developed and 
     adopted by the City of New Orleans. The costs associated with 
     acquisition or

[[Page H2699]]

     disposition of a parcel of land may include costs for 
     activities described in paragraph (3)(C) with respect to such 
     parcel and costs described in paragraph (3)(F).
       (3) Certifications.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development may make amounts available pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) to the Redevelopment Authority only upon the submission 
     to the Secretary of certifications, sufficient in the 
     determination of the Secretary to ensure that the 
     Redevelopment Authority--
       (A) has the authority to purchase land for resale for the 
     purpose of development in accordance with the pilot program 
     under this subsection;
       (B) has bonding authority (either on its own or through a 
     State bonding agency) or has credit enhancements sufficient 
     to support public/private financing to acquire land for the 
     purposes of the pilot program under this subsection;
       (C) has the authority and capacity to ensure clean title to 
     land sold under the pilot program and to reduce the risk 
     attributable to and indemnify against environmental, flood, 
     and other liabilities.
       (D) will provide a first right to purchase any land 
     acquired by the Redevelopment Authority to the seller who 
     sold the land to the Redevelopment Authority;
       (E) has in place sufficient internal controls to ensure 
     that funds made available under this subsection may not be 
     used to fund salaries or other administrative costs of the 
     employees of the Redevelopment Authority; and
       (F) will, in carrying out the pilot program under this 
     subsection, consult with the Office of Recovery Management of 
     the City of New Orleans regarding coordination of activities 
     under the program with the Recovery Plan referred to in 
     paragraph (2), reimbursement of such City for costs incurred 
     in support of the program, and use of program income and 
     other amounts generated through the program.
       (4) Development requirements.--In carrying out the pilot 
     program under this subsection, the Redevelopment Authority 
     shall--
       (A) sell land acquired under the pilot program only as 
     provided in paragraph (2);
       (B) use any proceeds from the sale of such land to 
     replenish funds available for use under the pilot program for 
     the purpose of acquiring new parcels of land or to repay any 
     private financing for such purchases;
       (C) sell land only--
       (i) to purchasers who agree to develop such sites for sale 
     to the public; or
       (ii) to purchasers pursuant to paragraph (3)(D); and
       (D) in the case of a purchaser of land pursuant to 
     paragraph (3)(D), ensure that the developer of any adjacent 
     parcels sold by the Redevelopment Authority makes an offer to 
     the purchaser to develop such land for a fee.
       (5) Inapplicability of stafford act limitations.--Any 
     requirements or limitations under or pursuant to the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 
     relating to use of properties acquired with amounts made 
     available under such Act for certain purposes, restricting 
     development of such properties, or limiting subsequent 
     alienation of such properties shall not apply to amounts 
     provided under this subsection or properties acquired under 
     the pilot program with such amounts.
       (6) GAO study and report.--Upon the expiration of the 2-
     year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     conduct a study of the pilot program carried out under this 
     subsection to determine the effectiveness and limitations of, 
     and potential improvements for, such program. Not later than 
     90 days after the expiration of such period, the Comptroller 
     General shall submit a report to the Committees on Financial 
     Services and Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committees on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs and Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate regarding the results of the study.
       (d) Ongoing GAO Reports on Use of Amounts.--
       (1) Quarterly reports.--During the period that amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a)(3) are being expended under the 
     Road Home Program of the Louisiana Recovery Authority, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit reports 
     on a quarterly basis to the Committees on Financial Services 
     and Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committees on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
     of the Senate. Such reports shall describe and account for 
     the use of all such amounts expended during the applicable 
     quarterly period and identify any waste, fraud, or abuse 
     involved in the use of such amounts.
       (2) Monitoring.--The Comptroller General shall monitor the 
     total amount referred to in subsection (a)(3) that has been 
     expended by such Authority and, pursuant to such monitoring--
       (A) upon determining that at least two percent of such 
     amount has been expended, shall include in the first 
     quarterly report thereafter a written determination of such 
     expenditure; and
       (B) upon determining, at any time after the determination 
     under subparagraph (A), that the portion of such total amount 
     expended at such time that was subject to waste, fraud, or 
     abuse exceeds 10 percent, shall include in the first 
     quarterly report thereafter a certification to that effect.
       (3) Actions in response to waste, fraud, and abuse.--If at 
     any time the Comptroller General submits a report under 
     paragraph (1) that includes a certification under paragraph 
     (2)(B)--
       (A) the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Finance, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate shall each hold hearings within 
     60 days to identify the reasons for such waste, fraud, and 
     abuse; and
       (B) the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the 
     Committees referred to in paragraph (1) within 90 days 
     recommending actions to be taken to prevent further waste 
     fraud and abuse in expenditure of such amounts.

     SEC. 102. TREATMENT OF BENEFITS FROM OTHER PROGRAMS UNDER 
                   ROAD HOME PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent 
     that amounts made available under the heading ``Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development--Community Planning and 
     Development--Community Development Fund'' in chapter 9 of 
     title I of division B of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2779), 
     under such heading in chapter 9 of title II of Public Law 
     109-234 (120 Stat. 472), and under section 101 of this title, 
     are used by the State of Louisiana under the Road Home 
     program, the procedures preventing duplication of benefits 
     established pursuant to the penultimate proviso under such 
     heading in Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2781) and the 15th 
     proviso under such heading in Public Law 109-234 (120 Stat. 
     473) shall not apply with respect to any benefits received 
     from hazard insurance, flood insurance, or disaster payments 
     from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, except to the 
     extent that the inapplicability of such procedures would 
     result in a windfall gain under the Road Home Program to any 
     person.
       (b) Applicability.--During the period consisting of fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2012, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall monitor the expenditure, under the Road 
     Home Program, of amounts referred to in subsection (a) that 
     were made available from Public Laws 109-148 and 109-234. If 
     at any time during such period the cumulative outlays 
     resulting from the inapplicability, pursuant to subsection 
     (a), of the procedures referred to in such subsection 
     preventing duplication of benefits exceed $1,250,000,000, the 
     Secretary shall suspend the applicability of subsection (a) 
     for the remainder of such period.

     SEC. 103. ELIMINATION OF PROHIBITION OF USE FOR MATCH 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any amounts made available before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act for activities under the community 
     development block grant program under title I of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et 
     seq.) for expenses related to disaster relief, long-term 
     recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in the areas 
     impacted or distressed by the consequences of Hurricane 
     Katrina, Rita, or Wilma in States for which the President 
     declared a major disaster, or made available before such date 
     of enactment for such activities for such expenses in the 
     areas impacted or distressed by the consequences of Hurricane 
     Dennis, may be used by a State or locality as a matching 
     requirement, share, or contribution for any other Federal 
     program.
       (b) Efficient Environmental Review.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, when a State, unit of general local 
     government, or Indian tribe, or Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands uses amounts referred to in subsection (a), the release 
     of which would otherwise be subject to environmental reviews 
     under the procedures authorized under section 104(g) of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5304(g)), to match or supplement the federal assistance 
     provided under sections 402, 403, 406, 407, or 502 of Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and 
     the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     conducts an environmental review that encompasses all 
     activities assisted by such matching funds, the Director's 
     environmental review shall satisfy all of the environmental 
     responsibilities that would otherwise be assumed by the 
     State, unit of general local government, Indian tribe, or 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands under such section 104(g), 
     and the requirements and procedures of such provision, 
     including assumption of environmental review responsibilities 
     and submission and approval of a request for release of funds 
     and certification, shall be inapplicable, if, prior to its 
     commitment of any matching funds for such activities, the 
     State, unit of general local government, Indian tribe, or 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands notifies the Director and 
     the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development that it elects 
     to defer to the Director's environmental review 
     responsibilities. If a deferral is elected under this 
     subsection, the Director shall be the responsible party for 
     any liability under the applicable law if the environmental 
     review as described in the preceding sentence is deficient in 
     any manner.

     SEC. 104. REIMBURSEMENT OF CDBG AMOUNTS USED FOR RENTAL 
                   HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

       There are authorized to be appropriated, from any amounts 
     made available before the date of the enactment of this Act 
     under any provision of law to the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency for disaster relief under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 
     relating to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or 
     Wilma that remain unobligated, and from any amounts made 
     available before such date of enactment under any provision 
     of law to such Agency for such disaster relief relating to 
     the consequences of Hurricane Dennis that remain unobligated, 
     such sums as may be necessary, to be made available to the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for 
     transfer to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 
     for such Secretary to provide assistance under title I of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 
     et seq.) to metropolitan cities and urban counties that used 
     amounts previously

[[Page H2700]]

     made available under such title to provide rental housing 
     assistance for families residing in such city or county 
     pursuant to evacuation from their previous residences because 
     of such hurricanes in the amount necessary to provide each 
     such city and county with an amount equal to the aggregate 
     amount of previous assistance under such title so used.

                        TITLE II--PUBLIC HOUSING

     SEC. 201. SURVEY OF PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS.

       (a) Survey.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall provide for the conducting of a survey, using 
     appropriate scientific research methods, by an independent 
     entity or organization, to determine, of the households who 
     as of August 28, 2005, resided in public housing (as such 
     term is defined in section 3(b) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b))) operated or administered by 
     the Housing Authority of New Orleans, in Louisiana--
       (1) which and how many such households intend to return to 
     residences in dwelling units described in section 202(d) of 
     this Act, when presented with the options of--
       (A) returning to residence in a repaired public housing or 
     comparable dwelling unit in New Orleans; or
       (B) continuing to receive rental housing assistance from 
     the Federal Government; and
       (2) when such households intend to return.
       (b) Participation of Residents.--The Secretary shall 
     solicit recommendations from resident councils and residents 
     of public housing operated or administered by such Housing 
     Authority in designing and conducting the survey under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Proposed Survey Document.--The Secretary shall submit 
     the full research design of the proposed document to be used 
     in conducting the survey to the Committee on Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate not less 
     than 10 business days before the commencement of such survey.
       (d) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report the 
     Committees referred to in subsection (c) detailing the 
     results of the survey conducted under subsection (a) not 
     later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 202. RIGHT OF RETURN FOR PREVIOUS RESIDENTS OF PUBLIC 
                   HOUSING.

       (a) Requirement To Provide Dwelling Units.--Not later than 
     August 1, 2007, the Housing Authority of New Orleans shall 
     make available for occupancy, subject to subsection (b), a 
     number of dwelling units (including those currently occupied) 
     described in subsection (d) that is not less than the greater 
     of--
       (1) 3,000; or
       (2) the number of households who have indicated, in the 
     survey conducted pursuant to section 201, that they intend to 
     return to residence in public housing operated or 
     administered by such public housing agency.
       (b) Right of Return.--
       (1) In general.--Subject only to subsection (c), the 
     Housing Authority of New Orleans shall make available, upon 
     the request of any household who, as of August 28, 2005, was 
     a tenant of public housing operated or administered by such 
     public housing agency, occupancy for such household in a 
     dwelling unit provided pursuant to subsection (a). As a 
     condition of exercising a right under this paragraph to 
     occupancy in such a dwelling unit, not later than August 1, 
     2007, a tenant shall provide notice to such Housing Authority 
     of intent to exercise such right and shall identify a date 
     that the tenant intends to occupy such a dwelling unit, which 
     shall not be later than October 1, 2007.
       (2) Preferences.--In making dwelling units available to 
     households pursuant to paragraph (1), such Housing Authority 
     shall provide preference to each such household for occupancy 
     in a dwelling unit in the following locations, in the 
     following order:
       (A) A dwelling unit in the same public housing project 
     occupied by the household as of August 28, 2005, if 
     available.
       (B) A dwelling unit in the same census tract in which was 
     located the public housing dwelling unit occupied by the 
     household as of August 28, 2005, if available.
       (C) A dwelling unit in a census tract adjacent to the 
     census tract in which was located the public housing dwelling 
     unit occupied by the household as of August 28, 2005, if 
     available.
       (D) A dwelling unit in the neighborhood in which was 
     located the public housing dwelling unit occupied by the 
     household as of August 28, 2005, if available.
       (c) Prohibition of Exclusion.--The Housing Authority of New 
     Orleans, and any other manager of replacement dwelling units 
     set forth in this section shall not, including through the 
     application of any waiting list or eligibility, screening, 
     occupancy, or other policy or practice, prevent any household 
     referred to in subsection (b)(1) from occupying a replacement 
     dwelling unit provided pursuant to subsection (a), except to 
     the extent that any other provision of Federal law prohibits 
     occupancy or tenancy of such household in the type of housing 
     of the replacement dwelling unit provided for such household.
       (d) Replacement Dwelling Units.--A dwelling unit described 
     in this subsection is--
       (1) a dwelling unit in public housing operated or 
     administered by the Housing Authority of New Orleans; or
       (2) a dwelling unit in other comparable housing for which 
     the amount required to be contributed by the tenant for rent 
     is comparable to the amount required to be contributed by the 
     tenant for rental of a comparable public housing dwelling 
     unit.
       (e) Relocation Assistance.--The Housing Authority of New 
     Orleans shall provide, to each household provided occupancy 
     in a dwelling unit pursuant to subsection (b), assistance 
     under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
     Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) for 
     relocation to such dwelling unit.

     SEC. 203. ONE-FOR-ONE REPLACEMENT OF ALL PUBLIC HOUSING 
                   DWELLING UNITS.

       (a) Conditions on Demolition.--After the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Housing Authority of New Orleans 
     may not demolish or dispose of any dwelling unit of public 
     housing operated or administered by such agency (including 
     any uninhabitable unit and any unit previously approved for 
     demolition) except pursuant to a plan for replacement of such 
     units in accordance with, and approved by the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development pursuant to, subsection (b).
       (b) Plan Requirements.--The Secretary may not approve a 
     plan that provides for demolition or disposition of any 
     dwelling unit of public housing referred to in subsection (a) 
     unless--
       (1) such plan is developed with the active participation of 
     the resident councils of, and residents of public housing 
     operated or administered by, such Housing Authority and with 
     the City of New Orleans, at every phase of the planning and 
     approval process, through a process that provides opportunity 
     for comment on specific proposals for redevelopment, 
     demolition, or disposition;
       (2) not later than 60 days before the date of the approval 
     of such plan, such Housing Authority has convened and 
     conducted a public hearing regarding the demolition or 
     disposition proposed in the plan;
       (3) such plan provides that for each such dwelling unit 
     demolished or disposed of, such public housing agency will 
     provide an additional dwelling unit through--
       (A) the acquisition or development of additional public 
     housing dwelling units; or
       (B) the acquisition, development, or contracting (including 
     through project-based assistance) of additional dwelling 
     units that are subject to requirements regarding eligibility 
     for occupancy, tenant contribution toward rent, and long-term 
     affordability restrictions which are comparable to public 
     housing units;
       (4) such plan provides for the implementation of a right 
     for households to occupancy housing in accordance with 
     section 202;
       (5) such plan provides priority in making units available 
     under paragraph (3) to residents identified in section 201;
       (6) such plan provides that the proposed demolition or 
     disposition and relocation will be carried out in a manner 
     that affirmatively furthers fair housing, as described in 
     subsection (e) of section 808 of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1968; and
       (7) to the extent that such plan provides for the provision 
     of replacement or additional dwelling units, or 
     redevelopment, in phases over time, such plan provides that 
     the ratio of dwelling units described in subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B) of paragraph (3) that are provided in any such single 
     phase to the total number of dwelling units provided in such 
     phase is not less than the ratio of the aggregate number of 
     such dwelling units provided under the plan to the total 
     number of dwelling units provided under the plan.
       (c) Inapplicable Provisions.--Subparagraphs (B) and (D) of 
     section 8(o)(13) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) shall not apply with respect to vouchers 
     used to comply with the requirements of subsection (b)(3) of 
     this section.
       (d) Monitoring.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall provide for the appropriate field offices 
     of the Department to monitor and supervise enforcement of 
     this section and plans approved under this section and to 
     consult, regarding such monitoring and enforcement, with 
     resident councils of, and residents of public housing 
     operated or administered by, the Housing Authority of New 
     Orleans and with the City of New Orleans.

