[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 131 (Thursday, September 6, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10182-H10196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION 
                      REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 633 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. 2786.

                              {time}  1121


                     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. 2786) to reauthorize the programs for housing assistance for 
Native Americans, with Mr. Holden 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.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  This is a reauthorization, and I believe with the initiative of the 
gentleman from New Mexico, which I hope the House will adopt, will 
extend the Federal program that responds to the economic needs of the 
Native Americans. It also has a provision reauthorizing the Native 
Hawaiian legislation.
  The program primarily provides funding, subject, of course, to 
appropriation, to the recognized tribes for housing. Members will be 
aware, if they represent areas where the tribes are and if they have 
visited those areas, that inadequate housing is a serious social 
problem for many of our Native American residents. And this is a bill 
that provides money to them to help them meet that need.
  Now, the program is changed in three ways: First, as I said, it has 
not yet been changed but we expect it to be. Our committee has 
unanimously expressed its support for an amendment that was drafted by 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), who will be offering it, 
which creates an economic development program to go along with the 
housing program, and we do believe adequate housing and economic 
development go hand in hand.
  Secondly, at the request of the tribes, the Indian Housing Council, 
we have added in this a provision for a reserve fund and we have also 
provided funding for a self-determination program. So this bill comes 
before us strongly supported by the broad range of the tribes and it 
continues Federal support to help the tribes themselves build housing 
and will, I hope, also now have a component for economic development.
  There is one item of some controversy which I think all of us 
involved here regret but we cannot ignore. The gentleman from North 
Carolina will be offering an amendment which says that no funding under 
this bill, including the housing program and the, I hope to be adopted, 
economic development program to the one tribe, the Cherokees, who have 
recently decided that the descendants of the slaves that the tribe had 
in the 19th century will be excluded from tribal benefits despite a 
treaty obligation to the contrary, we hope in the end that will never 
be necessary. In fact, I believe we will see an amendment that will 
make it clear that the amendment will only apply as long as the tribe 
maintains that position and there is pending litigation in the tribal 
court to change it. We hope it is changed. That's, as I see, the only 
controversy that applies to the program itself. I take it back. I know 
there will be an amendment to strike the Native Hawaiian program, and 
we will very vigorously oppose that. We have had that debate before. 
This is a program that works well, that is overwhelmingly supported in 
the State of Hawaii, and we believe should be allowed to continue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to offer support for H.R. 2786, the Native American Housing 
Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act.
  Chairman Frank has described it very well. Basically, we are trying 
to see that the plight of Native Americans in their housing can be 
improved. It is basically fairly simple.
  As home to many Native American tribes, New Mexico sees this problem 
up close. The lack of standard housing, the availability of substandard 
housing, the lack of economic development opportunities, the lack of 
infrastructure such as water and wastewater treatment facilities all 
continue to plague people who are trying to make the tribal grounds 
their home and their place of habitation.
  So I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the bill and 
appreciate the hard work of Representative Kildee, Chairman Frank, and 
Chairwoman Waters in drafting a bill that begins to address these 
problems.
  One of the things that I think is most important is the flexibility 
and self-determination that begins to work its way into the 
legislation. Washington has never been the right place to make 
decisions for either local, State, or tribal governments, and in this 
bill we begin to send more of that autonomy, to send more of the 
decision-making power back to the tribes, which I think is an excellent 
opportunity for them to begin to find their way to self-sufficiency.
  We have had one of my good friends come and testify on the bill. That 
was the president of the Mescalero Apaches, Mark Chino, who came here 
during the Financial Services Committee's consideration of the bill and 
gave his insights on why the program is needed. And, again, I would 
just like to commend each one of the tribal leaders throughout not only 
New Mexico but throughout this country for really doing their job to 
begin to see that tribes deal with the problems that face them, not 
waiting for the Federal Government to come around and not waiting for 
BIA, not waiting for any of the agencies. And this bill, in its block 
grant program, begins to do that.
  Another one of the significant things of this bill is that it allows 
tribes to take loans out, to incur indebtedness, to issue bonds in 
order to get infrastructure on the tribal grounds. I know that the 
Mescaleros do not have their own wastewater treatment facility. They 
instead work with the local communities of Ruidoso and Ruidoso Downs to 
deal with the wastewater treatment. But as tribes across the country 
are allowed to incur indebtedness for these solutions, then I think 
that is going to be extraordinarily important.
  Some of the tribes have used their housing money, for instance, to go 
to FEMA where many of the trailers that were bought and put there for 
Hurricane Katrina victims ended up not being needed or used, and 
different tribes, which the Mescaleros were, I think, the first in the 
Nation to go take advantage of some of those trailers, move them into 
their native grounds. And it represents a significant improvement over 
what some of the families already had. So we are beginning to see those 
roots and those seeds of self-determination already make a difference 
in the lives of Native Americans. And with this reauthorization, we 
will be able to continue to see those seeds of local progress, local 
input becoming the way that we do business.
  I support the bill and look forward to the discussion.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, there are issues in which a 
number of Members of the House are recognized as leaders. There are 
sometimes issues where one particular Member, by the force of his 
commitment, by the intellectual powers he brings to bear, by the length 
of that commitment, really stands out as a leader. And on this 
particular issue, the issue of Native Americans in general, that is our 
colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) dating back from his days in the 
State legislature in Michigan, when he represented a district with no 
Native Americans. They named cars in his district after Native 
Americans, but they're the only ones with those names that lived there. 
And just out of a concern that America honor its commitment in this 
area, which we haven't always done, he has been for many years a 
champion of the cause of Native Americans.

