[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3164-H3167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             HAWAIIAN HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 269, I 
call up the bill (H.R. 835) to reauthorize the programs of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development for housing assistance for 
Native Hawaiians, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 835

       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 ``Hawaiian Homeownership 
     Opportunity Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HOUSING 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       Section 824 of the Native American Housing Assistance and 
     Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4243), as added by 
     section 513 of Public Law 106-569 (114 Stat. 2969), is 
     amended by striking ``fiscal years'' and all that follows and 
     inserting the following: ``fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 
     2011 and 2012.''.

     SEC. 3. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING.

       Section 184A of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-13b), as added by section 514 of 
     Public Law 106-569 (114 Stat. 2989), is amended as follows:
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--In subsection (j)(7), 
     by striking ``fiscal years'' and all that follows and 
     inserting the following: ``fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 
     2011 and 2012.''.
       (2) Authority.--In subsection (b), by striking ``or as a 
     result of a lack of access to private financial markets''.
       (3) Eligible housing.--In subsection (c), by striking 
     paragraph (2) and inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Eligible housing.--The loan will be used to 
     construct, acquire, refinance, or rehabilitate 1- to 4-family 
     dwellings that are standard housing and are located on 
     Hawaiian Home Lands.''.

     SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY OF DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS FOR 
                   TITLE VI LOAN GUARANTEES.

       Title VI of the Native American Housing Assistance and 
     Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4191 et seq.) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) Heading.--In the heading for the title, by inserting 
     ``AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN'' after ``TRIBAL''.
       (2) Authority and requirements.--In section 601 (25 U.S.C. 
     4191)----
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by inserting ``or by the Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands,'' after ``tribal approval,''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``or 810, as applicable,'' after 
     ``section 202'' ; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or VIII, as 
     applicable'' before the period at the end.
       (3) Security and repayment.--In section 602 (25 U.S.C. 
     4192)--

[[Page H3165]]

       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or 
     housing entity'' and inserting ``, housing entity, or 
     Department of Hawaiian Home Lands''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (3)--

       (I) by inserting ``or Department'' after ``tribe'';
       (II) by inserting ``or VIII, as applicable,'' after ``title 
     I''; and
       (III) by inserting ``or 811(b), as applicable'' before the 
     semicolon; and

       (B) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``or housing entity'' 
     and inserting ``, housing entity, or the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands''.
       (4) Payment of interest.--In the first sentence of section 
     603 (25 U.S.C. 4193), by striking ``or housing entity'' and 
     inserting ``, housing entity, or the Department of Hawaiian 
     Home Lands''.
       (5) Authorization of appropriations for credit subsidy.--In 
     section 605(b) (25 U.S.C. 4195(b)), by striking ``1997 
     through 2007'' and inserting ``2008 through 2012''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 269, the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Bachus) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Hawaii.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material 
thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Hawaii?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, with regard to H.R. 835, I would first like to thank 
very much Chairman Barney Frank and Ranking Member Spencer Bachus for 
their consideration of H.R. 835.
  It is imperative, from the point of view of Representative Hirono and 
myself, that we regard this bill as nonpartisan in nature. And it was 
considered that way in committee, and I am grateful for it.
  The bill was passed overwhelmingly last week 262-162. It was under 
the Suspension Calendar and did not receive a sufficient number of 
votes for the two-thirds required margin, so we find the bill before us 
this evening.
  Of those 162 Republicans who voted ``no'' last week, 39 of them 
cosponsored the bill to create the Native Hawaiian Housing Title in the 
106th Congress, including our good friend, Mr. Bachus, and minority 
leader John Boehner.
  This reauthorization and improvements were requested by Hawaii's 
Republican Governor, Linda Lingle. The Department of Hawaiian Home 
Lands is chaired by the former head of the State's Republican Party.
  This bill was introduced last year by Congressman Ney and was 
reported out of the Financial Services Committee by voice vote without 
amendment. And last year's Republican chairman of the Financial 
Services Committee, Mike Oxley, was also a cosponsor of the bill.
  I bring these things up, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize that never have we 
ever considered this bill to be a partisan bill, a Republican or 
Democratic bill. This is a bill that affects constituents, regardless 
of their political affiliation, and is not ideological in nature. It is 
really administrative in nature.
  There have been some discussions and some arguments concerning some 
of the constitutional issues that have been raised in other contexts 
about native people. This is not the venue to have that kind of a 
discussion or argument. We do not want to harm those who come before us 
for legislative redress and expect to have it and not expect to have an 
argument in which they will become grist for an ideological mill, grist 
for a disputation of an academic nature or of a philosophical nature, 
having nothing to do with the question at hand, in this instance, most 
particularly dealing with homeownership, mortgages, and refinancing.
  I understand, and will defer to Mr. Bachus on this point, that Mr. 
Renzi has made a statement of support in addition, and I expect to hear 
about that when we yield to Mr. Bachus for his participation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize again that this is not a partisan 
bill. It is not really anything that should be considered other than on 
the merits of the subject matter at hand.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  And the first thing I would like to acknowledge is both my respect 
and friendship with my colleague from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie. I have 
enjoyed a long friendship with him, have the utmost respect for him, 
and I associate myself with the remarks he made. I believe his remarks 
were fair and accurate. Not to parrot the Fox News network, but also 
fair and accurate.
  He has, I think, correctly pointed out, colleagues on my side of the 
aisle, some are supportive of this legislation. Others have concerns 
about the legislation. And it is for that reason that we have asked for 
time on the floor just to express some of those concerns.
  At the same time, as the gentleman from Hawaii has said, we have some 
Members that strongly support this legislation. He mentioned the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), also the gentleman, Don Young, from 
Alaska, is a strong supporter of this legislation. And a number of my 
colleagues also voted for the legislation.
  Others of my colleagues are concerned about some of the statements 
made in the Rice v. Cayetano case, that some of these benefits, and 
there are some 160 benefits that go to Native Hawaiians. And some of 
these benefits actually date back to statehood and, I think, the 
founding of the State of Hawaii. So there is some historical basis for 
these. 