     SEC. 204. PROTECTION FOR PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS IN 
                   HURRICANE AREAS.

       (a) Conditions on Transfer.--During the two year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, a public 
     housing agency may not transfer ownership of any public 
     housing dwelling units described in subsection (h) unless the 
     transferee enters into such binding commitments as the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development considers 
     necessary to maintain, for the longest feasible period, the 
     requirements regarding eligibility for occupancy in such 
     dwelling units and tenant contribution toward rent for such 
     dwelling units that are applicable to such units as public 
     housing dwelling units.
       (b) Conditions on Demolition.--After the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, a public housing agency may not 
     dispose or demolish any dwelling units described in 
     subsection (h), except pursuant to a plan for replacement of 
     such units in accordance with, and approved by the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to, subsection (c).
       (c) Plan Requirement.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development may not approve a plan that provides for 
     demolition or disposition of any dwelling unit of public 
     housing described in subsection (h) unless such plan complies 
     with the requirements under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (6), 
     and (7) of section 203(b), except that such paragraphs shall 
     be applied for purposes this subsection by substituting ``the 
     public housing agency'' and ``applicable unit of general 
     local government'' for ``such Housing Authority'' and ``City 
     of New Orleans'', respectively.
       (d) Relocation Assistance.--A public housing agency shall 
     provide, to each household relocated pursuant to a plan under 
     this section for demolition or disposition, assistance under 
     the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 
     Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970 for relocation to their new 
     residence.

[[Page H2701]]

       (e) Right of Return.--A public housing agency administering 
     or operating public housing dwelling units described in 
     subsection (h) has the obligation--
       (1) to use its best efforts to locate tenants displaced 
     from such public housing as a result of Hurricane Katrina or 
     Rita; and
       (2) to provide such residents occupancy in public housing 
     dwelling units of such agency that become available for 
     occupancy, and to ensure such residents a means to exercise 
     such right of return.
       (f) Inapplicability of Certain Project-Based Voucher 
     Limitations.--Subparagraphs (B) and (D) of section 8(o)(13) 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f(o)(13)) shall not apply with respect to any project-
     based vouchers used to comply with the requirements of a plan 
     under subsection (c).
       (g) Prohibition on Displacement From Habitable Units.--A 
     public housing agency may not displace a tenant from any 
     public housing dwelling unit described in subsection (h) that 
     is administered or operated by such agency and is habitable 
     (including during any period of rehabilitation), unless the 
     agency provides a suitable and comparable dwelling unit for 
     such tenant in the same local community as such public 
     housing dwelling unit.
       (h) Covered Public Housing Dwelling Units.--The public 
     housing dwelling units described in this subsection are any 
     such dwelling units located in any area for which major 
     disaster or emergency was declared by the President pursuant 
     to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Rita of 
     2005, except that such dwelling units shall not include any 
     public housing dwelling units operated or administered by the 
     Housing Authority of New Orleans.

     SEC. 205. REPORTS ON PROPOSED CONVERSIONS OF PUBLIC HOUSING 
                   UNITS.

       Not later than the expiration of the 15-day period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall submit to 
     the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate a detailed report identifying all 
     public housing projects located in areas impacted by 
     Hurricane Katrina or Rita of 2005, for which plans exist to 
     transfer ownership to other entities or agencies. Such report 
     shall include the following information for each such 
     project:
       (1) The name and location.
       (2) The number of dwelling units.
       (3) The proposed new owner.
       (4) The existing income eligibility and rent provisions.
       (5) Duration of existing affordability restrictions.
       (6) The proposed date of transfer.
       (7) Any other relevant information regarding the project.

     SEC. 206. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR REPAIR AND 
                   REHABILITATION.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out activities eligible for funding under 
     the Capital Fund under section 9 of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g) for the repair, rehabilitation, 
     and development of public housing of the Housing Authority of 
     New Orleans, and for community and supportive services for 
     the residents of public housing operated or administered by 
     the Housing Authority of New Orleans.

     SEC. 207. COMPLIANCE OF EXISTING REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS.

       Each request for qualification or proposal issued before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act with respect to any 
     public housing operated or administered by the Housing 
     Authority of New Orleans shall, notwithstanding any existing 
     terms of such requests, be subject to and comply with all 
     provisions of this title and, to the extent necessary to so 
     comply, such Housing Authority shall reissue such requests.

     SEC. 208. REPORTS ON COMPLIANCE.

       Not later than the expiration of the 30-day period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and not 
     later than the expiration of each calendar quarter 
     thereafter, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall submit a detailed report regarding compliance with the 
     requirements of this title, including the resident 
     participation requirement under section 203(b)(1), to the 
     Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate, the resident councils of, and 
     residents of public housing operated or administered by, the 
     Housing Authority of New Orleans, and the City of New 
     Orleans.

     SEC. 209. REQUIREMENTS REGARDING PUBLIC HOUSING CONSTRUCTION 
                   WORKERS.

       Any entity that receives any Federal funds made available 
     pursuant to this title for construction, development, 
     rehabilitation, or repair of public housing shall verify that 
     all workers employed by such entity and engaged in such 
     activities--
       (1) have an immigration status that allows them to legally 
     be so employed; and
       (2) have a valid form of identification or documentation 
     indicating such immigration status.

TITLE III--DISASTER VOUCHER PROGRAM AND PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF DVP PROGRAM.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to provide assistance under the Disaster Voucher 
     Program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
     established pursuant to Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2779) 
     through January 1, 2008, and, to the extent that amounts for 
     such purpose are made available, such program, and the 
     authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     to waive requirements under section 8 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) in administering 
     assistance under such program, shall be so extended.

     SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION OF VOUCHER ALLOCATION FORMULA FOR 
                   FISCAL YEAR 2007.

       In carrying out section 21033 of the Continuing 
     Appropriations Resolution, 2007, to provide renewal funding 
     for tenant-based rental housing assistance under section 8 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 for each public housing 
     agency, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     make, for any public housing agency impacted by Hurricane 
     Katrina, Rita, or Wilma, such adjustments as are appropriate 
     to provide adequate funding to adjust for reduced voucher 
     leasing rates and increased housing costs arising from such 
     hurricanes.

     SEC. 303. PRESERVATION OF PROJECT-BASED HOUSING ASSISTANCE 
                   PAYMENTS CONTRACTS FOR DWELLING UNITS DAMAGED 
                   OR DESTROYED.

       (a) Tolling of Contract Term.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a project-based housing assistance payments 
     contract for a covered assisted multifamily housing project 
     shall not expire or be terminated because of the damage or 
     destruction of dwelling units in the project by Hurricane 
     Katrina or Rita. The expiration date of the contract shall be 
     deemed to be the later of the date specified in the contract 
     or a date that is not less than three months after the 
     dwelling units in the project or in a replacement project are 
     first made habitable.
       (b) Owner Proposals for Reuse or Re-Siting.--The Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development shall promptly review and 
     shall approve all feasible proposals made by owners of 
     covered assisted multifamily housing projects submitted to 
     the Secretary, not later than October 1, 2007, that provide 
     for the rehabilitation of the project and the resumption of 
     use of the assistance under the contract for the project, or, 
     alternatively, for the transfer, pursuant to subsection (c), 
     of the contract or, in the case of a project with an interest 
     reduction payments contract, of the remaining budget 
     authority under the contact, to another multifamily housing 
     project.
       (c) Transfer of Contract.--In the case of any covered 
     assisted multifamily housing project, the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development shall--
       (1) in the case of a project with a project-based rental 
     assistance payments contract described in subparagraph (A), 
     (B), or (C) of subsection (d)(2), transfer the contract to 
     another appropriate and habitable existing project or a 
     project to be constructed (having the same or a different 
     owner); and
       (2) in the case of a project with an interest reduction 
     payments contract pursuant to section 236 of the National 
     Housing Act, use the remaining budget authority under the 
     contract for interest reduction payments to reduce financing 
     costs with respect to dwelling units in other habitable 
     projects not currently so assisted, and such dwelling units 
     shall be subject to the low-income affordability restrictions 
     applicable to projects for which such payments are made under 
     section 236 of the National Housing Act.

     A project to which a project-based rental assistance payments 
     contract is transferred may have a different number of units 
     or bedroom configuration than the damaged or destroyed 
     project if approximately the same number of individuals are 
     expected to occupy the subsidized units in the replacement 
     project as occupied the damaged or destroyed project.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Covered assisted multifamily housing project.--The term 
     ``assisted multifamily housing project'' means a multifamily 
     housing project that--
       (A) as of the date of the enactment of this Act, is subject 
     to a project-based rental assistance payments contract 
     (including pursuant to subsection (a) of this section); and
       (B) that was damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina or 
     Hurricane Rita of 2005.
       (2) Project-based rental assistance payments contract.--The 
     term ``project-based rental assistance payments contract'' 
     includes--
       (A) a contract entered into pursuant to section 8 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f);
       (B) a contract for project rental assistance pursuant to 
     section 202(c)(2) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 
     1701q(c)(2));
       (C) a contract for project rental assistance pursuant to 
     section 811(d)(2) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013(d)(2)); and
       (D) an interest reduction payments contract pursuant to 
     section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1).

     SEC. 304. TENANT REPLACEMENT VOUCHERS FOR ALL LOST UNITS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2008 
     such sums as may be necessary to provide tenant replacement 
     vouchers under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) for the number of households that is 
     equal to--
       (1) the number of assisted dwelling units (whether occupied 
     or unoccupied) located in covered assisted multifamily 
     housing projects (as such term is defined in section 303(d) 
     of this Act) that are not approved for reuse or re-siting by 
     the Secretary; plus
       (2) the number of public housing dwelling units that, as of 
     August 28, 2005, were located in areas affected by Hurricane 
     Katrina and were considered for purposes of allocating 
     operating and capital assistance under section 9 of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (whether occupied or 
     unoccupied), that will not be put back into use for 
     occupancy; plus
       (3) the number of public housing dwelling units that, as of 
     September 24, 2005, were located

[[Page H2702]]

     in areas affected by Hurricane Rita and were considered for 
     purposes of allocating operating and capital assistance under 
     section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (whether 
     occupied or unoccupied), that will not be put back into use 
     for occupancy; minus
       (4) the number of previously awarded enhanced vouchers for 
     assisted dwelling units and tenant protection vouchers for 
     public housing units covered under this section.

     Any amounts made available pursuant to this section shall, 
     upon the request of a public housing agency for such voucher 
     assistance, be allocated to the public housing agency based 
     on the number of dwelling units described in paragraph (1) or 
     (2) that are located in the jurisdiction of the public 
     housing agency.

     SEC. 305. VOUCHER ASSISTANCE FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to provide 4,500 vouchers for project-based rental 
     assistance under section 8(o)(13) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) for use in areas 
     impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for supportive 
     housing dwelling units for elderly families, persons with 
     disabilities, or homeless persons. The Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development shall make available to the State of 
     Louisiana or its designee or designees, upon request, 3,000 
     of such vouchers. Subparagraphs (B) and (D) of section 
     8(o)(13) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f(o)(13)) shall not apply with respect to vouchers made 
     available under this section.

     SEC. 306. TRANSFER OF DVP VOUCHERS TO VOUCHER PROGRAM.

       (a) Transfer to Section 8 Voucher Program.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated, for tenant-based assistance 
     under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), such sums as may be necessary to 
     provide vouchers for such assistance for each household that, 
     as of the termination date of the Disaster Voucher Program 
     referred to in section 301 of this Act, is assisted under 
     such program, for the period that such household is eligible 
     for such voucher assistance. Such voucher assistance shall be 
     administered by the public housing agency having jurisdiction 
     of the area in which such assisted family resides as of such 
     termination date.
       (b) Temporary Vouchers.--If at any time a household for 
     whom a voucher for rental housing assistance is provided 
     pursuant to this section becomes ineligible for further such 
     rental assistance--
       (1) the public housing agency administering such voucher 
     pursuant to this section may not provide rental assistance 
     under such voucher for any other household;
       (2) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     recapture from such agency any remaining amounts for 
     assistance attributable to such voucher and may not 
     reobligate such amounts to any public housing agency; and
       (3) such voucher shall not be taken into consideration for 
     purposes of determining any future allocation of amounts for 
     such tenant-based rental assistance for any public housing 
     agency.

     SEC. 307. IDENTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION OF DVP-ELIGIBLE 
                   HOUSEHOLDS NOT ASSISTED.

       The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall make a 
     good faith effort to identify all households who, as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, are eligible for 
     assistance under the Disaster Voucher Program referred to in 
     section 301 but are not assisted under such program. Upon 
     identification of each such household, the Secretary shall--
       (1) notify such household of the rights of the household to 
     return a public housing or other assisted dwelling unit; and
       (2) to the extent that the family is eligible at such time 
     of identification, offer the household assistance under the 
     Disaster Voucher program.

     SEC. 308. GAO STUDY OF WRONGFUL OR ERRONEOUS TERMINATION OF 
                   FEDERAL RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

       The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct 
     a study of households that received Federal assistance for 
     rental housing in connection with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 
     to determine if the assistance for any such households was 
     wrongfully or erroneously terminated. The Comptroller General 
     shall submit a report to the Congress not later than June 1, 
     2007, setting forth the results of the study, which shall 
     include an estimate of how many households were subject to 
     such wrongful or erroneous termination and how many of those 
     households have incomes eligible for the household to receive 
     tenant-based rental assistance under section 8 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f).