[[Page H10183]]

  I am delighted to have worked with him on this bill, he is the 
sponsor of the bill, and I yield him such time as he may consume.
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman for his kind words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2786, a bill to 
reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act. I am proud to be the sponsor of this very important 
legislation.
  NAHASDA, enacted in 1996, was the first piece of comprehensive 
housing legislation directed solely to Native American and Alaskan 
Native people. It has become the basic program aiding Native Americans 
in tribal areas with affordable housing development, including 
homeownership, rehabilitation, infrastructure development, and other 
affordable housing assistance.
  The success of NAHASDA is clear. Since its enactment, thousands of 
housing units have been constructed or are in development. Despite this 
record, however, there is still a substantial unmet need for housing 
units, a need that continues to grow for one of the fastest growing 
population groups in the country.
  This bill, which is based largely upon the recommendations made by 
the Native American Indian Housing Council, has bipartisan support. I 
want to thank my colleagues, Chairman Barney Frank and Congresswoman 
Maxine Waters and Mr. Pearce, who has been a very, very active 
supporter of this legislation and other legislation affecting our 
Native Americans.
  Its primary objective is to improve housing conditions in Indian 
country. Building upon the basic framework of NAHASDA, the bill will 
give tribes greater flexibility in meeting the housing needs of the 
tribal citizens. To that end, the bill creates a self-determination 
program which authorizes tribes to set aside 15 percent of its annual 
NAHASDA grant funding, up to $1 million, for the acquisition, 
construction or rehabilitation of housing. A year before the next 
NAHASDA reauthorization in 2011, HUD would report to Congress the 
results of this program.
  Among other revisions, the bill will make certain that tribes can 
compete for Home Investment Partnership Act funds, removes competitive 
procurement rules and procedures for purchases and goods under $5,000, 
makes Federal supply sources through the GSA more accessible to tribes, 
recognizes tribal preference laws in hiring and contracting for NAHASDA 
activities, allows tribes to carry over NAHASDA funds to a subsequent 
grant year, and permits tribes to establish a reserve account up to 20 
percent of the tribe's annual NAHASDA grant.
  Mr. Chairman, this authorization bill will build upon the success of 
NAHASDA over the past 11 years by providing more housing development on 
our Nation's Indian reservations.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would compliment the gentleman from 
Michigan for his work on this legislation. He has been tireless in his 
support of and the working of the legislation to get it to this point 
on the floor.
  In my district we have several tribes, including Laguna, Acoma, Zuni, 
Mescalero, Isleta, the Ramah Navajo chapter, Tohajiilee Navajo chapter 
and the Alamo Navajo chapter, and each are faced with different 
difficulties. That's the reason that the flexibility is so important 
that is offered in this legislation.
  Flexibility and autonomy are the beginning points, and accountability 
then is kind of the finishing point. Given the opportunity to solve 
their own problems, given the resources to solve their problems holds 
the tribes accountable. And I have not found one that finds this 
distressing in any way.
  Too often I think that the Federal Government has been looked at as 
the caretaker of entire cultures, and literally that's not possible 
that the caretaker of the culture has to be the cultural members 
themselves. We see significant advances and capabilities in these 
areas. And, again, I am happy to be a part of this particular effort in 
this particular extension of flexibility and accountability.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 2786, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007. I was proud to vote in favor 
of this legislation today.
  H.R. 2786 will provide housing assistance for those Native Americans 
who are impoverished and living in dire conditions. It reauthorizes 
block grants under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) on behalf of Indian tribes for 
carrying out affordable housing activities.
  Included in this important legislation is the authorization of the 
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and Loan Guarantee Program, which 
funds infrastructure development and homeownership assistance for 
Native Hawaiians. The loan guarantee program also helps eligible Native 
Hawaiian families obtain mortgages. I was proud to vote in favor of 
this stand alone legislation in July, which was sponsored by my good 
friend and colleague, Representative Neil Abercrombie, and I was happy 
to see it included into H.R. 2786 today.
  As a proponent of NAHASDA and the Native American Indian Housing 
Council (NAIHC), I also sponsored report language in the FY2008 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill which 
expects HUD to continue to provide resources to the NAIHC, if 
authorized. The NAIHC is an excellent program which assists tribes and 
tribal housing entities to provide culturally relevant, safe, sanitary, 
and quality affordable housing for Native people in American Indian 
communities and Alaska Native villages. Its importance must not be 
underscored, as it is the only national housing organization working on 
behalf of tribes and tribal housing entities across the United States.
  With the passage of H.R. 2786 today, we have taken an important step 
towards the reauthorization of NAHASDA and NAIHC and to providing this 
community with the necessary federal assistance to help achieve the 
American dream of owning a home.
  Providing this assistance to Native Americans is in the best interest 
of our nation. I look forward to continuing to work to advance the 
cause of Native Americans, as well as the NAIHC.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the reauthorization of 
H.R. 2786, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act (NAHASDA). However, I want to register my strong 
opposition to two amendments which were accepted during today's floor 
consideration: the Watt and Boren amendments.
  Both of these amendments would prohibit NAHASDA funds from going to 
the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma until it fully recognizes all Cherokee 
Freedmen and their descendants as citizens of the Cherokee Nation. The 
status of the Freedmen descendents under the 1866 Treaty is a complex 
legal issue with a long history. Currently, it is being addressed 
before the Tribal Courts system. I think it would be premature for 
Congress to intervene before the courts have had a chance to examine 
the legal issues surrounding this case.
  I also believe these amendments would set a bad precedent for the 
basic constitutional values of due process and the role of the judicial 
branch in resolving legal disputes.
  NAHASDA is intended to provide housing assistance to low-income 
families on Indian country. These amendments are not only non-germane; 
they would harm the most vulnerable members of the Nation. I urge my 
colleagues to wait on the courts to rule on this case before 
legislating.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I also yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  No amendment to the bill is in order except those printed in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose and pro 
forma amendments for purpose of debate. Amendments printed in the 
Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or 
his designee and shall be considered read.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Watt

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Watt:
       Page 3, line 9, strike the quotation marks and the last 
     period.
       Page 3, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(l) Limitation on Use for Cherokee Nation.--No funds 
     authorized under this Act, or the amendments made by this 
     Act, or appropriated pursuant to an authorization under this 
     Act or such amendments, shall be expended for the benefit of 
     the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma until the Cherokee Nation of 
     Oklahoma is in full compliance with the Treaty of 1866 and 
     fully recognizes all Cherokee Freedmen and their descendants 
     as citizens of the Cherokee Nation.''.