                              {time}  2100

  But, as I have said, some of my colleagues are concerned about that.
  Some of them have pointed out the words of Justice Kennedy in that 
decision where he said this: ``America is a melting pot of cultures 
from around the world.'' And he said, ``As the State of Hawaii attempts 
to address these realities, it must, as always, seek the political 
consensus that begins with a shared purpose. One of the necessary 
beginning points is this principle: The Constitution of the United 
States too has become the heritage of all the citizens of Hawaii.''
  And that Constitution, as we know, in almost all cases is opposed to 
racial set-asides. So this disturbs many of my colleagues on my side of 
the aisle.
  At the same time, as I said, there is some historical context for 
these, and I think probably utmost is that I think most people in 
Hawaii, several Republicans, officeholders as well as both members of 
the present Hawaii delegation, support these programs and believe they 
greatly have benefited the people of Hawaii.
  Let me simply close by saying we had hoped to come united together in 
supporting this legislation. Mr. Campbell in committee had offered an 
amendment, and in closing I will read that amendment. Had this 
amendment been accepted, we would have been prepared, I think, to 
almost unanimously to have supported this bill.
  Mr. Campbell's amendment said: ``Nothing in this title shall be 
construed to confer a constitutionally special political or legal 
relationship based on Native Hawaiian race or ancestry between the 
United States and the Native Hawaiian people for purposes of 
establishing a government-to-government relationship.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, as I said, with great respect for Congressman 
Abercrombie and also Congresswoman Hirono, I appreciate the civility 
and the spirit of cooperation in which we come here tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I am also very grateful to Mr. Bachus for his 
commentary and his observations and will indicate that, at least as far 
as this Member is concerned, there will be time enough, I believe, 
tomorrow to deal with the question should there be a recommittal 
offered on the issues that were raised by either the Campbell amendment 
or any of the other points that were raised as a basis or foundation 
for possible opposition to the bill. I believe they can be answered.
  I believe that this is fundamentally a very conservative approach 
that merits the support of Members across the various ideological 
spectrums that exist here in the House of Representatives; and I hope, 
with the opportunity to speak about them at some length, perhaps 
tomorrow, that we will be able to

[[Page H3166]]