              TITLE IV--DAMAGES ARISING FROM FEMA ACTIONS

     SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO REIMBURSE 
                   LANDLORDS FOR DAMAGES DUE TO FEMA MANAGEMENT OF 
                   LEASES ENTERED INTO UNDER SECTION 403 OF THE 
                   STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF ACT.

       There are authorized to be appropriated, from amounts made 
     available before the date of the enactment of this Act under 
     any provision of law to the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency for disaster relief under the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief Emergency Assistance Act, such sums as may be 
     necessary for the Director of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency to provide reimbursement to each landlord 
     who entered into leases to provide emergency sheltering in 
     response to Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or Wilma of 2005, 
     pursuant to the program of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency pursuant to section 403 of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5170b) in the amount of actual, documented damages incurred 
     by such landlord as a result of abrogation by such Agency of 
     commitments entered into under such program, but not 
     including reimbursement for any such landlord to the extent 
     that such landlord has previously received reimbursement for 
     such damages under any other Federal or non-Federal program.

                   TITLE V--FHA SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING

     SEC. 501. TREATMENT OF NON-CONVEYABLE PROPERTIES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, in the case of any property consisting of 1- to 4-family 
     residence that is subject to a mortgage insured under title 
     II of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.) and 
     was damaged or destroyed as a result of Hurricane Katrina or 
     Rita of 2005, if there was no failure on the part of the 
     mortgagee or servicer to provide hazard insurance for the 
     property or to provide flood insurance coverage for the 
     property to the extent such coverage is required under 
     Federal law, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development--
       (1) may not deny conveyance of title to the property to the 
     Secretary and payment of the benefits of such insurance on 
     the basis of the condition of the property or any failure to 
     repair the property;
       (2) may not reduce the amount of such insurance benefits to 
     take into consideration any costs of repairing the property; 
     and
       (3) with respect to a property that is destroyed, 
     condemned, demolished, or otherwise not available for 
     conveyance of title, may pay the full benefits of such 
     insurance to the mortgagee notwithstanding that such title is 
     not conveyed.
       (b) Budget Act Compliance.--Insurance claims may be paid in 
     accordance with subsection (a) only to the extent or in such 
     amounts as are or have been provided in advance in 
     appropriations Acts for the costs (as such term is defined in 
     section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 
     U.S.C. 661(a)) of such claims.

                   TITLE VI--FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 601. FAIR HOUSING INITIATIVES PROGRAM.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out section 561 of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 3616a), in 
     each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009, such sums as may be 
     necessary, but not less than $5,000,000, for areas affected 
     by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, of which, in each such fiscal 
     year--
       (1) 60 percent shall be available only for private 
     enforcement initiatives for qualified private enforcement 
     fair housing organizations authorized under subsection (b) of 
     such section, and, of the amount made available in accordance 
     with this paragraph, the Secretary shall set aside an amount 
     for multi-year grants to qualified fair housing enforcement 
     organizations;
       (2) 20 percent shall be available only for activities 
     authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c) of 
     such section; and
       (3) 20 percent shall be available only for education and 
     outreach programs authorized under subsection (d) of such 
     section.
       (b) Low Funding.--If the total amount appropriated to carry 
     out the Fair Housing Initiatives Program for either fiscal 
     year 2008 or 2009 is less than $50,000,000, not less than 5 
     percent of such total amount appropriated for such fiscal 
     year shall be available for the areas described in subsection 
     (a) for the activities described in paragraphs (1), (2), and 
     (3) of such subsection.
       (c) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated under this 
     section shall remain available until expended.

TITLE VII--IMPROVED DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL HURRICANE HOUSING FUNDS FOR 
                            HURRICANE RELIEF

     SEC. 701. GAO STUDY OF IMPROVED DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL 
                   HOUSING FUNDS FOR HURRICANE RELIEF.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study to examine methods of improving the 
     distribution of Federal housing funds to assist States 
     covered by this Act with recovery from hurricanes, which 
     shall include identifying and analyzing--
       (1) the Federal and State agencies used in the past to 
     disburse such funds and the strengths and weakness of 
     existing programs;
       (2) the means by and extent to which critical information 
     relating to hurricane recovery, such as property valuations, 
     is shared among various State and Federal agencies;
       (3) program requirements that create impediments to the 
     distribution of such funds that can be eliminated or 
     streamlined;
       (4) housing laws and regulations that have caused programs 
     to be developed in a manner that complies with statutory 
     requirements but fails to meet the housing objectives or 
     needs of the States or the Federal Government;
       (5) laws relating to privacy and impediments raised by 
     housing laws to the sharing, between the Federal Government 
     and State governments, and private industry, of critical 
     information relating to hurricane recovery;
       (6) methods of streamlining applications for and 
     underwriting of Federal housing grant or loan programs; and
       (7) how to establish more equitable Federal housing laws 
     regarding duplication of benefits.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Congress a report describing the results of the study 
     and any recommendations regarding the issues analyzed under 
     the study.

     TITLE VIII--COMMENDING AMERICANS FOR THEIR REBUILDING EFFORTS

     SEC. 801. COMMENDING AMERICANS.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) over 500,000 individuals in the United States have 
     volunteered their time in helping rebuild the Gulf Coast 
     region in the aftermath of Hurricane's Katrina and Rita;

[[Page H2703]]

       (2) over $3,500,000,000 in cash and in-kind donations have 
     been made for hurricane victims;
       (3) 40,000,000 pounds of food have been distributed by 
     Catholic Charities' Food Bank through hurricane relief 
     efforts;
       (4) almost 7,000,000 hot meals have been served by 
     Salvation Army volunteers in hurricane relief efforts;
       (5) over 10,000,000 college students have devoted their 
     spring and fall breaks to hurricane relief efforts;
       (6) almost 20,000 families displaced as a result of the 
     hurricanes have been supported by Traveler's Aid volunteers;
       (7) faith-based organizations, such as Jewish Family 
     Services, Lutheran Disaster Response, the United Methodist 
     Committee on Relief, Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, the 
     National Baptist Convention of America, Inc., the Progressive 
     National Baptist Convention, the Southern Baptist Convention, 
     and the African Methodist Episcopal Church have contributed 
     tens of thousands of man-hours for hurricane relief; and
       (8) community-based organizations, such as the Boys and 
     Girls Club of America, Junior League, Boy and Girl Scouts of 
     America, and the YMCA, have had thousands of members 
     volunteer with the cleanup in the Gulf States.
       (b) Commendation.--The Congress hereby commends the actions 
     and efforts by the remarkable individuals and organizations 
     who contributed to the hurricane relief effort and recognizes 
     that the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region rests on the 
     selfless dedication of private individuals and community 
     spirit.

  The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment to the committee amendment is in 
order except those printed in part B of the report. Each further 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


        Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-53.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida:
       In section 202(d), strike paragraph (2) and insert the 
     following new paragraph:
       (2) a dwelling unit in other comparable housing located in 
     the jurisdiction of the Housing Authority of New Orleans for 
     which the sum of the amount required to be contributed by the 
     tenant for rent and any separate utility costs for such unit 
     borne by the tenant is comparable to the sum of the amount 
     required to be contributed by the tenant for rental of a 
     comparable public housing dwelling unit and any separate 
     utility costs for such unit borne by the tenant.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 254, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I want to 
thank Mr. Barney Frank, chairman of the committee, and Maxine Waters 
and other members of the Committee on Financial Services for doing such 
a fine job in crafting this bill.
  I rise in support of H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act. 
I truly believe this bill is a tremendous victory for the gulf coast 
that was affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I once again want to 
commend my colleagues.
  Before I start talking about my amendment, let me talk about what 
happened during the hurricane because I saw something during Hurricane 
Katrina that I have never seen in the 25 years I have been an elected 
official and certainly the 15 years I have been a Member of Congress. I 
saw something in the government that I have never seen before. I saw a 
government that was not just incompetent, but I saw a government that 
did not care about its people. I thought I was in a third world, and I 
have got to take a moment to commend my community because we all 
watched it on television and were horrified. We came together.
  I represent the Jacksonville area, and we came together as a 
community and we sent over 16 tractor-trailers full of goods and 
services to New Orleans. We came together as a community. It was the 
business community. It was Democrats; it was Republicans. It was 
students, and we filled those tractor-trailers and sent them in there 
until the government could kick in.
  What we saw was a government that was not capable of responding. 
Well, when you look at the top 20 positions, and one police officer 
told me that you don't put people in positions over disasters that have 
public relations backgrounds. You make them ambassadors. But you put 
people in to head up disasters that are life and death to your 
communities that have the background and experience to do the job. That 
certainly was not the position of FEMA or Homeland Security. I want to 
put that on the table before I begin.
  Now, this particular amendment would allow that residents returning 
would have the opportunity to include their utility bill into the 
payment for their rent. This is something that was taking place prior 
to, and this would be something that would be permitted under my 
amendment.
  Many public housing residents are being forced into deeper debt 
because of utility bills. Public housing residents that lived in the 
areas of Rita and Katrina had their monthly rent included in their 
utilities. Currently, their vouchers do not include utilities, and many 
public housing residents are forced to make tough choices.
  I have three such examples. Bobby Jennings lived in C.J. Peete for 34 
years prior to Katrina. She paid income-based rent in the amount of 
$167 per month, which included utilities. Now she lives in another part 
and she pays $1,050 in rent which is not covered by her rent voucher, 
and she must pay $429 per month out of pocket. Well, her average 
income, she is a senior citizen on a fixed income, is $655 per month. 
So $300 per month she has to come up with.
  And that is the same for Mrs. Gloria Williams who was paying $185 per 
month. Now she pays $1,128 per month and she must come up with $406 per 
month.

                              {time}  1600

  The last person is Mrs. Wright. She lived in public housing for over 
20 years. She was paying the amount of $290 per month. She is in 
Houston, Texas. She now pays $625 a month, and she has to come up with 
an average of $250 a month for utilities. So utilities impose a 
disproportionate burden for the poor. And for the average American, 
utility bills only comprise 6 to 10 percent of household income. In 
this area it is 32 to 53 percent. Those receiving vouchers have already 
demonstrated their great need for assistance, and they are being 
shortchanged. We can't allow this to continue, and we must provide 
proper funding to those receiving this voucher.
  This amendment would ensure that utilities are part of the housing 
voucher for residents returning to New Orleans. The Congressional 
Budget Office said that it would have no direct impact as far as 
spending is concerned.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment to help people like Mrs. 
Jennings, Mrs. Williams and Mrs. Wright receive the assistance they 
greatly deserve.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida for 
all the work she has done to help the residents of New Orleans and the 
gulf coast. I know she was down there days after the hurricane hit, and 
I know of her passion. I am very appreciative for the help she has 
given us on this legislation, and I would like to assure her that those 
returning residents will have included in their rent the cost of the 
utility bills. So please do not worry about that. It will be done.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would join my colleague in supporting 
this particular amendment.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you.
  As you said, I have been to New Orleans and the region, really, some 
eight times. I tell them they've got a Member-at-large in me because I 
feel a great passion because you saw an example of a government that 
did not work, but I hate to say is not working and still is not 
working. Eighteen months later, we have a government, and you can say 
it's the local government, you can say it's the State government, but I 
am saying the Federal

[[Page H2704]]

Government, shame on all of us because the people don't care why it's 
not working. The point is the government is not working for them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment, but for 
clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Illinois is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. It is my understanding, and I know that your Dear 
Colleague letter states that currently vouchers of the public housing 
residents and section 8 vouchers do not include utilities. It is my 
understanding that prior to Katrina and Rita, the public housing 
residents had vouchers that did include utilities
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. That is correct. Before the hurricane, 
the utilities were a part of their vouchers, yes, ma'am.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. So this really is just a reclarification of how it was 
done in the past.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. That is correct.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the bill.
  The other thing that worries me, though, is just that you said you 
saw a government that did not care about its people. And I think 
certainly we have seen people in the government here that care very 
much; $110 billion has been turned over to those States to use to 
rebuild. I just think that we all care about it, we as the government, 
we in the administration, and I think the State and the local 
government.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Let me clarify my statement.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Let me clarify my statement.
  First of all, let me say that during the time of the hurricane, what 
I saw was a government that didn't care. It wasn't working. Everybody 
in the whole country, in fact, in the whole world saw that. It was a 
real serious indictment on the Bush administration that was in charge.
  But I said since that time people have blamed the local government, 
the State government and the Federal Government. Yes, we have done our 
part, but perhaps we could have done a better job in spelling out how 
that money is to be used, because regardless of how much money we have 
appropriated, and we have appropriated and we have done a good job with 
that, the money has not gotten down to the people that we intended for 
it to get to.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, let's just say that we are moving 
forward. I think this bill is a way to move forward, and I would accept 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-53.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida:
       In section, 202(b)(1), before ``provide notice'' insert. 
     ``(A)'':
       Before the period at the end of section 202(b)(1) insert 
     the following: ``, or (B} shall provide notice to such 
     Housing Authority that the tenant is requesting an extension 
     of the period to exercise such right. If, not later than 
     August 1, 2007, a tenant provides notice requesting such an 
     extension, as a condition of exercising a right under this 
     paragraph to occupancy in such a dwelling unit, not later 
     than October 1, 2007, the tenant shall provide notice to such 
     Housing Authority of intent to exercise such right and shall 
     identify a date that the tenant intends to occupy such a 
     dwelling unit, which shall not be later than December 1, 
     2007''.
       At the end of section 202, add the following new 
     subsection:
       (f) Assistance in Terminating Existing Leases.--The Housing 
     Authority of New Orleans shall offer to each household who 
     provides to such Authority notice of intent in accordance 
     with subsection exercise a right under such subsection to 
     occupancy in a dwelling unit, and shall provide, upon the 
     request of any such household, assistance to such household 
     in negotiating the termination of any lease on a dwelling 
     unit in which the household resides at the time of the 
     household is provided a occupancy in dwelling unit under this 
     section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 254, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Before I decide whether to withdraw my amendment, I have some 
questions for Ms. Waters about the present status of the deadlines that 
are in the bill, and maybe she can clarify it for me. I have a concern 
that we have certain dates and deadlines in this bill. And, of course, 
this bill, when it passes the House, has to go to the Senate, and we 
have certain deadlines in that bill, and then the President has to sign 
it. I am concerned that when it is signed, that the residents won't 
have an adequate amount of time to respond.
  As you well know, in the hearing that took place 18 months ago, HUD 
and Public Housing said of the residents that they had surveyed that 
they had only contacted about 25 percent. And so I want to make sure 
that those people are not disadvantaged and we are all on the same 
page. We all care about the same people.
  Can you clarify for me the status of that situation?
  Ms. WATERS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I know of her 
concern about making sure that all the residents have the opportunity 
to return.
  In our bill we have notification for return by August 1, and they 
have until October to honor the August 1 notification.
  Now, let me just say that we crafted this for several reasons. One is 
we did not want to be in the position of taking people out of where 
they are living now and forcing them to have to take their children out 
of school, but we wanted them to return in time to enroll the children 
in school for the semester starting in September. So we think that 
accomplishes that. And I know that you are concerned about all the 
people having adequate time.
  Let me tell you something else that was taken into consideration. Mr. 
Neugebauer, who was with us, has past experience as a developer-
contractor type. He made it very clear that when you rehab a unit, that 
if it is not occupied by a certain length of time, then you are going 
to have to go back 6 months later and put the same amount of dollars in 
again to rehab that unit that has been sitting vacant; because of the 
moisture and everything in the area, that you just cannot maintain the 
properties without them being inhabited.
  So for those two reasons, what we think makes good sense in terms of 
giving people an adequate period of time, and so that we don't have to 
spend additional money to rehab a unit the second time, we think that 
this would do well for those residents.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In my experience the gentlewoman, someone 
who is not on the committee and not from the district, has really made 
herself an expert and an advocate. I would say this: If as this goes 
forward there are delays in the legislative process, yes, of course, it 
would be sensible to deal with the deadlines. That is, we should think 
of the deadlines almost conceptually as based on a certain timeline of 
legislation. If the basic decisions by the government slip, then the 
deadline should be adjusted accordingly.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Frank, I have an additional 
question for you, then, before I withdraw