[[Page H10184]]


  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment not proudly, 
unfortunately, but because of circumstances that have arisen that I 
will describe briefly and create the context for the amendment.
  In 1866, after the Cherokee Nation, which at that time also owned 
slaves, had gone through tremendous imposition by the United States and 
forced off of their land, including the people that they owned as 
slaves, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma entered into a treaty with the 
United States under which it agreed to make not only the Indians who 
were Cherokees, but their slaves, members of the Cherokee Nation. 
Unfortunately, in March of 2007, the Cherokee Nation decided that it 
would, in violation of the 1866 treaty, take action to, in effect, 
rescind the citizenship of the descendants of the African Americans who 
had been their slaves, the so-called ``Cherokee Freedmen.'' That has 
created a tension between the African American community and the 
Cherokee Nation, which can best be described as unfortunate because 
there is so much common heritage there between the Cherokee Nation and 
African Americans, and common experience. And this has created a divide 
which we hope will soon be repaired and restored.
  I'm in the unique position of understanding both sides of this 
because I understand when the Cherokee Nation says that in order to be 
a Cherokee, one has to have some Cherokee blood. And that is a position 
that is not a racist position. It is a position of establishing their 
ancestry, their blood lineage; and I have respect for that.
  And I'm in the unique position of having a great-great-grandmother 
who was a Cherokee. I'm also in the unique position of being an African 
American and understanding that the fact of what the Cherokee Nation 
has done would be exactly the same as if the United States of America, 
having imported black people from Africa and enslaved them, once 
slavery had ended, had taken the position that slaves could not be 
citizens of the United States.
  So I understand both sides of this argument. And I have tried to walk 
down the middle of it, but there is no way to reconcile those two 
positions. And so I reluctantly offer this amendment that would have 
the effect of denying funds that may be appropriated pursuant to the 
provisions of this bill, to the authority that is given under this 
bill, it would deny those funds from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 
until such time that they recognize the Freedmen as citizens of the 
Cherokee Nation.
  With that, that's the essence of the amendment, and I will yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would claim time in opposition, though I 
may not speak in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the chairman and I thank the gentleman for his 
amendment.
  This is the same amendment that was offered to a freestanding piece 
of legislation that was offered in the Financial Services Committee. At 
that point, I commended the gentleman, Mr. Watt, for his work on 
justice, equality and fairness, and recognize that. I also favor loud 
and extremely clear messages, and this language is that.
  My concern on the day that we accepted this amendment as a part of 
our freestanding bill was that the underlying bill addresses some of 
the most needy, most impoverished rural areas in our Nation, and I 
would just hate for some of those areas to be disadvantaged simply 
because they are caught in this particular fight.
  There is pending litigation on the subject. And I wonder if it would 
not be better for us to let that litigation run its course. There is 
always opportunity for us, as a freestanding body, to come back and 
address this issue with legislation if it does not clear up in the 
court case.
  So, again, I compliment the gentleman for the clear and concise 
message that he is delivering. I am not opposed to the message. In 
fact, I support the message of justice and fairness and equality, but 
would continue to wonder out loud if this is the proper vehicle.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Boren to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Watt

  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boren to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Watt:
       Page 1 of the amendment, line 1, insert ``(a)''.
       Page 1 of the amendment, after line 9, insert the 
     following:
       (b) Congressional Findings.--The Congress hereby finds 
     that--
       (1) the Cherokee Freedmen have appealed the March 3, 2007, 
     vote of the Cherokee Nation to rescind their tribal 
     membership and it is currently in litigation in tribal 
     courts;
       (2) on May 14, 2007, Cherokee Nation District Court Judge 
     John Cripps issued a temporary injunction requiring 
     reinstatement of citizenship for the Cherokee Freedmen, 
     pending appeal of the constitutionality of the March 3, 2007, 
     tribal election rescinding membership; and
       (c) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall not have any 
     effect--
       (1) during the period that the temporary injunction issued 
     on May 14, 2007, and referred to in subsection (b)(2) remains 
     in effect; and
       (2) if the Cherokee Freedmen prevail upon final judgment in 
     the pending appeal referred to in subsection (b)(2) regarding 
     rescinding membership or a settlement agreement regarding 
     such appeal is entered into, at any time after entrance of 
     such judgment or such settlement agreement.

  Mr. BOREN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer this second-degree amendment 
because, while I respect the efforts of the gentleman from North 
Carolina to protect the tribal membership and rights of the Cherokee 
Freedmen, we must consider the fact that this issue is currently being 
addressed in the tribal court system. Pursuing congressional action 
before these citizens have their day in court would be acting 
prematurely.
  Earlier this year, the tribal courts approved a stay, which had the 
effect of reinstating the Freedmen to full citizenship status, 
including benefits and voting rights. This reinstatement applies to all 
Freedmen descendants who had previously been citizens and will last 
until the Cherokee Nation District Court reaches a decision.
  Because the Freedmen are current members of the Cherokee Nation, 
cutting off funding for the Cherokee Nation today would have the effect 
of cutting benefits to the Freedmen, the very people this amendment 
attempts to protect.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would allow the courts to uphold their 
responsibility in hearing this case and ruling before this disallowment 
of funding to the Cherokee Nation can be put into place.
  In this country, we have judicial processes in place that should be 
honored before Congress steps in to act. My amendment is a reasonable 
approach, and I remain committed to protecting the rights of my 
constituents, the Cherokee Nation members, which currently includes the 
Freedmen.
  My amendment would not end debate on this issue.

                              {time}  1145

  After the courts render a decision, Congress can examine this issue 
if necessary. Congressional action may not be necessary. So let's stop 
trying to find a legislative solution to a problem that does not 
currently exist. My amendment allows us to wait on the courts to rule 
before making a rash decision to cut funding for thousands of my 
constituents.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself very 
much with the remarks that my good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) 
made and certainly will be supporting his secondary amendment.
  I also want to tell my good friend from North Carolina that I 
certainly recognize his motives and his seriousness, because I think it 
is a serious