satisfy one and all here on the floor that this is a bill worthy of 
support.
  The principal thing I would say, just simply in quick response, is 
that the Rice versus Cayetano decision which was mentioned does not 
affect these programs, has literally nothing to do with the issue at 
hand in this H.R. 835. The decision invalidated an election system for 
a State agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a State agency. The 
decision did not affect the agency itself. It did not even question the 
validity of the agency. It had to do with the question of who could 
vote for the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
  The Office of Hawaiian Affairs still exists today. It exists for the 
benefit of Native Hawaiians and is voted on by the entire voting 
population of the State of Hawaii. So it had to do with an election 
issue and absolutely nothing to do with this, and the Court declined to 
address the question of Native Hawaiian programs authorized by 
Congress. So we are dealing with an entirely separate set of issues 
here, and I hope to make that clear tomorrow.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to 
Representative Hirono.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my colleague for 
yielding time.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 835, the Hawaiian Homeownership 
Opportunity Act of 2007 and ask for my colleagues' support of the bill.
  The Act assists the State of Hawaii's Department of Hawaiian Home 
Lands, DHHL, to provide opportunities for homeownership for low-income 
native Hawaiians. The bill in no way addresses the question of whether 
or not Native Hawaiians should be recognized as a sovereign entity akin 
to Alaska Natives or American Indians.
  During debate on this bill last Wednesday, no Member came to the 
floor to speak in opposition to the bill. In fact, the gentleman from 
Arizona, who managed the time, expressed support for the bill.
  Unfortunately, either during the debate or afterward, e-mails were 
sent to Members containing at least two erroneous assertions: first, 
that this bill is unconstitutional and, second, that this bill ``would 
confer on Native Hawaiians an arrangement like that between the Federal 
Government and American Indian tribes.'' Opponents then compounded the 
error by citing the Rice v. Cayetano voting rights Supreme Court 
decision in support of their broad assertions.
  As to the first assertion, the constitutionality of any measure must 
be decided by the courts; and, clearly, the courts have not opined on 
the constitutionality of this bill. As to the second assertion, there 
is nothing in the bill that speaks to creating a political relationship 
between Native Hawaiians and the Federal Government akin to the 
relationship between the Federal Government and American Indian tribes.
  This bill, which promotes homeownership, a goal that all of us can 
support in bipartisan fashion, has been targeted for defeat by 
opponents who are misreading the bill as well as case law.
  I was a member of the Cayetano administration in Hawaii and sat in 
the Supreme Court when arguments in the Rice case were heard. It may 
interest some of you to know that one of the lawyers arguing the State 
of Hawaii's case was John Roberts, who is now Chief Justice of our 
Supreme Court.
  The central issue in the Rice v. Cayetano case was the narrow 
question of whether the State of Hawaii could hold an election for 
trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs where only Native Hawaiians 
could vote. In holding that the State could not so limit these 
elections, the majority opinion of the Court deliberately avoided the 
question of whether or not Native Hawaiians deserved the same right of 
self-determination granted to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
  Nothing in the Rice decision holds that programs that benefit Native 
Hawaiians are unconstitutional. The majority court decision did not 
call into question the trust relationship between the U.S. Government 
and the Native Hawaiian people. It did not strike down the Office of 
Hawaiian Affairs or any other program benefiting Native Hawaiians as 
unconstitutional.
  While the entire Hawaii congressional delegation, Hawaii's Governor, 
who happens to be a Republican, and the Hawaii legislature supports 
self-determination for Native Hawaiians, that is not the subject of the 
bill before us today. My colleague and I have introduced H.R. 505, the 
Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007, also known as 
the Akaka bill. We can discuss the merits of self-determination for 
Native Hawaiians when and if the Congress considers that bill.
  The bill before us today provides assistance to a limited group of 
Native Hawaiians, those designated as beneficiaries under the Hawaiian 
Homes Commission Act of 1921. That bill, in recognition of the 
desperate poverty and displacement from the land of Native Hawaiians, 
established a homesteading program to place eligible Native Hawaiians, 
or those with at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood, on lands in Hawaii 
designated for that purpose. The law was passed at the urging of the 
Territory of Hawaii's delegate to Congress, Prince Jonah Kuhio 
Kalanianaole. Some 200,000 acres were set aside for the purpose of 
providing Native Hawaiians with land. This 1921 Act of Congress has 
never been challenged in the Supreme Court in the last 86 years.
  Despite the good intentions of the Congress, progress in meeting the 
goal of delivering land to Native Hawaiians was slow. Most of the 
Hawaiian homelands were located in areas far from jobs, and 
infrastructure like roads and utilities were nonexistent. Many 
individuals were on the waiting list for more than 30 years. The 
Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 has provided the 
Department of Hawaiian Homelands with much-needed resources to expand 
opportunities for homeownership among low-income Native Hawaiians. 
Especially critical has been the ability to use these funds to develop 
the infrastructure that makes placing homes on these properties 
possible.
  Because the issue of Native Hawaiian rights as a native people lies 
at heart of the opposition of this bill, I would like to quote 
attorneys H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Viet Dinh, and Neal Katyal, who 
stated in a February, 2007, legal document prepared for the Office of 
Hawaiian Affairs:
  ``Congressional legislation dealing with indigenous groups is 
political, not racial, in character and therefore is neither 
discriminatory nor unconstitutional. Rice v. Cayetano specifically 
declined to address whether `Native Hawaiians have a status like that 
of Indians in organized tribes' and `whether Congress may treat Native 
Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes'.''
  As previously mentioned, we can and should have the debate on whether 
or not Native Hawaiians should enjoy the rights to self-determination 
given to other Native American groups when that bill is squarely before 
us in H.R. 505. Native Hawaiians deserve no less.
  This bill before us today simply provides Native Hawaiians who are 
eligible for homesteads under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act passed 
by Congress with the financing tools to allow them to realize for their 
families the dream of homeownership which otherwise would be available 
to very few of them.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mahalo nui loa.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say that I appreciate Congresswoman Hirono's discussing the 
bill and the different components of the bill and also Congressman 
Abercrombie. And let me say that I do acknowledge that low-income 
Native Hawaiians living on the Hawaiian homelands, that they are under 
some restraints in building homes and financing those homes; and, 
because of that, there is support on my side of the aisle for some of 
these programs, and there are some differences of opinion. So I do 
acknowledge that for them, because it is on Native Hawaiian lands, it 
is almost impossible for them to get private financing; and that is at 
least the basis for some of these programs. And I do believe and I am 
hopeful that some of the discussions we have heard tonight will 
enlighten Members on both sides. It is not the intent of the minority 
to obstruct the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am again very appreciative of Mr.

[[Page H3167]]

Bachus for his perception, his perspective, and his judgment with 
regard to the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time except for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 5 minutes of my time, and I yield 
back the balance of my time, also.

                              {time}  2115

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 
269, further proceedings on the bill will be postponed.

                          ____________________