[[Page H2705]]

this amendment, and that pertains to the Road Home program.
  Are you prepared to answer questions about that program?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Some of it I am, and some of it I am not. 
I am not an expert on it, but go ahead.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. My question, and it is from going down 
to New Orleans and talking to the residents, their concern is that, as 
someone said earlier, we have appropriated billions of dollars for that 
area. I want to know to this date how much money has been spent on the 
Road Home program; how much money has been expended for administrative 
costs; and then, what kind of fees have been attached?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I would say this, if the 
gentlewoman would yield to me: It is our hope, and the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Baker) was very active in this, and we listened to the 
others, the two gentlemen from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon and Mr. 
Jefferson, we believe we have responded to some of the issues. There 
was, for instance, a debate between FEMA. FEMA didn't like some aspects 
of the Road Home regarding whether or not you got a penalty for not 
staying in the State and whether or not elderly people were done. That 
was pulled. We have in this bill said to FEMA, please, leave that one 
alone. So we hope we have sped it up. No one I know of thinks that the 
rate of spendout of the Road Home has been sufficient to date. We hope 
this bill makes it better, but I don't have all the details.
  Ms. WATERS. In addition to that information, we have placed in this 
bill a requirement that the Road Home program must report to us every 
30 days, because we are watching them very closely, we have let them 
know that we were not happy with the progress, and now we have 
information coming into us that will help us to see how fast they are 
moving, and we will take additional action if we have to.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I have one last question on this 
program before I withdraw my amendment.
  My understanding is if a person lives in their house and is eligible 
for $50,000, that we can charge fees up to $30,000 if that person is 
not coming back to the New Orleans area.
  Ms. WATERS. No, I am not aware of that, Congresswoman. What I do know 
is this: We have up to $150,000 in subsidy for homeowners to rebuild 
their homes. Some qualify for the entire amount, others qualify for 
different amounts based on whether or not they had insurance or whether 
or not there are other deductibles. My understanding is that if they 
decide not to come back, that they can sell their properties, and it is 
supposed to be at fair market value.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I am going to withdraw my amendment at 
this time, Mr. Chairman. I will be talking to both Chairs of the 
committee.
  I want to let you know that I sincerely thank both of you for the 
leadership that you have shown in this area. And just remember, they do 
have a Member-at-large.
  Ms. WATERS. If I may, if you will yield, I need to make one 
additional comment that I was just reminded of, that if they do not 
return to New Orleans, there is a penalty. That is designed to rebuild 
the neighborhoods and get people coming back. But there is a 30 percent 
penalty.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thirty percent of money. In addition, 
my understanding is that, for example, if that person didn't have 
insurance, and even though the insurance told them that they were not 
in the area, and they have that in writing, they weren't in the flood 
area, they were penalized 30 percent. So that is $30,000. So then a 
person could end up with $20,000 for their home, and they cannot 
rebuild with that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the gentlewoman would yield, there is 
one other aspect that was resolved. In the committee we adopted an 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) which 
went in the other direction and nullified one set of offsets when the 
gentleman from Louisiana mentioned that we had a scoring problem with 
CBO. There was an offset procedure for certain tax things, and frankly 
we felt that was not only somewhat unfair, but it was also one thing 
that held up the speed because we tried to offset that on the other 
hand.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I want to thank both of you.
  I rise in support of H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act. 
I truly believe this bill is a tremendous victory for the Gulf Coast 
and those affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I commend my 
colleague Congressman Barney Frank, Congresswoman Maxine Waters and the 
other Members of the Committee on Financial Services for the fine job 
crafting this bill.
  I also rise in support of my amendment that would give Katrina public 
housing residents more time to return home.
  Eighteen months after Hurricane Katrina, more than 4,000 families 
have not returned to New Orleans because most public housing remains 
closed. Public housing residents want to return and rebuild their city 
and their lives. If Congress is serious about the slogan ``Bring New 
Orleans Back,'' HUD and HANO must re-open public housing and make 
repairs, where necessary. Everyone should be permitted to return--not 
just the rich.
  HUD and HANO have been doing everything they can to make sure public 
housing residents don't return. HUD planned to demolish 5,000 units 
with no clear plan or timeline for bringing back these families. These 
public housing developments are some of the most durable housing in New 
Orleans. Given the solid infrastructure of these buildings and the 
minor damage incurred, it is clear that renovation is more cost-
effective than demolition. Instead of families moving back into their 
affordable housing units to get back to work, and help rebuild their 
lives, their communities, and their city, HUD contributes to the dearth 
of affordable housing in New Orleans, and keeps these families 
displaced and scattered across the country with no hope of returning.

  HUD has dropped the ball on keeping contact with displaced families. 
At a February 22, 2007 field hearing in New Orleans for the House 
Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
Opportunity, Chairman C. Donald Babers of the Housing Authority of New 
Orleans (HANO) told the subcommittee that out of 978 residents they 
recently tried to contact, they only made contact with about 237 
residents. Mr. Babers said that they were unable to reach about 740 
residents. Given that HUD and HANO only one month ago could not reach 
over 75 percent of the displaced public housing residents, Congress 
must ensure that residents do not lose the opportunity to move back to 
their homes simply because HANO and HUD cannot find them in a timely 
manner.
  Residents want to come home to be closer to their families and 
neighbors, to return to jobs or get new jobs in the reconstruction 
industry. HUD reported in October 2006 that an estimated 65-70 percent 
of families want to return to New Orleans. Congress must give these 
families every chance to come home.
  My amendment provides two deadlines of August 1, 2007 and October 1, 
2007 for residents to declare their intent to return. The reoccupancy 
deadlines are October 1, 2007 and December 1, 2007. It also extends 
assistance to those who ask for help with early termination of leases.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment so that we can Bring New 
Orleans Back.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-53.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       At the end of title III, add the following new section:

     SEC. 308. WORK REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each 
     individual who is 18 years of age or older and is a member of 
     a household residing in a dwelling for which rental 
     assistance is provided pursuant to an extension or 
     authorization of rental assistance provided under this title 
     shall, as a condition of the continued provision of such 
     assistance on behalf of such household, perform not fewer 
     than 20 hours of approved work activities (as such term is 
     defined in section 407(d) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 607(d))) per week.
       (b) Exemption.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall provide an exemption from the applicability 
     of paragraph (1) for any individual who--
       (1) is 62 years of age or older;
       (2) is a blind or disabled individual, as defined under 
     section 216(i)(1) or 1614 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 416(i)(1); 1382c), and who is unable to comply with 
     this section, or is a primary caretaker of such individual;

[[Page H2706]]

       (3) is engaged in a work activity (as such term is defined 
     in section 407(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     607(d)), as in effect on and after July 1, 1997));
       (4) meets the requirements for being exempted from having 
     to engage in a work activity under the State program funded 
     under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or under any other welfare program of the 
     State in which the public housing agency administering rental 
     assist- ance described in subsection (a) is located, 
     including a State-administered welfare-to-work program;
       (5) is in a family receiving assistance under a State 
     program funded under part A of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or under any other 
     welfare program of the State in which the public housing 
     agency administering such rental assistance is located, 
     including a State-administered welfare-to-work program, and 
     has not been found by the State or other administering entity 
     to be in noncompliance with such program; or
       (6) is a single custodial parent caring for a child who has 
     not attained 6 years of age, and the individual proves that 
     the individual has a demonstrated inability (as determined by 
     the State) to obtain needed child care, for one or more of 
     the following reasons:
       (A) Unavailability of appropriate child care within a 
     reasonable distance from the individual's home or work site.
       (B) Unavailability or unsuitability of informal child care 
     by a relative or under other arrangements.
       (C) Unavailability of appropriate and affordable formal 
     child care arrangements.
       (c) Administration.--A public housing agency providing 
     rental assistance described in subsection (a) may administer 
     the work activities requirement under this section directly, 
     through a resident organization, or through a contractor 
     having experience in administering work activities programs 
     within the service area of the public housing agency. The 
     Secretary may establish qualifications for such organizations 
     and contractors.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated, from any amounts made available before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act under any provision of 
     law to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for disaster 
     relief under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act relating to the consequences of 
     Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or Wilma that remain unobligated, 
     such sums as may be necessary for the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development to carry out this section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 254, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I wish to associate myself with the comments of 
my colleague from Texas and complimenting our chairman, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, in having a very fair and open hearing on this 
legislation. I often disagree with his philosophy, but I know that he 
is sincere in what he is trying to do, and I appreciate the fairness 
with which he has operated the committee and allowed these amendments 
come to the floor.
  I also want to thank Ranking Member Bachus for his contribution to 
this legislation in trying to ensure that we do the right thing in New 
Orleans, that things can actually be better, that we don't have to 
return to the way that things were.
  Clearly, these hurricanes represented one of the great natural 
tragedies in the history of America, and so many of us had friends and 
family who were affected. My in-laws live in the New Orleans area. For 
several days, my wife didn't know if her father had survived the 
hurricane. It turns out he was at the convention center along with 
thousands of others in fairly deplorable conditions.
  But my in-laws were among the lucky ones: they survived. Although 
their home was damaged, it has been rebuilt. But I know how this has 
impacted people. I have been to the gulf coast and seen the hurt, yet 
seen the hope as well, and hope is still alive.
  But 18, 19 months later, we have to ask ourselves this question, How 
do we best help going forward? America has been very generous, very 
generous with both their public and private funds. People throughout 
the Fifth Congressional District of Texas opened up their arms, opened 
up their wallets, opened up their homes to victims of the hurricanes.
  The Federal taxpayer has now contributed well over $100 billion to 
this effort. Nobody can say that the American people have not been 
generous.
  But I think we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, how do we best 
help going forward? I do not believe that it is always an additional 
Federal check. We also have to make sure that a great physical tragedy 
of this century or this generation doesn't turn out to be a great 
fiscal tragedy for the next generation as well.
  This amendment would try to take a modest step towards achieving 
those goals. It has everything to do with providing a work-related 
requirement that this Congress is already well acquainted with that 
helped revolutionize welfare reform 10 years ago, and apply it going 
forward to those who are recipients of the vouchers and the housing 
programs under this bill.
  Over 10 years ago, when Congress passed Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families, we began the process of ending welfare as we had known 
it. Instead, we replaced it in this program with a temporary 
assistance-based program that was based on work and self-sufficiency 
and responsibility and personal dignity.
  Now, at the time there were countless naysayers who said this was 
cruel and unusual. I offered this amendment in committee. It was called 
un- American. They said it had no compassion. They said the program 
would never work, that young mothers would somehow be thrown out into 
the streets with starving children, that somehow they could not find a 
job, much less hold a job.
  Mr. Chairman, the naysayers were wrong then, and the naysayers are 
wrong now. If you look at the record, you will see that after we passed 
this TANF welfare reform and created incentives for self-sufficiency, 
the number of families receiving cash welfare steadily declined from an 
all-time peak of 5.1 million families in March of 1994 to 1.9 million 
families in September of 2006. It represents the lowest number of 
people on cash public assistance rolls in over 35 years. This, I 
believe, is compassionate.
  Child poverty has fallen and 1.6 million fewer children live in 
poverty today than in 1995 because of the work-related requirements 
that were in TANF. Child poverty has fallen dramatically, as I said. 
Employment of young, single mothers has doubled. Employing mothers who 
have never been married is up by more than 50 percent. Employment of 
single mothers who dropped out of high school is up by two-thirds, and 
we have seen unprecedented declines in poverty among children of single 
moms, from 50.3 percent a decade ago to 41.9 percent in 2004.
  Again, the naysayers were wrong then, and the same naysayers are 
wrong yet again today.
  Welfare reform worked 10 years ago because we cared enough to tell 
people, when they were facing challenges, that we were not going to 
allow them to give up trying. Now we have the same chance to extend 
this, to empower people who have been impacted by these terrible gulf 
coast hurricanes, some who have been stuck in public housing for 10, 15 
or 20 years. We can show them that there is a better life, and it is 
within their reach; but the work is key to obtaining this.
  So, again, my amendment is a simple one. It takes the list of 
approved work-related activities that have already been established 
over 10 years ago in welfare reform, as we know in TANF, and applies it 
to the recipients of this special public housing assistance that we are 
providing in this bill. Those recipients would be required to perform a 
minimum of 20 hours per week of work-related activities to help them 
get back on the road to self-sufficiency and move beyond public housing 
once and for all.
  Now, the precedent for requiring recipients of public housing 
assistance to earn benefits is not new. In 1998, this body passed a law 
requiring able-bodied people living in public housing to perform 8 
hours a month of community service with the notion that individuals 
ought to give back to their communities. My amendment would simply 
build on that notion and help put people back on the road to self-
sufficiency.
  Now, I know some people will say that individuals can't find work 
because there are simply no jobs to be found; therefore, this amendment 
will not work.
  But that is a false charge on two counts. First, there are clearly 
entry-level jobs that are still available, for

