[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.
____________________