[[Page H10185]]

issue, and I think he is to be commended for approaching it that way, 
and thoughtfully, and I know he has done so.
  But I, too, share the opinion of my friend from Oklahoma that we are 
acting precipitously here. This is a matter in which, frankly, most of 
this body is not well informed. There are court cases underway in both 
the Federal and the tribal systems that ought to be allowed to play 
out. And if we are going to address this issue, we ought to do so in 
normal order through the committee fashion.
  As Mr. Boren so ably pointed out, the unintended, and I know 
unintended, consequences of this amendment would be to actually deny 
benefits to people that are currently receiving them. And to begin a 
process, quite frankly, that has profound implications for everybody in 
Indian Country and for all tribal governments is one we ought to think 
about, I think, very, very deeply before we embark on it. But, again, 
that, in no way, leads me to question the motives of my good friend 
from North Carolina or the seriousness of the issue he raises. I very 
much accept that.
  A final point I want on say on behalf, not on behalf, it is not my 
place to do that, but certainly I want to recognize that from the 
Cherokee Nation standpoint, they are the most racially diverse tribe in 
North America. There are thousands of African American Cherokees. In 
fact, there is every other race in that particular tribe. They see this 
as a tribal sovereignty issue. They do not see it as a racial issue. I 
certainly understand why some of my friends would have a different 
point of view. But I think, again, the matters involved here are so 
important and so deep that they deserve full consideration first in the 
courts and then in an appropriate legislative process in Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by thanking my friend from Oklahoma 
for arriving at what I think is a very reasonable surmise.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I agree that the amendment 
is a useful one, and I support it. The gentleman from Oklahoma, who is 
a member of the Financial Services Committee, has been a very able 
advocate for Native Americans on a variety of issues, as well as on 
others. I think this is an example of his constructive approach. But I 
do want to take some exception with the reasons for it. And we can do 
things for somewhat different reasons. I don't think what the gentleman 
from North Carolina was doing was rash.
  In terms of what is best for the tribes, what we are doing here is 
trying to enforce a treaty. Frankly, I think the tribes have suffered 
more from violations of treaties than they have been the violators of 
treaties. I think that, in fact, it is a national embarrassment that 
this Federal Government has historically been the one that has 
initiated breaches of treaties and ignored treaties. So I am glad to 
say this is a sign here, not simply on the merits of including the 
Freedmen, but a reaffirmation by this Congress that we will hold 
everybody to those treaties. I do believe by establishing that 
principle, we will be doing the Native Americans in the end some good, 
as well.
  Beyond that, in terms of timing, I understand this is in the courts. 
But let's be clear what is in the courts. The issue here is whether a 
decision taken by the tribe to exclude the Freedmen, I believe, in 
violation of the treaty should be upheld or not. At any minute, the 
tribe could resolve this by saying, okay, we will abide by the treaty. 
So it is not that they need judicial permission to do that. They don't 
have to await the outcome.
  Given all that, I do agree if the court decision, the tribal court as 
I understand it, upholds the right of the Freedmen, if the current 
status of the Freedmen is maintained, then the amendment wouldn't be 
necessary, and, in fact, if that had been the case, the gentleman from 
North Carolina wouldn't have offered it.
  As all the Members have said, this is a very agonizing issue for many 
of us. None of us wants to be put to this kind of a test. But the 
principle of adhering to the treaties, I think, governs. The gentleman 
from Oklahoma has proposed a useful amendment. As I understand it, he 
cooperated with the gentleman from North Carolina. They worked together 
on this. And what this says is if the resolution comes either by a 
court decision that says the Freedmen must be continued as tribal 
members or by a decision by the Cherokees, and again, they aren't bound 
by a decision by the court not to do this. They could always do it. So 
from the standpoint of cutting off, you know, they say when people are 
in civil contempt they have the keys in their pockets. The Cherokees 
have the cash here. It is entirely up to them as to whether or not the 
benefits continue to flow. Nothing in the gentleman from North 
Carolina's amendment would in any way impede the flow of funds to the 
Cherokees unless they are found to be by us, I think very clearly, in 
violation of the treaty.
  So if the Cherokees, either because of the tribal court or of their 
own volition, decide to continue what has been the status quo of the 
Freedmen, then there is no cutoff. So I do not believe it can fairly be 
said that this will penalize them. It leaves it in their hands.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the gentleman from North 
Carolina and the gentleman from Oklahoma, we have had the cooperation 
from Members on the other side, I think we have come to as good a 
resolution to a difficult situation as possible. I hope both amendments 
are adopted.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to oppose the amendment to the 
amendment that I have offered. I do want to make a couple of points. 
First of all, some question has been raised about the timing of my 
offering of the underlying amendment. I did not choose the timing of 
this. This bill is on the floor today. And if my amendment is not on 
the bill, who knows when there will be another opportunity to deliver 
this message and to create an impediment pending the outcome of the 
litigation.
  So I am perfectly content with the current status of the events in 
the sense that the court has said to the Cherokee Nation in a temporary 
injunction that you cannot exclude the Freedmen from the Cherokee 
Nation. As long as that court order stays in effect, I consider that we 
are at the result, which is the appropriate result. But if by chance 6 
months down the road, 3 months down the road, 2 months down the road, a 
contrary set of circumstances exist, either the court withdraws its 
temporary restraining order or rules in a way that I don't think with 
any kind of justification it can rule against the Cherokee Freedmen, 
then this language will be in the bill and would appropriately have 
been put in the bill today. I can't come back 6 months from now and put 
it in the bill that is passed today.
  So I didn't choose the timing of this. I am having to do this in the 
time frame that this bill is moving. So in a sense, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) has served a very useful purpose here to basically 
codify everyone's agreement that as long as the court retains the 
status quo, allows Cherokee Freedmen to be citizens of the Cherokee 
Nation, that is an appropriate outcome for the case. And if that ceases 
to be the case, then this language would then take effect in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, for that I think we are indebted to Mr. Boren for 
clarifying that. I appreciate him and will not oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H10186]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Pearce:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 9. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR GUARANTEED LOANS TO FINANCE 
                   TRIBAL COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Authority.--To the extent or in such amounts as are 
     provided in appropriation Acts, the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Secretary'') may, subject to the limitations of this 
     section and upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     may prescribe, guarantee and make commitments to guarantee, 
     the notes and obligations issued by Indian tribes or tribally 