[[Page H2707]]

example, in New Orleans. Pick up the want ads. You will see plenty of 
entry-level positions that are there, and they are trying to rebuild a 
great city. Workers are still needed to help rebuild New Orleans. So it 
is false on one account.
  Second of all, it is false because under the TANF requirement, no one 
is required to get a job if the jobs don't exist. Instead, there are 12 
distinct categories of work-related activities to give individuals a 
broad spectrum of activities to satisfy this requirement. It includes 
attempting to find work, vocational education, community service and, 
in some instances, providing child care services to others. Again, 
these are all activities designed to help people begin on the road to 
self-sufficiency.
  To ensure that only the able-bodied are affected by this requirement, 
my amendment exempts children, senior citizens, the disabled, those 
already exempt from TANF work requirements and those who cannot find 
appropriate or affordable child care.
  Mr. Chairman, the lessons of welfare reform are very clear. By 
expecting more of people, you can help them expect more out of 
themselves. We have the opportunity to extend that, the great lessons 
and the great benefits of that today. We should not miss any 
opportunity to help break this cycle of dependency and help people 
change their lives for the better.
  We need to help the people of the gulf coast, but we need to help the 
taxpayers as well. We need to ensure that the American people don't 
face a challenge like this going forward in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from California is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  This bill is about stabilizing families who have been displaced 
because of a natural disaster. These are people who are trying to 
return home. The people that he is referring to are people who come 
from various walks of life. Some of them do work, even though they live 
in public housing. Some of them are on fixed income, some are elderly, 
some are disabled and some of them are in welfare programs already.
  This amendment is not needed. It is not proper. It is not the time 
that should be utilized to try and do something that really has already 
been taken care of in welfare reform. We should be about the business 
of returning people to their homes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, may I just inquire of the gentleman from 
Texas whether or not there is data available that would suggest the 
need for this amendment. I don't like to just oppose amendments just 
because. Is there data available that would suggest a need for this?
  Mr. HENSARLING. Does the gentleman yield time?
  Mr. CLEAVER. Yes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I am not sure what data you would be looking for. I 
believe it's a very important principle. The data that I have seen is 
the data that I have cited on the benefits of applying a work-related 
requirement to an income-based program.
  Mr. CLEAVER. I am talking about New Orleans and Mississippi.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I would apply the statistics in the data that I 
have seen from the improvements in TANF to this program.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. The problem with that, and I appreciate your 
interest in this issue, and I am sure you probably are not aware of the 
fact that in New Orleans there are 36,000 participants in TANF. All but 
5,000 are children; all but 5,000 are children. This legislation is 
saying we want children to volunteer 20 hours a week in order to 
receive assistance.
  In addition to that, we are spending about $5 billion a week in Iraq, 
and we are building housing, but we are not requiring Iraqis to 
volunteer in order to be the recipients of the largesse of the American 
taxpayers.
  The assumption here is that the people don't need to work and so they 
somehow have to be coerced into working. As a former resident of public 
housing, there is a new issue arising, and that is that many of the 
people in public housing are elderly.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the 
distinguished lady from California and our chairman, Mr. Frank, for 
doing an excellent job in leading us.
  This amendment represents the ugly side of this Nation. This 
amendment is cruel, it is cold, it is calculating, and it is pandering 
to the schizophrenic dichotomy that has plagued this Nation since they 
first brought Africans on these shores from Africa, and that is the 
issue of race and poverty.
  Let me tell you something, gentleman. Where were you? Where was your 
amendment when the Twin Towers were hit and people of New York suffered 
that catastrophe? There was no cry before we give them help, they have 
got to go get a job. Everybody was there and poured in help, as they 
should, the American way.
  Where was your amendment down in Florida when the hurricanes hit down 
there? Nobody said, make them work before we help them.
  Where were you last month when the hurricanes hit in Arkansas and 
then south Georgia, when the President went down and declared a 
disaster area? We helped those people.
  My friend, let me remind you of something. I am going to tell you 
this story. It's a story about some folks that went down the road to 
Jericho, and this gentleman fell among thieves. He had disaster. He was 
hurting, and he was pained. Somebody walked by him and said nothing and 
did nothing. Another person walked by him and did nothing.
  Your amendment is worse. You want to kick them and say get up and get 
a job. But that third man had compassion on him, and in his hour of 
need, picked him up, put him on his horse, took him to an inn and paid 
him to take care of him and house him.
  That is what this amendment is doing. It is a Good Samaritan 
amendment. Yours is the Ugly American amendment, and it needs to be 
defeated.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the 
Chair.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Al Green).

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Members who have 
spoken before me, and I am greatly concerned about the amendment. I am 
concerned because I, too, understand what happened with 9/11. It was 
one of the great disasters of our time, and yet I know of no amendments 
comparable to this one.
  My friend from Texas and I in committee engaged in somewhat of a Q 
and A, so I believe it appropriate and fair that he and I do a similar 
thing at this time. So to my friend from Texas I ask, what amendment 
would you have imposed on the more than $15 billion that the families 
received after 9/11? Which, by the way, I think was appropriate.
  I ask my friend to respond, and I yield him such time as he may need 
within my 2 minutes to do so.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Well, to help answer the question of the gentleman 
from Georgia, I wasn't in Congress, so therefore I had no amendment to 
offer.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Because my time is limited, let me just ask, 
if you would, what would you have done, is my question.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Well, as typical, what I would try to do is offer 
offsets. And I believe that any income-based program of cash assistance 
or other welfare assistance ought to be tied to a self-sufficiency 
requirement.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I have limited time. Would you have required 
work for the families of 9/11?
  Mr. HENSARLING. Again, I believe that anybody who is receiving 
income-based assistance from the Federal Government ultimately ought to 
be on the road to self-sufficiency. As I understand it, some of that--
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have 
left on this amendment.

[[Page H2708]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has 3 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. WATERS. I would like to yield 1 additional minute to 
Representative Cleaver.
  Mr. CLEAVER. The point I was trying to make earlier was that, 
actually, the fact that this is not a welfare reform bill, this is 
about aiding people in a distressed area.
  If we are talking about TANF recipients, it is important to 
understand that in the State of Louisiana, 5,000 TANF recipients are 
adults, and the bulk of them are children. In Mississippi, 8 percent of 
them are adults, and the rest of the 32,270 are children. And I think 
that we have gone awry converting a bill aimed at providing relief for 
people who are hurting down in the deepest parts of who they are and 
trying to impose a welfare rights bill on them when we have not done it 
in any other crisis in the history of this Republic. It is not the 
right thing to do to say to people that, in the midst of your struggle, 
in the midst of you trying to rebuild your home, rekindle your belief 
in the Nation, that we are going to now require that you volunteer.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, in closing on this opposition, I would 
simply like to say, I think that my colleagues have made a wonderful 
case for why we should not support this amendment.
  And let me just say that this amendment is not in the spirit of the 
work that has been done on this bill. We have had wonderful cooperation 
with Ranking Member Bachus, Ranking Member of the subcommittee Biggert, 
and Mr. Neugebauer, who all attended the hearing and participated in 
the tours. And I think that everybody is bending over backwards to do 
the right thing.
  We are not trying to penalize people, we are not trying to accuse 
people of trying to get something for nothing, we are not trying to 
treat people differently than we treat others. And I think this has 
been demonstrated throughout our work.
  So the case that has been made here and the comparisons that have 
been made are legitimate. And I think you can see very clearly that 
there is some very deep feelings about any attempt to treat people 
differently, to try and penalize them in any unfair way, to try and put 
another welfare reform bill on top of the welfare reform bill that we 
already have that people are involved in. And I think that my 
colleagues in this Congress, too, will understand that.
  I suppose I could always say to the gentleman, in the interest of us 
working together, perhaps you should withdraw the amendment, but that 
is not mine to say. Mine simply is to say that I am opposed to the 
amendment. I think it is disruptive, I think that it is polarizing, and 
I think it is not the kind of amendment we would like to see on a bill 
where we have had such tremendous cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, again, this is a very, very simple 
amendment. I have no idea what is so cruel and unusual about people 
having the opportunity to become self-reliant, to earn paychecks 
instead of welfare checks.
  The gentleman from Georgia, who spoke with great stridency, I don't 
question his sincerity; I do question a number of his policies. I have 
no doubt that the gentleman has voted against tax relief to help create 
7\1/2\ million jobs turning welfare checks to paychecks.
  So the gentleman has different ways of trying to help people. I look 
at the statistics. What has helped people? What has brought down child 
poverty rates? What has helped single mothers find self-sufficiency?
  So I don't understand, after 18 months, after $100 billion of 
taxpayer money, why it is so bad to say people ought to be on the road 
to self-sufficiency.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Biggert

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in part B of House Report 110-53.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mrs. Biggert:
       In section 203(a), strike ``(including any uninhabitable 
     unit and any unit previously approved for demolition)'' and 
     insert ``that was occupied as of August 25, 2005,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 254, the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce an amendment that I 
think fixes a provision of the bill that mistakenly includes 
replacements for 2,000 units in New Orleans, even though these units 
were not occupied and, in fact, were condemned and scheduled for 
demolition prior to Katrina.
  Let's just do the math. Before Katrina, there were 5,156 public 
housing units that were occupied in New Orleans. We don't know how many 
of those 5,156 residents will want to return. We have asked HUD to find 
them and conduct a survey to ask that question. In the meantime, this 
bill authorizes replacements not only for the 5,156 units that were 
occupied by Katrina, it throws in another 2,000 units that were 
unoccupied, condemned, and scheduled for demolition. I see no point to 
that.
  We don't know how many of the residents will return. Why then would 
we want to replace not only the 5,156 units they occupied, but an 
additional 2,000 units that nobody lived in even both before Katrina?
  My amendment will permit one-for-one replacement of the units that 
were occupied by public housing residents at the time of the 2005 
storms.
  According to CBO estimates, this amendment would reduce the spending 
authorized in this bill by $270 million, which is the cost of replacing 
the 2,000 public housing units that nobody lived in before the 2005 
storms hit.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment, and reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from California is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  First let me thank Mrs. Biggert for all the work that she has done in 
helping us to get this bill to the floor, and the time that she has 
taken to pay attention to this issue. And I certainly respect her 
thinking on this issue and the fact that she was there, she went 
through the units, she saw them. But I must respectfully disagree.
  I must disagree because not only did we have 18,000 individuals on 
the waiting lists, waiting for public housing units; yes, these units 
were boarded up, these units were boarded up, and there had been a 
promise that there would be redevelopment that had not taken place. Not 
only do you have 18,000 on the waiting list, do you realize that many 
of the people that have been displaced because of Hurricane Katrina and 
Hurricane Rita are folks who were working, who had jobs? They lost 
their homes, they lost their jobs. They are living in temporary 
situations. They are in Houston, they are in Atlanta, they are in 
cities in Florida. They are all over. They now may qualify for public 
housing based on the fact that they have lost on their jobs. They want 
to return, they want to come back, and they should have an opportunity 
to apply for and receive public housing units that should be available 
to them.
  So let me just say that we should have one-for-one replacement 
because it is needed. People are standing in line. They were standing 
in line before Katrina; they will be standing in line after Katrina. 
And, Mrs. Biggert, if you remember, the mayor of the city of New 
Orleans said he would love to contract for 1,000 units to have places 
for people who want to come back to New Orleans to work.
  We are unleashing the possibilities for infrastructure rebuilding, 
with

[[Page H2709]]

some of the match requirements having been modified in the way that we 
have done them. They want to get started with the building, And people 
need places to live. So he would like to have units for people to come 
back and work in. When these units are replaced, we have enough people 
who want to live in them. And so it is not a fair way to determine how 
many units get replaced by simply saying only those that were occupied 
prior to Katrina, because that waiting list is a reminder to all of us 
of how badly those units are needed
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
colleague from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the gentlewoman very much.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we saw down there was we saw 
some housing units and some of the public housing that had been 
refurbished and was ready to rent. But what we did see in those housing 
projects was a lot of vacant units. So one of the things that is going 
on right now, the dynamics as we are talking about earlier about 
getting something going there, is a couple of organizations have come 
in, and they have some master--planned communities to go back and 
replace some of this housing.
  You almost cannot describe on this House floor, we really need 
pictures to be able to articulate the condition of some of this 
housing. It is throwing good money after bad to go back and bring very 
many of these units back because, one, they have been sitting for 18 
months just the way they were the night that the folks that left those 
units left them. They have been under water. They have been vandalized.
  So one of the things that we need to do is we need to provide a 
certain amount of housing that meets the current demand, see how many 
people actually want to come back to New Orleans, come back to those 
neighborhoods. I would submit to you that if you want folks to come 
back, and I think that is the goal of the people of New Orleans, they 
want people to come back to the community, if you want them to come 
back, don't ask them to come back to those units that were in terrible 
condition before the hurricane and would cost a lot of money to 
restore. We should take those new dollars and provide a new opportunity 
for the people in New Orleans, and not mandate things that would cause 
the resources to be diverted to spending a lot of money.
  And I would tell you, in some cases, as the gentlewoman Ms. Waters 
mentioned, I have been a home builder and a land developer, I know what 
the cost of restoration is, and many times the cost of restoration of 
units exceeds the cost of creating those new units.
  But putting those arguments aside, just going back and recreating 
what was already a bad thing, as Ranking Member Bachus said before, in 
some of these where we had a high concentration of poor people is not 
good policy.
  So the Biggert amendment makes sense. Let's let the demand drive it. 
As there is demand to fix up these units. If the new units are not 
ready, there are ways to meet those market demands.

