[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3087-H3089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 835, HAWAIIAN HOMEOWNERSHIP 
                        OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 269 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 269

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     835) to reauthorize the programs of the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development for housing assistance for Native 
     Hawaiians. All points of order against the bill and its 
     consideration are waived except those arising under clause 9 
     or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 835 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Butterfield). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. For purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All 
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have up to 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Resolution 269.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 269 provides for consideration of H.R. 
835, the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007, a closed rule 
providing 1 hour of general debate in the House, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Financial Services.
  The rule waives all points of order against the bill and against its 
consideration except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule 
provides that the bill shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak very long about this 
legislation other than to express my sincere hope that this body will 
move forward expeditiously with its passage.
  As my colleagues know, the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act was 
placed on the Suspension Calendar last week after being unanimously 
voted out of the Committee on Financial Services by a voice vote. It 
was our hope, and the hope of so many Native Hawaiians, that the House 
would support it with as much enthusiasm as did the committee of 
jurisdiction.
  Unfortunately, as we all now know, there are some in this body who 
believe that it is in their best interest to create a partisan divide 
where no such division should exist. They have in my opinion falsely 
accused my friends and representatives from Hawaii of ulterior motives, 
and in doing so, have delayed justice and fairness to some of our most 
loyal citizens.
  Contrary to the false accusation made by its opponents, this bill is 
not a bill aimed at achieving Native American status for Native 
Hawaiians, no matter how important that issue may be.
  This bill provides low-income Native Hawaiians access to the American 
Dream. They, just like all of us in this body, have had at one point in 
our lives a dream to own a home. This bill brings them one step closer 
to realizing that dream.
  Shame on those who continue to paint this bill as anything other than 
what it is.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation which is so critically needed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in opposition to this closed rule and the potentially 
unconstitutional measure that the Democrat

[[Page H3088]]

majority is presently bringing before the House.
  I also rise in opposition to the majority's gaming of the system by 
bringing this legislation up under a closed rule with no input from the 
minority, even after this measure failed to win the support of two-
thirds of the House when it was considered under the suspension of the 
rules just last week.
  I believe that the 162 ``no'' votes that were cast last Wednesday 
prove that this measure carries with it some measure of controversy. I 
have heard the gentleman from Florida explain very clearly and 
carefully in addressing this issue his desire for us to understand that 
in fact nothing more other than the words that are on the paper are 
intended and implied in this bill. However, I would say there is also 
room to make sure that is not only correct, but also to improve this 
legislation.
  I am also confident that an overwhelming number of Members would 
likely support the final measure if they were given a chance to improve 
it through the amendment that perhaps we are hearing that the majority 
intended perhaps in the first place or at least did not unintend to 
make it happen.
  Unfortunately, in what is becoming a standard practice for the Rules 
Committee, last night the Democrat majority rejected along party line 
the only amendment offered to this legislation that would have offered 
the solution on behalf of the 162 ``no'' votes. This amendment was 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) who simply would 
have made it clear that there is nothing in this legislation that 
should be constructed to confer a special relationship between the 
United States and the Native Hawaiian people for the purpose of 
establishing a government-to-government relationship.
  This amendment is necessary because in 2000 the Supreme Court decided 
in Rice v. Cayetano that the current configuration of Justices would 
likely strike down most Federal benefits flowing to Native Hawaiians as 
an unconstitutional racial set-aside if, given a chance, by accepting 
Mr. Neugebauer's amendment, or at least allowing its merits to be 
debated and voted on, Congress would have had the opportunity to make 
it crystal clear to any future court that this legislation should not 
be construed as Congress' abuse of its power under the Indian commerce 
clause to indirectly confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian 
people.
  I will take the words that have been given to me by the gentleman 
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) as well as the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) from the Rules Committee that they do not intend this 
legislation in any way, and it should not be construed as told to the 
minority, that they would intend to pass power under the Indian 
commerce clause to indirectly confer tribal status on the Native 
Hawaiian people. I will take them at their word as the understanding 
and the basis and the intent of this legislation.
  But by shutting out this amendment, the Democrat majority has done 
nothing to address the concerns of the 162 Members of this body who do 
believe that this legislation under consideration is vague at best and 
unconstitutional at worst.

                              {time}  1230

  Nor have they done anything to clarify the intent of this legislation 
to the courts. While, Mr. Speaker, you and I recognize that courts in 
their deliberations would look at congressional intent, we would like 
for it to be so stated. While the majority has indicated they do not 
intend this, we wish it had also been in the form of an amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that, once again, the majority has 
silenced the minority in this effort. I am disappointed also that, by 
failing to include this amendment, Congress may very well be opening up 
this legislation to be overturned by the courts. In doing so, Congress 
would be depriving Native Hawaiians access to the loan guarantee 
programs provided for in this bill simply for the sake of speed at the 
cost of accuracy and good legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule so that this legislation can 
be passed in a clear, constitutional way that makes it transparent to 
the courts that this is not a back-door attempt to lay the groundwork 
for other legislation to confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian 
people. Native Hawaiians are just as much a part of America, this great 
land, as any of us. Their history is covered by the Constitution, and 
they are part of this country. I oppose this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  I would notify the gentleman from Florida I have no additional 
speakers. If he would engage with me in a quick colloquy, we can figure 
out where we are in terms of moving forward.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I will be the last speaker on my side.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman has 
closed for his side and has yielded back his time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from 
Florida, his conduct on the Rules Committee, him working with the 
minority on a number of bills. We wish we could have been successful on 
this amendment, just the one amendment to add into this piece of 
legislation.
  We will take them at their word that they do not intend for this to 
be any sort of a back-door attempt to form a government-to-government 
relationship with the tribal Native Hawaiians.
  I will tell you that we do believe that public housing and housing 
for Hawaiians, who are many times faced with increasing not only land 
costs but prices that escalate in the beautiful, beautiful State of 
Hawaii, that this is a good idea. We should be helping these people 
out. We simply wish that the amendment had been made in order for the 
proper clarification.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
our time.
  I appreciate very much my friend's attitude with reference to this 
matter and his suggestion that he would accept the representation of 
our two colleagues from Hawaii as well as me and other members of the 
Rules Committee.
  I would also urge that your concerns, albeit, I believe, likely to be 
taken care of on another day, have been addressed by the committee that 
reported this out unanimously, meaning the Republicans and the 
Democrats on the relevant committee voted this matter out.
  I would also urge that the Hawaiian State legislature has indicated 
that there are no intentions at all to seek any special status; and the 
Governor of Hawaii, who is a Republican also, has made it clear that no 
special status is sought.
  Toward that end, it would seem to me that this matter, having been 
supported, had the enjoyment of the support of 262 Members last week, 
and that is a total that I hope we will reach today, because this 
legislation is desperately needed. This is an issue of fairness and 
access.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
appropriate rule and the underlying legislation and to clearly 
understand that it has nothing to do with citizenship and everything to 
do with housing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to whether or 
not my friend from Texas is going to manage all the time on this rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman's inquiry.
  At this time, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is 
intended to represent the minority on the Rules Committee. He is not 
here at

[[Page H3089]]

this time. So until further notice or until his arrival, it would be my 
intent to have the gentleman accept me in his stead.

                          ____________________