     designated housing entities (as such term is defined in 
     section 4 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
     Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4103)) with tribal 
     approval, for the purposes of financing activities, carried 
     out on Indian reservations and in other Indian areas, that 
     under the first sentence of section 108(a) of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974 are eligible for financing 
     with notes and other obligations guaranteed pursuant to such 
     section 108.
       (b) Low-Income Benefit Requirement.--Not less than 70 
     percent of the aggregate funds received by an Indian tribe or 
     tribally designated housing entity as a result of a guarantee 
     under this section shall be used for the support of 
     activities that benefit low-income Indian families (as such 
     term is defined for purposes of the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996) on Indian 
     reservations and other Indian areas.
       (c) Financial Soundness.--The Secretary shall establish 
     underwriting criteria for guarantees under this section, 
     including fees for such guarantees, as may be necessary to 
     ensure that the program under this section for such 
     guarantees is financially sound. Such fees shall be 
     established in amounts that are sufficient, but do not exceed 
     the minimum amounts necessary, to maintain a negative credit 
     subsidy for such program, as determined based upon risk to 
     the Federal Government under such underwriting requirements.
       (d) Terms of Obligations.--Notes or other obligations 
     guaranteed pursuant to this section shall be in such form and 
     denominations, have such maturities, and be subject to such 
     conditions as may be prescribed by regulations issued by the 
     Secretary. The Secretary may not deny a guarantee under this 
     section on the basis of the proposed repayment period for the 
     note or other obligation, unless the period is more than 20 
     years or the Secretary determines that the period causes the 
     guarantee to constitute an unacceptable financial risk.
       (e) Limitation on Percentage.--A guarantee made under this 
     section shall guarantee repayment of 95 percent of the unpaid 
     principal and interest due on the notes or other obligations 
     guaranteed.
       (f) Security and Repayment.--
       (1) Requirements on issuer.--To ensure the repayment of 
     notes or other obligations and charges incurred under this 
     section and as a condition for receiving such guarantees, the 
     Secretary shall require the Indian tribe or housing entity 
     issuing such notes or obligations to--
       (A) enter into a contract, in a form acceptable to the 
     Secretary, for repayment of notes or other obligations 
     guaranteed under this section;
       (B) demonstrate that the extent of such issuance and 
     guarantee under this section is within the financial capacity 
     of the tribe; and
       (C) furnish, at the discretion of the Secretary, such 
     security as may be deemed appropriate by the Secretary in 
     making such guarantees, including increments in local tax 
     receipts generated by the activities assisted by a guarantee 
     under this section or disposition proceeds from the sale of 
     land or rehabilitated property, except that such security may 
     not include any grant amounts received or for which the 
     issuer may be eligible under title I of the Native American 
     Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996.
       (2) Full faith and credit.--The full faith and credit of 
     the United States is pledged to the payment of all guarantees 
     made under this section. Any such guarantee made by the 
     Secretary shall be conclusive evidence of the eligibility of 
     the obligations for such guarantee with respect to principal 
     and interest, and the validity of any such guarantee so made 
     shall be incontestable in the hands of a holder of the 
     guaranteed obligations.
       (g) Training and Information.--The Secretary, in 
     cooperation with Indian tribes and tribally designated 
     housing entities, shall carry out training and information 
     activities with respect to the guarantee program under this 
     section.
       (h) Limitations on Amount of Guarantees.--
       (1) Aggregate fiscal year limitation.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law and subject only to the absence of 
     qualified applicants or proposed activities and to the 
     authority provided in this section, to the extent approved or 
     provided in appropriations Acts, the Secretary may enter into 
     commitments to guarantee notes and obligations under this 
     section with an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 
     $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations for credit subsidy.--
     There are authorized to be appropriated to cover the costs 
     (as such term is defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974) of guarantees under this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012.
       (3) Aggregate outstanding limitation.--The total amount of 
     outstanding obligations guaranteed on a cumulative basis by 
     the Secretary pursuant to this section shall not at any time 
     exceed $1,000,000,000 or such higher amount as may be 
     authorized to be appropriated for this section for any fiscal 
     year.
       (4) Fiscal year limitations on tribes.--The Secretary shall 
     monitor the use of guarantees under this section by Indian 
     tribes. If the Secretary finds that 50 percent of the 
     aggregate guarantee authority under paragraph (3) has been 
     committed, the Secretary may--
       (A) impose limitations on the amount of guarantees pursuant 
     to this section that any one Indian tribe may receive in any 
     fiscal year of $25,000,000; or
       (B) request the enactment of legislation increasing the 
     aggregate outstanding limitation on guarantees under this 
     section.
       (i) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 4-year 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress regarding 
     the utilization of the authority under this section by Indian 
     tribes and tribally designated housing entities, identifying 
     the extent of such utilization and the types of projects and 
     activities financed using such authority and analyzing the 
     effectiveness of such utilization in carrying out the 
     purposes of this section.
       (j) Termination.--The authority of the Secretary under this 
     section to make new guarantees for notes and obligations 
     shall terminate on October 1, 2012.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to 
H.R. 2786, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007. While NAHASDA continues the 
great practice of giving tribes more flexibility to develop housing, I 
believe that we can do more.
  We all know that economic development and infrastructure needs are 
acute in Indian Country. My amendment allows Native Americans to 
receive the same opportunity for economic development that States, 
cities and other units of local government across the United States 
enjoy without an increase in direct appropriations.
  Representative Renzi from Arizona, a good friend, has similar stand-
alone legislation, the Tribal Economic Development and Infrastructure 
Support Act of 2007. I appreciate his hard work on this important 
issue.
  Currently, communities that receive direct funding from the Community 
Development Block Grant program may borrow or issue bonded debt for up 
to five times their actual CDBG allocation. This is the section 108 
loan guarantee program and it encourages economic development, housing 
rehabilitation, public facilities, and large-scale physical development 
projects.
  Title 6 of NAHASDA is similar to the section 108 statute and allows 
tribes to borrow or issue bonded debt up to five times their annual 
NAHASDA allocation for housing purposes only. The title VI program has 
been underutilized in part because the eligible projects are limited to 
low-income activities that do not generate sufficient income to pay 
back these loans.