                              {time}  1645

  But if you go back and ask them to come up with a number, and let's 
say that is two or 3,000 units or whatever that number is, and those 
units sit vacant because people don't want to go back to those 
neighborhoods, we have defeated the purpose and, unfortunately, not 
been good stewards of the American taxpayers' money. So I would urge 
Members to support the Biggert amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) 3 minutes.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with some interest to 
the comments on this amendment, and I think there would be 
substantially more credibility for the people who are advancing it if 
there had actually been some units constructed or even started in the 
17 or 18 months since Hurricane Katrina occurred.
  It is somewhat amazing to me how we have fought for so many years to 
do community development, and all of a sudden HUD and our colleagues 
here want to do community development, but they want to do it in this 
distress atmosphere where there is no housing, even for people to move 
back into who would participate and do work on the units.
  Here is what has happened. The hospitals that had damage to the first 
floors went back in and put patients on the second, third and fourth 
floors. The housing, the public housing that had damage to the first 
floors, the Public Housing Agency, which, by the way, is in 
receivership under HUD, not an independent local housing authority, but 
in receivership, being operated by HUD, took the position that it would 
be unsafe to put public housing tenants back in those units by 
restoring second, third, fourth floors of the housing units.
  Now, I can't figure out how it is safe to put medical patients on the 
second, third and fourth floors of hospitals where you have gone in and 
basically done some remedial stuff on the first floors of the 
hospitals, and yet it is unsafe to put people who have no housing to 
return to on the second, third, fourth floors, and restore the first 
floors of the public housing.
  This is not an argument against doing longer-term community 
revitalization. That needs to happen, and we are supportive of that. 
But in this distress situation, there needs to be, first, restoration 
of the housing that was there so that people can move back in and get 
back into their communities and stop being scattered all over the 
country. And that should be the highest priority that we are pursuing, 
and that is what the bill does.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, I would like to reiterate something that 
the gentleman from North Carolina just said, and that is the fact that 
we are not trying to stop development. As a matter of fact, what we are 
doing is restoring units so that people can have some place to return. 
Their lives are in a temporary state of existence. Our residents that 
we talked to said they would be happy to work with the housing 
authority and HUD to talk about the future development. So I just 
wanted to make that clear.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I just want to clarify about using the multi-stories. 
Most of the housing that we saw, and I am not going to say all of it, 
we didn't see all of the housing, but most of the housing is one- and 
two-story. There may have been some three-story. And some of those are 
walkups; in other words, the second story is a part of the first part 
of the unit; in other words, it is a two-story unit. So the argument 
that you are dealing with a high rise where there is floor 3 up to 10 
is usable, in these particular housing units that we saw there was not 
multistory housing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Illinois has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from California has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that Mr. Neugebauer clarified 
that. The buildings, we went into those buildings and we climbed up to 
the second floor and it was just as bad as the first floor and there 
were no other floors.
  One thing about New Orleans housing is at least it was not the high 
rises like we saw originally in Chicago, that a whole precinct would be 
public housing. And those have been done away with.
  But let me just say that we want people to come back, and we want 
them to have the housing. And there are some of the units that have 
been fixed up. And what has happened is there is nobody there, and the 
police have to come because they are broken into and they are 
vandalized. And we need more people there.
  But these units, we need to know how many people are going to come 
back originally. We have got to start the process someplace, and we 
don't seem to be able to do that. If we have 5,156 residents that were 
promised that they could come back, we should provide that. And it is a 
one-on-one. But for the 2,000, let's get those first people back and 
get them back by August so that they could have their kids go to 
school. The housing is not great, but let's get them back to do that. 
But to have 2,000 other units that are built

[[Page H2710]]

that we really would rather get the first ones going, we have got the 
money for it. And I think now we are talking about 18,000 people that 
are on the waiting list.
  First of all, let's just say that there are people that have moved to 
other States. They have jobs. They have a life. The survey goes out, 
and it is going to be completed by HUD and we will know. We don't know 
how many people are on the waiting list. Nobody has made an attempt to 
figure out if they are people that are waiting or they have gone 
someplace else.
  So I would say that this is just to get it going. And to undertake 
5,165 units is going to take awhile. Obviously, to build a whole multi-
use facility is going to take a lot more time. But there are plans to 
do it. So we can do it both, but let's get it going.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has the right to close.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, in that case, since I am our last 
speaker, I would ask the other side to use up their time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, with that, again, before we make all 
these decisions, we really have to know how many people are going to 
return. If we have the 5,100-some units and all the people that have 
been living in those units don't return, then there will be a time that 
they can open up the section 8 housing and have people off the waiting 
list who qualify. If they still qualify, if they come back.
  But what this bill is doing is a one-on-one replacement, and that is 
what it says in this bill, is to replace the one-on-one replacement for 
those units that we were talking about, whether it is 5,000 or it is 
7,000. And I say let's use the dollars that we have to start with the 
people that were displaced from there. They have the public housing, 
they have the vouchers, and let's not wait any longer.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Bachus for the remaining time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, in my earlier statement I said that the 
one-for-one replacement is not the best way to rebuild public housing 
in New Orleans. In fact, it is not only not the best way, it is the 
wrong way, because what we are doing here is we are saying before we 
replace these units, before we tear them down and build a community 
like Centennial, or East Lake, we are going to renovate the existing 
structures with taxpayers' money. What that does, oh, yes, it may get 
people back, but it gets them back into the same failed system.
  They are out there. They have homes now. Let's continue to give them 
vouchers, let them stay, and then when we build a community that is 
safe, that they can be proud of, that is mixed-use, then we bring them 
back.
  I mentioned East Lake. And East Lake was, as I said earlier, was the 
highest crime area in the entire State of Georgia. Today it is the 11th 
safest precinct out of 56.
  One thing I didn't tell you about East Lake, the school in East Lake, 
prior to this development, only 31 percent of the children in that 
school were performing up to the State standardized testing. Today, 
two-thirds are, and they say within 2 years they will be at three-
fourths. That is as good as any school in just about any school in 
Atlanta.
  The director of the East Lake Community Foundation, Carol Naughton, 
said, while East Lake did not provide one-to-one replacement, it 
actually ends up serving more low-income families than are served under 
the previous arrangement. The occupancy rate at the old East Lake was 
67 percent. Today it is 93 percent, and for subsidized homes it is 100 
percent.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, Chairman Frank.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Illinois is absolutely irrelevant to whether or 
not people ought to be occupying existing units. That is not what is 
involved here.
  First of all, let me say the gentleman from Alabama and others said 
they have these plans to build these great new places. Who is stopping 
them? The hurricane was in September of 2005. It is now March of 2007. 
Have they started this? Have I stopped them? Have the tenants stopped 
them? Has the gentlewoman from California stopped them? Nobody has 
stopped them.
  And the New Orleans Housing Authority, by the way, is HUD in drag. So 
nobody here has prevented them.
  Here is what we are saying. What is amended is this: if you plan to 
tear down units that are now habitable, you cannot do that until you 
have met with the tenants, talked about this and replaced them.
  This is an issue not about whether you live in the existing units. 
This isn't about rehabbing existing units. This is as to what is the 
obligation to replace the units.
  The fact is that, according to HUD's own figures, more than half of 
the rental units in New Orleans were destroyed by the hurricane. People 
talk about job problems. That is because they have nowhere to live.
  The gentlewoman's amendment would reduce by 2,000 the number of units 
they would be obligated to build before tearing down things that now 
exist. And you know, it is very nice. We have been doing this for 
years. We have promised the poor people all kinds of things, and those 
promises don't always materialize.
  All we are saying is do whatever destruction you want after you have 
found places to live. And let me make it clear: we are talking about 
people who don't live here, who live in Texas and elsewhere and they 
want to come back. And it is not simply former residents of public 
housing. There were a lot of people who were displaced from New 
Orleans. We don't think we are in danger of running out of people who 
want to come back.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to be clear that the reason 
the units haven't been replaced there is because, as the gentleman 
knows, there has been some historical preservation issues.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is simply not the case. Here is the 
problem with the gentleman's view. They have this view that you can 
only build new units for poor people after you have torn down what they 
had. No one has enjoined them from building new units, except the 
budget that the people on the other side have voted for. We have got to 
get this clear. Nobody has prevented, there have been no plans by HUD, 
also known as the Housing Authority of New Orleans, to build new units. 
Nobody has stopped them except, yes, people have said you can't tear 
down what we have as the pre-condition for building. But if HUD had 
wanted to go forward and build, no one would have prevented that. The 
wonderful housing that the gentleman from Alabama talked about, the 
mixed-use housing, what has stopped them from building it? I will tell 
what you has stopped them from building it, the budgets that have been 
voted for by my friends on the other side that didn't have any money 
for new housing construction.

                              {time}  1700

  I will tell you what we are going to do. We are going to pass the GSE 
bill that is going to have the housing affordability fund so they can 
build these things.
  So we are simply saying do not destruct before you replace and do the 
poor people the favor of tearing down the bad housing they live in so 
they have nothing left at all.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois will be 
postponed.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Blumenauer). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 5 printed in part B of House Report 110-53.

[[Page H2711]]

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

  TITLE IX--PROTECTION OF HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING FEMA HOUSING ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 901. EXTENSION OF FEMA HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to provide until December 31, 2007, temporary 
     housing assistance, including financial and direct 
     assistance, under section 408(c)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5174(c)(1)) to individuals and households eligible to receive 
     such assistance as a result of Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or 
     Wilma, and to the extent that amounts for such purpose are 
     made available, such assistance shall be so extended.

     SEC. 902. VOUCHER ASSISTANCE FOR HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING FEMA 
                   RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND HOUSEHOLDS RESIDING IN 
                   FEMA TRAILERS.

       (a) Transfer of FEMA Rental Assistance to Section 8 Voucher 
     Program.--There are authorized to be appropriated, for 
     tenant-based rental assistance under section 8(o) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), such 
     sums as may be necessary to provide vouchers for such 
     assistance for each individual and household that is eligible 
     for such voucher assistance and received financial assistance 
     for temporary housing under section 408(c)(1) of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5174(c)(l)) as a result of Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or 
     Wilma, for the period beginning upon termination of such 
     temporary housing assistance and continuing through such 
     period that such individual or household remains eligible for 
     such voucher assistance. Such voucher assistance shall be 
     administered by the public housing agency having jurisdiction 
     of the area in which such assisted individual or household 
     resides as of such termination date.
       (b) Voucher Assistance for Households Residing in FEMA 
     Trailers.--
       (1) Offer.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall offer, to each individual and household who, as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, receives direct assistance 
     for temporary housing under section 408(c)(2) of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5174(c)(2)) as a result of Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or 
     Wilma and is eligible for tenant-based rental assistance 
     under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), a voucher for such rental assistance, 
     subject to the availability of amounts for such assistance 
     made available in advance in appropriation Acts.
       (2) Provision of Assistance.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated, for tenant-based rental assistance under 
     section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f(o)), such sums as may be necessary to provide 
     vouchers for such assistance for each individual and 
     household that, pursuant to an offer of such assistance under 
     paragraph (1) requests such assistance, for the period 
     beginning upon occupancy of the individual or household in a 
     dwelling unit acquired for rental with such assistance and 
     continuing through such period that such individual or 
     household remains eligible for such voucher assistance.
       (c) Temporary Vouchers.--If at any time an assisted family 
     for whom a voucher for rental housing assistance is provided 
     pursuant to this section becomes ineligible for further such 
     rental assistance--
       (1) the public housing agency administering such voucher 
     pursuant to this section may not provide rental assistance 
     under such voucher for any other household;
       (2) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     recapture from such agency any remaining amounts for 
     assistance attributable to such voucher and may not 
     reobligate such amounts to any public housing agency; and
       (3) such voucher shall not be taken into consideration for 
     purposes of determining any future allocation of amounts for 
     such tenant-based rental assistance for any public housing 
     agency.

     SEC. 903. REQUIREMENT TO ACCEPT VOUCHERS.

       No owner (as such term is defined in section 8(f) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(f)) of any 
     dwelling unit for which, at any time, rental payments for the 
     individual or household residing in the unit were made, in 
     whole or in part, using financial assistance for temporary 
     housing provided under section. 408(c)(1) of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5174(c)(1)) as a result of Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or 
     Wilma, may refuse to lease such dwelling unit to a family on 
     whose behalf tenant-based rental assistance is made available 
     under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), a proximate cause of which is the 
     status of such family as a holder of such voucher.

     Amendment No. 5, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, because I have a modified 
amendment at the desk, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 5 be 
modified.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Al Green of 
     Texas:
       The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

 TITLE IX --PROTECTION OF HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING FEMA HOUSING ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 901. EXTENSION OF FEMA HOUSING ASSISTANCE.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to provide until December 31, 2007, temporary 
     housing assistance, including financial and direct 
     assistance, under section 408(c)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5174(c)(1)) to individuals and households eligible to receive 
     such assistance as a result of Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or 
     Wilma, and to the extent that amounts for such purpose are 
     made available, such assistance shall be so extended.

     SEC. 902. VOUCHER ASSISTANCE FOR HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING FEMA 
                   RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND HOUSEHOLDS RESIDING IN 
                   FEMA TRAILERS.

       (a) Transfer of FEMA Rental Assistance to Section 8 Voucher 
     Program.--There are authorized to be appropriated, for 
     tenant-based rental assistance under section 8(o) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), such 
     sums as may be necessary to provide vouchers for such 
     assistance for each individual and household that is eligible 
     for such voucher assistance and received financial assistance 
     for temporary housing under section 408(c)(1) of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5174(c)(1)) as a result of Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or 
     Wilma, for the period beginning upon termination of such 
     temporary housing assistance and continuing through such 
     period that such individual or household remains eligible for 
     such voucher assistance. Such voucher assistance shall be 
     administered by the public housing agency having jurisdiction 
     of the area in which such assisted individual or household 
     resides as of such termination date.
       (b) Voucher Assistance for Households Residing in FEMA 
     Trailers.--
       (1) Offer.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall offer, to each individual and household who, as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, receives direct assistance 
     for temporary housing under section 408(c)(2) of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5174(c)(2)) as a result of Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or 
     Wilma and is eligible for tenant-based rental assistance 
     under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), a voucher for such rental assistance, 
     subject to the availability of amounts for such assistance 
     made available in advance in appropriation Acts.
       (2) Provision of assistance.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated, for tenant-based rental assistance under 
     section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f(o)), such sums as may be necessary to provide 
     vouchers for such assistance for each individual and 
     household that, pursuant to an offer of such assistance under 
     paragraph (1) requests such assistance, for the period 
     beginning upon occupancy of the individual or household in a 
     dwelling unit acquired for rental with such assistance and 
     continuing through such period that such individual or 
     household remains eligible for such voucher assistance.
       (c) Temporary Vouchers.--If at any time an assisted family 
     for whom a voucher for rental housing assistance is provided 
     pursuant to this section becomes ineligible for further such 
     rental assistance--
       (1) the public housing agency administering such voucher 
     pursuant to this section may not provide rental assistance 
     under such voucher for any other household;
       (2) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     recapture from such agency any remaining amounts for 
     assistance attributable to such voucher and may not 
     reobligate such amounts to any public housing agency; and
       (3) such voucher shall not be taken into consideration for 
     purposes of determining any future allocation of amounts for 
     such tenant-based rental assistance for any public housing 
     agency.

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the modified amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 254, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Al Green) and a Member opposed each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

[[Page H2712]]

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, please permit me to take just a 
moment to thank the chairperson of the Financial Services Committee, 
Mr. Frank. I am so honored to have the opportunity to serve under his 
leadership. There are many persons who are great managers. Great 
managers are concerned about doing things right, but I want you to know 
that our leader is concerned about doing the right thing, and I am 
honored that he is the chairperson of our committee.
  I also want to thank the subcommittee chairperson Chairwoman Waters. 
She has gone to Louisiana on many occasions, and Mississippi. She has 
held one hearing there where she was Chair, and she attended another 
hearing wherein she was a ranking member. And in attending these 
hearings, she did more than sit in a physical location and listen to 
people talk. She actually went to the housing complexes. She actually 
talked to persons who were living in the apartments, the units, and in 
so doing, she gained a greater understanding of what is actually taking 
place in the lives of the people who have been displaced. So I thank 
her for all that she has done.
  I also thank the Members of the minority who attended. I am greatly 
appreciative that they were there and showed great interest in what was 
happening to the people from Louisiana who have moved to other 
locations as well as those who are trying to move back.
  And finally I thank the staff. The staff has done an outstanding job 
in helping us to put this legislation together. They are to be 
commended. We do a lot of things, but we do most of them because we 
have good staff, and I thank them.
  Mr. Chairman, Hurricane Katrina, one of the greatest natural 
disasters of our time, has caused us to confront one of the greatest 
domestic issues of our time. And the question that we have to confront 
is how does the richest country in the world treat the poorest victims 
of one of the world's greatest disasters?
  The richest country in the world, the country where 1 out of every 
110 persons is a millionaire, how does it treat persons who are among 
the least, the last, and the lost who have suffered as a result of a 
natural disaster? With all due respect given to my chairman, I don't 
want to get into the war, but a country wherein $177 million is being 
spent not per year, not per month, not per week, but per day on the 
war, how does this country, the richest in the world, treat the least, 
the last, and the lost when they have suffered a natural disaster?
  I am proud to say that our response to Hurricane Katrina has taught 
me that in times of disaster, Americans of goodwill want to see that no 
American, to borrow a cliche, is left behind. Communities across the 
length and breadth of this country opened their arms, their homes, 
their hearts to the Katrina survivors. From financial services 
institutions to nonprofits, from apartment owners to homeowners, we 
answered the clarion call for help, understanding in a sacred sense 
that but for the grace of God there go I.
  However, I also understand and I have learned in a secular sense that 
HUD, not FEMA, is best suited to meet the mid- to long-term needs of 
disaster victims. In fact, a White House report from February of 2006, 
styled ``Lessons Learned'' indicates that HUD was mistakenly not 
engaged in the housing response until late in the effort. It also 
indicates that HUD has expertise in providing the long-term housing 
needs that these victims so desperately need. It further indicates and 
recommends that HUD be designated the lead Federal agency for providing 
temporary housing.
  FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by definition should 
not, should not manage long-term housing needs. Today, more than 18 
months after Katrina, more than 120,000 households are still receiving 
FEMA assistance. More than 37,000 households are still receiving FEMA 
rental assistance. It is past time, Mr. Chairman, to get the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency out of the Katrina long-term housing 
crisis, and it is time that we put the Housing and Urban Development 
program in charge.
  Why is there a long-term Katrina housing crisis? Because the vast 
majority of all families receiving FEMA rental assistance have 
extremely low incomes and are disabled and/or elderly.
  Why is there a long-term Katrina rental housing crisis? Because of 
the Katrina survivors receiving rental assistance, 7 in 10 households 
have annual incomes below $15,000 per year, because more than half of 
the monthly incomes are $750 or less, because more than 44 percent have 
health care problems that will impact their abilities to work.
  How has FEMA responded to this housing crisis? By moving real people 
with real problems from one deadline to another deadline. The section 
403 rental program alone speaks volumes. The deadline for section 403 
moved from March 1, 2006, to March 30, 2006, to May 31, 2006, to June 
30, 2006, to July 31, 2006, to August 30, 2006.
  It is time to end the deadlines and extend a lifeline to only those 
who are eligible for HUD assistance.
  This amendment, I believe my friends on the other side should really 
love this amendment because it provides assistance to the people that 
don't have a place to return home to, and I think that is what my 
friends are indicating we should do. This amendment extends section 408 
rental housing assistance until the end of this year. Further, it would 
help the families who are eligible for section 8 rental vouchers to get 
section 8 rental vouchers. And as soon as a family becomes ineligible 
for section 8 rental vouchers, then the family would cease to get the 
vouchers, and the vouchers would cease to exist.
  This amendment also allows persons living in FEMA trailers who are 
eligible to receive section 8 vouchers to receive section 8 rental 
vouchers. Again, they must be eligible to receive the vouchers to, in 
fact, acquire the section 8 vouchers.
  This amendment is supported by over 50 not-for-profits and other 
agencies. It has a zero direct impact on spending. It has a budget 
score of zero. And I think it is time for us to end the deadline, 
extend the timeline, and extend long-term rental assistance only to 
those persons who are eligible to receive it
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 
30 minutes.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would again extend FEMA 
temporary financial assistance through the end of December and then 
provide those section 8 vouchers to FEMA-assisted families when FEMA 
assistance expires, and that is exactly what the gentleman was talking 
about, but I think that the amendment is unnecessary.
  The President currently has the authority to extend the length of 
this temporary assistance, as he has already done before. This 
assistance was supposed to expire at the end of 18 months, but the 
President extended it through August of 2007 to allow FEMA ample time, 
I think, to work with the families and help them secure permanent 
housing. This means that this assistance will have lasted a full 2 
years since Katrina.
  Since the hurricanes, FEMA has provided billions of dollars in 
assistance directly to individuals and households to support their 
recovery, including flood insurance payouts, direct payments for rental 
assistance, payments for home repairs and lost property. But FEMA 
assistance was supposed to be temporary to give families that were 
affected by the devastation time to get back on their feet. But today, 
as was said, 35,000 families are still living in FEMA trailers. Our 
efforts should be focused on moving these families to permanent 
housing, including homeownership, instead of keeping them in limbo.
  It really concerns me that we move from FEMA and then turn it into 
section 8 housing. Deadlines such as the August 2007 deadline have 
encouraged families to make decisions about their future rather than 
continuing the expectation that the Federal Government will provide for 
them. In fact, every time FEMA has had a deadline and has enforced it, 
we have seen more people move further on the road to recovery and self-
sufficiency. When FEMA moved people out of the hotels and motels, 
people said thousands would be

[[Page H2713]]

homeless. In fact, nationwide less than 100 people were in the shelters 
as a result, and most of them for only 3 days. I understand the same 
held true for the cruise ships. When the cruise ships' assistance 
ended, nobody ended up in a shelter.
  So we need to encourage the President to have the flexibility he 
needs to do this right, and that means leaving it to the administration 
to determine when and for how long to extend the housing aid through 
FEMA.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, apparently it is understood, I suppose, that moving is 
not a pleasant thing, and in contemplation of moving, many persons 
become distraught. I personally don't like moving, and I suspect that 
many of my friends on the other side do not.
  My point is it creates a lot of stress in the lives of people to move 
from deadline to deadline. This amendment extends a lifeline and gives 
them the time to adjust their lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, thank the chairman of the full 
committee Mr. Frank, and the chairwoman of the subcommittee Ms. Waters, 
and then my colleague from Texas Mr. Green, who eloquently laid out for 
us the reason for this particular amendment.
  Might I say, having not listened to all of his statement, I know that 
one of the elements of his offering of this amendment is firsthand 
personal experience, because I walked with him through the cots of the 
Reliance Center on a regular basis, over and over again. I was on the 
telephone as the buses started leaving the convention center and 
leaving the Superdome coming into Houston in the middle of the night.
  We have seen the actual results of massive, long-term evacuation. It 
is well-known that FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security were 
not prepared for long-term evacuation.
  This is an amendment that extends the deadline to December 31, 2007, 
for several reasons. First of all, might I say that it might have been 
the executive branch that extended it, but it really was the Director 
of FEMA being pounded upon, and I must say Director Paulison, the newer 
Director of FEMA, is very sensitive and concerned about this issue. He 
is putting his nose to the grindstone, along with, of course, the White 
House that has said to him you can do that. But each time these 
deadlines come, they are disruptive.
  I went to a set of apartments, to my good friends on the other side 
of the aisle, in apartments where evacuees were holding eviction 
notices because they are coming up against each time a set of deadlines 
with nobody seeming to be able to respond. The reason why the thousands 
of people did not go out on the street is because the good citizens of 
Houston, Salt Lake City, Atlanta or Los Angeles, the nonprofits stood 
up to the case. In Houston today, we have people meeting every week, 
nonprofits, led by the United Way, trying to prepare for the 
inevitable, which is people out on the street.
  This amendment gives several things an opportunity to happen. One, 
first of all, let me celebrate this bill because it gives section 8 
vouchers over and beyond the ones that should be assigned to the city 
of Houston for Houstonians. That has been a conflict. ``I need a 
section 8 voucher. I live in Houston. Why are you overlooking me?''
  Now we have a pathway so that we recognize that we have failed in our 
long-term evacuation. My friends, accept it. You have done a horrible 
job. This is a long-term evacuation that we had no solutions to.
  Particularly I want to thank the author of this amendment and this 
bill, because now you also give an opportunity for us to go back into 
public housing. Just using Houston as an example, the predominant 
number of those who came to Houston were out of the city center there, 
the civic center, and, of course, the Superdome. They were the people 
displaced out of the housing projects. Isn't it ridiculous that they 
want to go back to their city and that we are blocking them from 
getting into their housing projects?
  So these section 8 vouchers that will come about in this bill will be 
helpful while they are trying to get home. This extension that Mr. 
Green is offering will help them while they are trying to get home.
  You go to these individuals. Some of them have made a commitment to 
live in Houston. I guess they made a commitment to live in Atlanta, 
maybe in New York. But many of them you talk to say, I just want to get 
home. But they are being blocked by this administration in not being 
able to get in their public housing, and they are coming up against one 
deadline after another.
  You can't get yourself together. We have the elderly and disabled. We 
don't know if they will ever be able to go back, but they certainly 
need these resources being offered by Mr. Green in this amendment.
  I enthusiastically support this concept of an extension to December 
31, 2007, Mr. Chairman, and I support the voucher projects of this 
bill. I ask my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  When FEMA's temporary housing programs expire on August 31, 2007, 
over 120,000 families housed across the country through FEMA-funded 
trailers, mobile homes and rental assistance could be displaced a 
second time.
  Housing assistance is critical for the many low-income, elderly, and 
disabled evacuees displaced by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. An 
estimated 35,000 families currently receive Section 408 rental 
assistance from FEMA; the vast majority of these families reside in 
Houston. The average income of surviving families now in subsidized 
Houston apartments was less than $20,000 in Louisiana. While more than 
60 percent of families were employed before Katrina, less than 20 
percent are currently employed.
  Families continue to face numerous challenges while rebuilding their 
lives in new communities, including finding affordable housing, health 
care, child care, and employment. The scarcity of housing in the Gulf 
Coast disproportionately hurts lower-income households, making it 
difficult for evacuees to find affordable housing and reducing the 
likelihood of their return home. Of the units destroyed or damaged by 
the hurricanes, 71 percent were affordable to low-income families and 
30 percent were affordable to very low-income families.
  This amendment would extend FEMA housing assistance until December 
31, 2007, and then transfer income-eligible households to HUD's tenant-
based rental assistance program when FEMA assistance ends, so that 
displaced families will have a place to stay while they wait for 
housing in the Gulf Coast to be rebuilt. Tenant-based vouchers would 
also be available to households currently living in FEMA trailers and 
mobile homes. This is important because conditions in many trailers are 
deteriorating and deadlines in many local communities for trailers and 
mobile homes are rapidly approaching. This amendment puts into law the 
deadline that I have worked on through negotiations and letters to 
FEMA.
  The vouchers in this amendment would be ``temporary'' in the sense 
that they would only be available through the duration of the 
households' eligibility. Finally, this amendment would require property 
owners currently receiving rental assistance for displaced households 
to accept Section 8 vouchers for displaced households. HUD's role in 
meeting the longer-term housing needs of people displaced by disasters 
is supported by many members of Congress, housing advocates, and the 
Bush Administration. Nothing in this amendment would deny Houstonians 
their right to Section 8 vouchers.
  I urge you to vote ``yes'' for the Green amendment so that we can 
provide displaced families with the assurance and stability they need 
to continue their recovery.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are all working in the same direction here. 
We are all trying to figure out what is the best avenue to restore life 
for the people that were affected by this hurricane, and I think what 
we are bringing to this floor today in a meaningful debate is what is 
the best way to do that.
  Some have talked about different methodologies about being able to 
restore these communities in the best way. But one of the things we 
have to have in our country in almost every life is structure.

[[Page H2714]]

  April 15 is upon us, and that is the day our income tax is due. It is 
a deadline. What we have to say to the people that were affected by 
this is that the temporary disaster piece of this program is coming to 
an end. It is time now to make some permanent decisions, and we have 
been talking about what some of those permanent options are.
  There is housing available in New Orleans, but there is housing 
available in some of the communities that these people are residing in. 
What we do is we keep pushing forward, keep pushing forward, families 
finally having to decide where do we go from here? It is time for many 
of those families to move on, and, unfortunately, we keep using Katrina 
as a way to increase programs that ought to be debated in other 
committees and at other times. More vouchers, more vouchers. What we 
need to do is set a date certain.
  Now, as the ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee mentioned, the 
President of the United States has, in fact, extended these benefits. 
But what we also heard is in those circumstances where we didn't extend 
some of the programs, that there was life after that.
  Sometimes the toughest love that you can do for someone to get them 
moving on, to help them to move on from a traumatic situation is 
actually force them to move on and go to the next step. What I think 
the gentleman's amendment does is it does not cause the process to have 
a stopping point for the temporary disaster and where we begin to talk 
about it more permanent.
  I agree with the gentleman that FEMA is not the agency to do housing. 
HUD is set up to do housing. We have been talking about there are 
things in this bill that will help HUD, help the housing authority to 
get the permanent housing piece moving forward. But the longer we 
prolong this disaster and call it a temporary relief, I believe the 
longer we do the families that we are really trying to help a 
disservice.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  My response is that this is only for persons who are eligible to 
receive the relief. This means that persons must be eligible for the 
section 8 vouchers to receive the vouchers. This is not for people who 
just happen to be in need of someplace to stay and may be making 
$30,000, $40,000, $50,000 to $60,000 a year. They must qualify.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the honorable gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt), the former Chair of the CBC.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am struck because I was here about 15 or 20 minutes ago debating 
the last amendment. We operate in a structure that requires us to deal 
with one amendment at a time, and when you deal with one amendment at a 
time, you kind of get segmented into these little places that you are. 
But the thing that is astonishing here in this opposition to this 
amendment is that if you look at it in the context of the last 
amendment and this amendment, I don't know what it is you all would 
have these people do for housing.
  In the last amendment, you said we don't want to build or renovate or 
restore any public housing in New Orleans because we want to do 
community development in New Orleans, and that is going to take a long 
time, and it is counterproductive to restore public housing in New 
Orleans while we are doing this community development.
  Then in the next amendment you say, well, we don't want to give 
people vouchers so they can in the meantime stay in Houston, Texas, or 
Charlotte, North Carolina, or California or anywhere else.
  Then my colleague gets up and starts his comments by saying, well, we 
are all working toward the same objective.
  I keep wondering what that objective is. Our objective is to house 
these people temporarily and long term. Then in the last amendment you 
cut off the notion that you would house them long term because you 
don't want to renovate public housing. In this amendment you are 
cutting off the notion that you will house them short term because you 
don't want to give them vouchers to have housing immediately.
  So when and where are you planning to house these people? Now, there 
is, my colleague reminded me, a NASA facility in Houston. Maybe you 
would like for us to put them on a spaceship and send them out.
  My friends, these are not welfare recipients. Even if you have these 
stereotypes about these people feasting at the trough, these are people 
who were displaced by a hurricane. Regardless of these images that you 
may have about welfare recipients, these are people, these are our 
United States citizens who were displaced by a natural disaster, and 
all we are trying to do is provide housing for them, both on an 
immediate basis and on a long-term basis.
  They have had three or four cutoffs now where one day they are 
sitting in a hotel and they are told, your assistance is being cut off. 
Imagine what that does for family values and for the notion of 
stability.
  Have a heart and let's pass this amendment so that we can provide 
some housing to these people.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the ranking member of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this time during this 
amendment to publicly thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 
Frank, for his graciousness during the markup and the hearings on this 
bill and for his willingness to give us real input into this bill.
  There are 13 components of this legislation that we are not out here 
on the floor asking for an amendment to because the chairman consented 
to their inclusion. I believe that those matters which separate us are 
less than those that we agree on.
  This was a major disaster. It is the largest natural disaster this 
country has faced by many times.