                              {time}  1200

  My amendment gives to tribes the same access to vital economic and 
infrastructure resources that non-tribal communities currently use.
  Specifically, my amendment authorizes a demonstration program 
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to 
provide for guarantees to loans for housing-related economic 
infrastructure and development on tribal lands. The demonstration 
project embodied in this bill will build not only better neighborhoods, 
but also build the economic infrastructure to support those 
communities, especially in our most rural and impoverished sections of 
America. The demonstration program is limited, so that at least half of 
the title VI program authority will remain exclusively for housing.
  Also, in order to be approved by the Secretary, an applicant must 
demonstrate that 70 percent of the benefit of the proposed projects 
will go to the low-income Indian families on Indian reservations and 
other tribal areas.

[[Page H10187]]

This is similar to the CDBG program which requires that 70 percent of a 
project's benefit be for low- and moderate-income families. Nothing in 
this amendment changes the use of appropriated funds, but it will 
encourage private money from banks or bond investors to be used for 
economic development purposes.
  In June, I visited the Pueblo of Zuni, where it rained and snowed, 
leaving standing, muddy water throughout the community. Most of the 
streets in the historic plaza do not have gutters to control water 
runoff, nor do the roofs of most houses have the gutters. The water 
began to flow and residents were literally surrounding their homes with 
bath towels to absorb the melting snow and to prevent their homes from 
being flooded. This is an example where NAHASDA dollars should be 
eligible for infrastructure to help these low-income families build 
gutters in their neighborhoods and protect their homes.
  My amendment will help Native Americans build stronger, better 
communities all across America by encouraging economic development. I 
believe this is the right step to help Indian Country build and improve 
their communities.
  I hope that you will join me in supporting this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Costa). The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong 
support for the amendment and my appreciation and admiration for the 
gentleman from New Mexico. This is a very important piece of this.
  We try to do this in our committee increasingly. We tried to do it 
with regard to the recovery from the hurricane as well. It is housing 
and economic development. They are both necessary, and they go 
together. If you don't have decent housing that is affordable, you are 
going to have a hard time filling the jobs. But if you don't have 
economic development, then housing without it is somewhat sterile.
  The gentleman from New Mexico has come up with a very thoughtful 
approach here. It is very logical to make this part of this program. 
There was some original talk about it being separate, but I think from 
the standpoint of making sure this survives all the way through the 
process, it is better to link the two, because the underlying housing 
program is going to expire and, frankly, putting them together this way 
gives us more assurance that it will ultimately be signed and not 
caught up in some unrelated controversy.
  So both procedurally and substantively, the gentleman from New Mexico 
has made the right choices, and I join in hoping the amendment is 
adopted.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from South Dakota is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman Frank, for his leadership in 
advancing the reauthorization of this important act, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, for introducing the 
legislation to do so.
  Like many Members of this body, I have the honor of representing a 
significant Native American population in my district. In fact, South 
Dakota is home to nine Lakota, Dakota and Nakota Sioux tribes, each of 
them adding an immeasurable contribution to our State's rich and varied 
cultural landscape.
  Tragically, however, many reservation communities in South Dakota and 
across the country suffer from extreme poverty. This poverty manifests 
itself in many challenges, including access to adequate health care, 
education, and, as we are discussing today, housing.
  Indeed, tribal leaders and tribal housing officials from across the 
State of South Dakota report a consistent and urgent message: there is 
a desperate need for more and better housing in Indian Country, and we 
owe it to the elders, children and their families to help do more to 
fulfill this most basic of needs.
  Historically, there has been inadequate funding provided for housing 
programs and unnecessary obstacles to growth. This has led to 
situations, such as on the Pine Ridge Reservation, home to the Oglala 
Sioux tribe in southwest South Dakota, where it is not uncommon to have 
25 individuals or more living in one housing unit.
  It is worth noting that in my State and many Northern Plains States, 
temperatures can reach negative 25 degrees Fahrenheit or colder in the 
winter. Yet there remain barriers to accessing Native American Housing 
Grant funds which, if removed, would help families in Indian Country to 
improve their living situations.
  So I urge strong support of H.R. 2786, which would reauthorize, 
clarify and improve the Native American Housing Assistance Self-
Determination Act, and help ensure that all Americans, including the 
first Americans, have fair and equal access to adequate housing, a 
basic necessity of life.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


              Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Westmoreland:
       Page 18, strike lines 1 through 6.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, as I listen to the debate on this 
bill, and I agree with the majority of this bill, I heard the word 
``tribe'' used over and over, and I think that was the intent of this, 
for Native American tribes to be recognized and be given the housing 
assistance and also the infrastructure assistance and all the things 
that they need. And I think it is very important that we recognize 
exactly who these tribes are.
  What this amendment does, it strikes the section about the Native 
Hawaiians. Native Hawaiians share none of the unique characteristics 
possessed by recognized tribes in this country. Native Hawaiians never 
exercised sovereignty over Hawaiian lands or lived as a separate, 
distinct, racially exclusive community. All Hawaiians were subject to 
the same monarch in the late 1800s, regardless of race.
  Native Hawaiians have never exercised inherent sovereignty as a 
native indigenous people, and our Constitution seeks to eliminate 
racial separation, not promote it. How can we promote equality while 
separating our people?
  Tribes seeking recognition after statehood must adhere to a process 
established by the Federal Government. To be formally recognized, a 
tribe must demonstrate it has operated as a sovereign entity for the 
past century, was a separate and distinct community, and had a 
preexisting political organization. The Native Hawaiian people cannot 
meet these criteria.
  The time for Native Hawaiians to establish themselves as an Indian 
tribe has since passed. When Hawaii was considering statehood in 1959, 
there was no push to establish a tribe. In fact, 94 percent of the 
people in 1959 supported statehood with no mention of being a tribe.
  The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 in Rice that Native Hawaiians are an 
ethnic group and that it is illegal to give anyone preferential 
treatment on account of their membership in that group. It is 
unconstitutional to give one ethnic group a special preference over 
another ethnic group, and the oath of office that we took was to uphold 
the Constitution.
  Therefore, I think it is appropriate, and I would ask all Members, to 
vote to take the Native Hawaiians out of this very important bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  (Ms. HIRONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

[[Page H10188]]