                              {time}  1730

  That we are struggling on some consensus on what we do going forward 
is predictable, and I will say in the defense of my colleagues, we are 
simply saying that we don't want some of the units replaced on a one-
on-one basis. We know of 2,000 units that were either vacant or slated 
for demolition at the time of the hurricane. It is particularly those 
units that Mrs. Biggert has said in her amendment do not need to be 
replaced.
  There are many displaced New Orleans residents who may choose not to 
come back. Others like the flexibility of the section 8 voucher. We 
have also not said that we want folks that are displaced off these 
vouchers. We are simply saying it should not be a permanent situation.
  The gentleman from North Carolina mentioned the word ``housing.'' We 
do not see this as a housing issue. We see this as a quality-of-life 
issue. We do not want to recreate housing projects like the one in 
Atlanta where 70 percent----
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield, and I 
will yield the time back to you if necessary.
  Mr. BACHUS. I am not opposing your amendment. I am not speaking in 
opposition to your amendment.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank you.
  Mr. BACHUS. What I am speaking about, and I think there is agreement 
on both sides of the aisle, that when you have a housing project where 
a large percentage, even a majority of the young men that grow up in 
that housing project end up in a State penitentiary, we need to do 
something different.
  We don't need to delay. Whether it is by renovating a unit that 2 
years from now is slated for demolition, we just don't think that is 
the wisest use of taxpayer money.
  And I do see that to do that, we are going to have to have vouchers 
and continue people on section 8 if we are to do long-term solutions. I 
think the gentleman from North Carolina made a valid point when he said 
that. That is something that should not be rejected out of hand.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chairman of the Committee 
on Financial Services.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate the kind remarks of the 
gentleman from Alabama. He is right, we accepted a number of 
amendments, and there is a great deal that joins us together. But there 
are some differences,

[[Page H2715]]

and I think in the spirit of democracy, we should debate these 
differences.
  In the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) 
and this amendment as we debate it, there seems to be this view, as my 
friend from North Carolina said, that these are people who need to be 
jolted out of this welfare way of life. The gentleman from Texas wanted 
to subject these people to a 20-hour work requirement where no work 
needed to be done.
  Here we are objecting to these people staying on section 8 because we 
want, as my other friend from Texas said, we are going to have some 
tough love.
  Let's remember who we are talking about. These are people who were 
working overwhelmingly. They were working at lousy jobs for low pay. 
These were people who were doing work in the service industry. They 
were living in not great circumstances, and their homes and their jobs 
were washed away. They were driven out of their homes to strange 
places. Some of those places have been very welcoming, and I was 
pleased to see the Kennedy family give the mayor of Houston a Profile 
in Courage Award for the generosity that he has shown in welcoming 
people. But that is who we are talking about.
  People had said, well, we want to improve the quality of their life. 
Do Members think, Mr. Chairman, that poor people are so dumb that they 
are voluntarily living in worse places than would otherwise be 
available to them? They are not living in great circumstances, but they 
are the best they can find and afford. When you displace them from what 
they have without providing them alternatives, you are likely to make 
them worse off.
  Now, I understand there is a problem that some people might not fully 
deserve what they get, but overwhelmingly here is what we are talking 
about: people who had jobs and homes in New Orleans and maybe some 
other parts of Louisiana whose homes and jobs were washed away. And 
they are now living in emergency conditions provided by FEMA, and they 
haven't yet been able to fix it.
  People ask, Why don't they go back to New Orleans? Well, we have a 
chicken-and-an-egg problem. We have a problem where there are no jobs 
because there is no place for the people to live.
  In Mississippi along the gulf, the Oreck vacuum cleaner company 
opened up a plant after the hurricane and then closed it because they 
couldn't get workers because there wasn't housing. We are trying to 
build housing.
  Vouchers in New Orleans is the problem. According to HUD's own 
figures, more than half of the rental housing units in New Orleans were 
destroyed by the storm. How do you expect these people to go back?
  Now we have a bill that I am very proud of. The gentlewoman from 
California has worked very hard on this. We got organized on January 
30. A week later we had our first hearing. A month later we had our 
markup. We are now on the floor. This has been a very high priority for 
us, to try to break this cycle of no job and no housing and no way to 
get back and no way to live and no decent life. And, yes, we are trying 
to build housing and we hope that the housing brings jobs.
  Will there be some problems? Yes. But I have to say, if we are going 
to err, can we not err on the side of people who are poor in many cases 
to begin with and whose hard jobs, and in some cases meager homes were 
destroyed, and they were driven out of those homes by a force of nature 
and they are living in Texas and they are living in Atlanta, and they 
are being told tough love. We don't think the quality of your life is 
good enough.
  We don't think you are trying hard enough. Is that what Members 
think?
  These are among the toughest people around that they are still 
integrated and they are still with their families given what they have 
been through, the physical and emotional horrors of that hurricane and 
the lack of any action afterwards. Can we not resolve together to say 
to these people, look, we are going to work to try to help rebuild New 
Orleans. Until then, we will assure you can live in these places.
  These vouchers people will get are what we call disappearing 
vouchers. They are not permanent additions to the voucher stock. They 
are for the people who were displaced from New Orleans, and as the 
gentleman from Texas pointed out, as long as they are economically 
eligible.
  I don't think they all want to stay there and live in these temporary 
quarters. As they do find alternative ways to live, the voucher will 
disappear. So that is what we are talking about: thousands of our 
fellow human beings who were subjected to physical terrors and 
emotional troubles far greater than most of us, fortunately for us, 
will ever have to go through. Their homes and their jobs were 
destroyed. Their children were uprooted from schools. They were driven 
away from where they used to live. And they have then been put under 
the tender mercies of FEMA. And as my friend from Texas said, every so 
often they were told, you know what, there hasn't been enough trauma in 
your life, the flood, the deaths, all that, that's not enough. Now we 
are going to threaten you with eviction. Now you won't know where 
you're going to live.
  What we are saying is let's say to these remaining people, while we 
are trying to rebuild New Orleans, we give you assurance that you will 
be able to live in the circumstances in which you are now living as 
long as you meet the guidelines. I don't understand the opposition to 
that. I don't understand why that brings Members to say tough love, we 
are going to improve the quality of their life.
  Let's let these people at least have what they now have: a home that 
was something they were able to put together after that great trauma. 
And the alternative is people say they shouldn't worry, the President 
will extend it.
  What do you say to your 8-year-old and 12-year-old when they ask: 
Where am I going to school next year? Oh, don't worry, the President 
will extend it.
  Frankly, there are a lot of people here who wouldn't feel a great 
comfort in that, let alone an 8-year-old.
  We are dealing with totally innocent people, hardworking people whose 
lives were already tough, were destroyed by a hurricane and they were 
forced physically out of their homes. We are saying instead of them 
continuing to live under the fear that they may be evicted, that they 
may have no further support in terms of their basic living, that we as 
a compassionate Nation will continue to make sure that they at least 
have a place to live while everything else goes forward. I hope the 
House will accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  What this really boils down to, I think, and the problems we are 
having in communication is what to do with the long-term disaster 
housing. We haven't faced something like this before.
  We have the disaster vouchers. We have the section 8 vouchers, and 
how do we make this all work. I think we all care about what is 
happening to these families. It has been over 18 months. We are 
concerned. People need to get on with their lives.
  I don't think we are really asking for anything different except that 
we think that this is unnecessary because the President has the 
flexibility now to do what we are talking about. I think we should 
leave it. We think we should leave it to the administration to 
determine when, whether, and for how long to extend the housing aid 
through FEMA.
  I agree, most of the families and individuals in the FEMA-sponsored 
housing are living in travel trailers that are not suitable for long-
term housing. Just think of a family living in a trailer for the long 
term. I think extending the assistance will prolong this unsuitable 
housing arrangement.
  I think FEMA is working now to determine, with Federal and State 
partners, to address the potential for what is going to happen for 
long-term housing needs as a result of these hurricanes.
  We are setting precedent here. Let's hope we never have something 
like this again. I think this is moving along.
  It will increase the amount of this bill if these vouchers are made 
permanent, but maybe we need to sit down and really work out what are 
disaster vouchers, and we already are working on section 8 vouchers; 
and we have jumped ahead on some of these things. I know everybody is 
enthusiastic on

[[Page H2716]]

this committee and wants to do everything right now, but we have a 
whole consideration of section 8 vouchers. And to extend FEMA and then 
turn them into permanent vouchers, section 8 vouchers, and I know they 
have to be eligible, but we really need to sit down and determine and 
debate what are really the long-term ramifications of what is going on.
  I think some of these things can be worked out later. We don't have 
to do everything at once. I think this already is a costly bill, and I 
think we should wait to determine some of these things.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the honorable subcommittee 
Chair.
  Ms. WATERS. I would like to stand and give my strong support to this 
amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for working on this 
amendment and strengthening this legislation.
  I am tired of the headlines at the end of one of these periods of 
time when the temporary assistance has run out, the headlines that say 
all of those people out there who are living in temporary situations 
are going to have to get off, they will not be supported any more, that 
their assistance has run out, and then legislators go running to beat 
up on FEMA. And then FEMA, after a few days or so, will make another 
extension. Time out. It is time for us to help people get some kind of 
permanency to their existence. This amendment will do that.
  This amendment will simply say for those people who are living in 
trailers and all of this temporary housing, some of it is really not 
fit to live in, in places where we are spending money with the 
temporary vouchers, will now be given the opportunity with the passage 
of this amendment and this legislation to begin to reorder their lives 
and to go ahead and come home and get jobs, jobs that are needed, not 
only by those families but the infrastructures that need to be rebuilt 
by those people who will be there to do these jobs. All of this can 
happen with this kind of permanent voucher.
  I think it is important to note, it has been said here that these 
vouchers will be given only to those people who are eligible for them. 
When they are no longer eligible, they will cease to exist. I don't 
know how you can be any fairer than that.
  So we are talking about moving from temporary status to permanent 
status. When you don't need it any more, it is gone.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), who is also a part of the 
committee.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, let me throw my whole-hearted support 
behind this amendment. I think it is a clear expression of the 
generosity, the common sense and the decency of our country, and I want 
to thank the gentleman from Texas for offering this amendment.
  The fact is that until we see the people of the gulf coast as our 
people, as opposed to those people, we will not be the kind of America 
we need to be. We will be less than we ought to be.
  So I just want to say that extending housing to people who need it, 
victims of a disaster, not a human failing but a disaster, a natural 
disaster, is the just, right thing to do, and we should not allow what 
was a natural disaster to be a political disaster.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, many of the persons who will receive these vouchers are 
persons who will be working full time and living below the poverty 
line, persons who are what we call extremely low-income persons, making 
around $12,000 per year. Does someone argue that a person making 
$12,000 per year should not receive some assistance for housing? That 
is what we are talking about, persons working below the poverty line 
full time, family of two. You are making about $13,000 if you are going 
to reach poverty line, and these vouchers go away. They are not 
vouchers that are permanent. They are only there to help as needed, and 
once the need ceases to exist, the vouchers will cease to exist.
  People are suffering. Moving from one deadline to another deadline 
causes a lot of stress in the lives of the persons who have these 
vouchers or who have these temporary living conditions, and their 
children are suffering. The children are in schools. At some point 
people want to know that they have stability, that their children can 
attend the same school all year long, that at Christmastime there is no 
threat that they will have to move from one place to another. At some 
point we have to give them the stability that they deserve.
  Finally, people still cry. They have tears to well in their eyes when 
they talk about what happened to them. Why would we continue to 
compound what is already a distressful situation by adding additional 
stress to their lives by threatening them with eviction?
  In closing, I mention only that we have the ability to do the right 
thing, or we can try to do something right. We can try to put a process 
in place. I say it is time for us to do the right thing, and in the 
process, I think we will be doing something the right way as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Again, I think we are talking about the same thing; it is just how we 
get there.
  What we are saying is that right now FEMA has provided temporary 
assistance. When it has been needed to extend, it has been extended. If 
people finally have found housing, and they qualify for Section 8 
vouchers, they will be able to get them, but let FEMA work to address 
the problem and the potential for long-term housing needs as a result 
of the hurricane.
  I just do not think that this amendment is necessary because it has 
been taken care of by the administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), as modified.
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Hensarling of Texas.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mrs. Biggert of Illinois.
  Amendment No. 5, as modified, by Mr. Al Green of Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 266, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 164]

                               AYES--162

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Drake

[[Page H2717]]


     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--266

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Coble
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Kanjorski
     Kucinich
     Larson (CT)
     Mack
     Meehan
     Pence
     Sessions

                              {time}  1817

  Messrs. FILNER, AL GREEN of Texas, SCOTT of Virginia, SERRANO, 
GRIJALVA and Ms. SOLIS, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida and Ms. 
WOOLSEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HOLDEN, SMITH of Texas, FOSSELLA, PICKERING, SALI and CHABOT 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Biggert

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Mrs. Biggert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 232, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               AYES--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)

[[Page H2718]]


     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Coble
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Kanjorski
     Kucinich
     Meehan
     Pence
     Sessions


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1825

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


     Amendment No. 5, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Al Green), as modified, on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246, 
noes 184, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 166]

                               AYES--246

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--184

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Coble
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Kanjorski
     Kucinich
     Meehan
     Pence
     Sessions


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1835

  Mr. FERGUSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.'' Mr. BURGESS 
changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Klein of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. Blumenauer, Acting 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 1227) to assist in the provision of affordable housing to low-
income families affected by Hurricane Katrina, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________