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Westmoreland to eliminate section 811 of H.R. 
2786 which reauthorizes the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and 
Loan Guarantee programs.
  This block grant is used to carry out affordable housing activities 
for Native Hawaiian families who are eligible to reside on Hawaiian 
homelands which were established in trust by the United States in 1921 
under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.
  Due to a variety of factors, including lack of program funding, only 
8,000 individuals currently hold leases and reside on Hawaiian 
homelands. Approximately 23,650 remain on a waiting list, and many of 
our elderly, our kupuna, have died waiting to achieve the dream of 
homeownership.
  This block grant supports the dreams of homeownership for Native 
Hawaiians, not just in Hawaii, but across our Nation, as 2,712 Hawaiian 
homeland applicants currently reside outside of Hawaii. In fact, 21 
Native Hawaiians who live in Georgia, the home State of the author of 
this amendment, have applied for this very program he has not once, but 
twice, tried to eliminate.
  Many of you may remember that this past July the gentleman from 
Georgia offered an amendment that would eliminate funding for the 
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program in the fiscal year 2008 
Transportation-Treasury-Housing appropriations bill. This body rejected 
that amendment in a bipartisan vote of 116 yeas to 307 nays.
  These amendments are really just the latest in a pattern of challenge 
to programs that focus on benefiting American Indians, Alaska Natives, 
and Native Hawaiian people. An earlier failed challenge to the 
previously uncontroversial Native American Housing Act, H.R. 835, was 
the first apparent salvo against Native American programs. Then there 
was an attempt to strike funds for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian 
Serving Institutions in the fiscal year 2008 Department of Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill.
  These actions raise the concern that all programs benefiting 
indigenous people will be subjected to attack.
  Like other indigenous groups, such as American Indians and Alaskan 
Natives, Native Hawaiians have a special trust relationship with the 
United States. It has been well settled that Congress has clear plenary 
power to fulfill its obligations to indigenous people who once had 
sovereign governing entities before the establishment of the United 
States and whose lands are currently within the borders of the United 
States.
  Like American Indians and Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians suffered 
the loss of their sovereignty and their lands to the United States. 
Congress has an obligation to Native Hawaiians, whose sovereign 
government was overthrown with the aid of the United States military 
under the direction of the U.S. minister.
  Congress has demonstrated this special relationship by enacting over 
150 laws specifically benefiting Native Hawaiians since 1900. None of 
the laws Congress has enacted benefiting Native Hawaiians have ever 
been successfully challenged as unconstitutional.
  The U.S. Supreme Court decision of Rice v. Cayetano has been bandied 
about today by supporters of this amendment. I was a member of the 
Cayetano administration as Lieutenant Governor in Hawaii and sat in the 
court when arguments in the Rice case were heard. It may interest some 
of you to know that one of the lawyers arguing for the State of 
Hawaii's case was John Roberts, who is now Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court.
  Nothing in the Rice decision holds that programs that benefit Native 
Hawaiians are unconstitutional. The majority decision did not call into 
question the trust relationship between the United States Government 
and Native Hawaiian people. It did not strike down the Office of 
Hawaiian Affairs or any other program benefiting Native Hawaiians as 
unconstitutional.
  America has a moral and legal obligation to support programs that 
provide housing, education and other important services for Native 
Hawaiians. Helping Native Hawaiians achieve and advance is in the best 
interests of all of the people of our Nation.
  I would like to add that it is totally inaccurate and an insult to 
the Native Hawaiians that they are characterized as not having had a 
sovereign government. They certainly did.
  In closing, I ask that my colleagues join me once again in fighting 
these unconscionable attacks and vote ``no'' on the Westmoreland 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I implore 
Members of the House not to give in to this effort to invoke judicial 
activism, to cancel the vote of the people's elected Representative.
  My friends on the Republican side are very selective in their 
denunciation of judicial activism. From time to time, they complain, if 
the courts uphold some fundamental constitutional right, that our 
ability as elected officials to make public policy has been trifled 
with. Here the shoe is very much on the other foot, and I think the 
foot on which the shoe is is in the mouth.
  This is an effort to overrule the overwhelming decision of the people 
of Hawaii through their elected officials to create these programs. 
There are few things in Hawaii that are as broadly supported as this 
housing program.
  There are controversial aspects of some of what goes on in Hawaii. We 
are aware of none here. This has been fiercely defended by everyone who 
is representing Hawaii who has been here since I have been here, and 
this Congress is voting on it.
  What are we told? What is the argument? Well, the Supreme Court 
doesn't think you should do that. What happened to the objection to 
judicial activism? What happened to the will of the people?
  In fact, as the gentlewoman from Hawaii has pointed out, there is no 
clear-cut Supreme Court decision here. There is room for us to make 
choices. But I am struck at the ease with which some of my conservative 
colleagues invoke this principle of popular rule against judicial 
activism in such a selective fashion.
  This harms no one. This isn't excluding anyone from anything. It is 
providing housing for people who need it. The gentlewoman from Hawaii 
has given a very good explanation of the history.
  I do not understand, Mr. Chairman. This is a fairly small program 
affecting a fairly small number of people in Hawaii. It is 
overwhelmingly supported by the people of Hawaii.
  Mr. Chairman, what motivates Members of this house to get up and 
interfere with the arrangements that the people of Hawaii have arrived 
at? What drives them? What angers them that the arrangement has been 
reached that says this to the Native Hawaiians? And no one disputes the 
history that our friend from Hawaii has given. The United States came 
in and overthrew the government. That is very well documented.
  What drives people at this point to continue to battle against this 
effort to help these Native Hawaiians and to invoke the courts to say 
we don't care what the votes were in Hawaii. We don't care about an 
overwhelming vote in the U.S. House.
  This is a very reasonable effort by the polity of Hawaii, the Native 
Hawaiians and others, to meet a very real need. No one is saying the 
program is badly run. No one is saying it is corrupt. No one is saying 
it is unnecessary.

                              {time}  1215

  There is some hyper-abstract, ideological objection to people 
reaching out to their fellow residents in need. And while it is 
overwhelmingly supported, what we have is an ideological objection, the 
nature of which I cannot understand. No one has told me what harm is 
done by this. I don't understand who this hurts. But somehow, people 
are motivated to attack this program which helps this particular, 
fairly small minority of people. And then, absent any rational 
arguments in my judgment, they invoke the principle of judicial 
supremacy, which they so often scorn in other contexts. I hope this 
amendment is defeated.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H10189]]

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
brought by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Perhaps I will work backwards through this from what I have heard 
during this debate. One of them would be the decision that was made in 
Rice v. Cayetano in the year 2000 that Native Hawaiians are an ethnic 
group and that it is unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil 
Rights Act to provide special protected status and privileges to people 
based upon their ethnicity. To raise that issue as an argument here on 
the floor isn't railing against judicial activism. To bring an 
amendment here to the floor of the United States Congress and ask the 
people's House to provide a majority vote on whether or not to 
authorize funds to go to Native Hawaiians, it isn't a conflict with 
judicial activism; to the contrary, it calls upon the people through 
their elected representative to make that decision. I think it is very 
consistent with our Constitution. It isn't railing against judicial 
activism; it simply recognizes the case and recognizes the 
Constitution.
  With regard to Chief Justice Roberts making the argument in favor of 
the Hawaiian side of this argument, if my recollection is correct, and 
I believe it is, that was then private sector attorney John Roberts who 
made that decision who was under the employment of people who had hired 
him to make the best argument he could make. But I don't remember him 
saying he had won the argument. So we know that when attorneys are in 
private practice, they take on clients and they do the best job they 
can of making that argument. The attorneys that argued in Rice v. 
Cayetano, the prevailing side was the side of the Constitution and the 
side of the people.
  I have represented two reservations now for 11 years in either the 
Iowa Senate or the United States Congress. I have had good relations 
with the people there on the reservations in my district, and it echoes 
across the Missouri River into Nebraska. I am not without some sense of 
experience and sensitivity when it comes to these issues that have to 
do with tribes, reservations and ethnicity.
  But I am concerned about a consistent and constant effort to 
balkanize America, to encourage Americans to divide themselves into 
groups and identify themselves based upon their ethnicity and the 
national origin of their ancestors.
  I listen and I hear there are 2,100 Native Hawaiians living in 
Georgia. Why can't we just call them Georgians? Why can't we call them 
Americans? Why can't we, as the voice of the people, encourage each 
other to remember our history and remember the legacy and remember the 
cultures that come, but focus on being Americans and erase the lines 
between us rather than drawing continually brighter and brighter lines, 
further balkanizing America, encouraging people to gather together as 
ethnicities in enclaves.
  And I am going to be one who will be, if the day comes that this 
Hawaiian legislation, the big bill comes to this floor, I will be 
opposing it as well, Mr. Chairman, because that divides Americans and 
it sets a new standard that has not been set and that is recognizing 
ethnicities as tribes. If that happens, any ethnicity that can gain the 
political leverage to gain a majority vote here on the floor of 
Congress, here in the House and in the Senate, can then be raised to 
the same level that we have set aside for Native Americans that we are 
dealing with here in this bill.
  So this slipped in. This authorization slipped in in the year 2000 
without a lot of opposition. I agree with the gentlelady's position 
there. It should have been opposed. I think it was a mistake by 
Congress, and it brought about a $9 million appropriation in 2007. It 
is probably a $25 million appropriation obligation through about the 
year 2012.
  This is where we draw the line. This is where we have to take the 
stand on what is really the Constitution and what is right. Ethnicities 
can't be granted special status.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank my friend from Iowa for yielding.
  Let me say that the chairman of the committee mentioned the 
overwhelming vote on an amendment, or the gentlelady from Hawaii did. I 
remind the House that on Wednesday, March 21, H.R. 835, the Hawaiian 
Homeownership Act of 2007, was defeated in this House. So I wanted to 
bring that to the attention of everybody.
  The gentleman from Iowa said $25 million over the 4 years, and it is 
actually about $50 million. You know, I will be glad to work with the 
chairman of the committee or the delegation from Hawaii if they want to 
let Congress pass something to make them a recognized tribe, but they 
are not a recognized tribe.
  All the discussion I have heard today, everything in this bill is 
about tribes, recognized tribes by this country. So I just ask that you 
support the amendment and then we will work out any problems that we 
can after that.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, once again I find myself on the floor 
wishing that I had an opportunity to perhaps discuss the issue that is 
raised in the amendment. I wish really honestly that the courtesies 
would be extended on this to one another, not just on this issue but on 
any issue where it affects individuals.
  Let me explain for a moment if I can to you and some others who may 
be listening in, Mr. Chairman. Here is a list of votes on Native 
issues. There are 52 Members, 52 Members who have tribes in their 
districts, some multiple. Some of them are Republican Members who are 
sponsors of this bill. Each of them has unique questions and problems 
that have to be dealt with. It goes to Republicans, it goes to 
Democratic districts.
  I find it distressing that this is becoming more and more a partisan 
issue for some folks in the Republican Conference. I can't comprehend 
it exactly.
  As I say, here is 52. Here are some of the votes that were taken, 
Minority-Serving Institutions, Digital and Wireless Technology 
Opportunity Act, 59 votes against it all from Members of the Republican 
Conference.
  Motion to amend the Small Business Act to expand and improve 
assistance provided by small business development centers to Indian 
tribe members, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians, 73 members of the 
Republican Conference. I am not quite sure why this is happening.
  I don't understand why Native issues and issues having to do with 
indigenous people and minorities find now an increasing number in the 
Republican Conference who are voting ``no'' on it. I wish we could get 
a dialogue established in some way to try and understand why Native 
people are being attacked.
  In this particular instance, Mr. Chairman, I bring to your attention 
and the Members' attention the Admission Act that brought Hawaii into 
the Union. The Admission Act requires that we address questions such as 
those in the present bill that is before us.
  Now if someone wants to attack the Admission Act, I suggest they go 
to court and do that. All we are doing here and all that is being 
requested in this bill that is before us is that which is required of 
us by law in order to accomplish the task at hand. If someone is 
opposed, and I invite once again the Members here who have this 
amendment, why attack us? Why attack our people for trying to implement 
the law? Attack the law. Change the law if that is what you want to do, 
if that is what you think is necessary.
  We have 200,000 acres set aside for the betterment of Native 
Hawaiians. That is what the law says we are supposed to do. That is 
what the Admission Act which brought us into the United States says is 
required of us.
  I can quote: Any such lands income, therefore, shall be held by the 
said State as a public trust for the support of the public schools and 
other public educational institutions and for the betterment of the 
conditions of Native Hawaiians for the development of farm and home 
ownership, as widespread a basis as possible, and for making public 
improvements and provisions of lands for public use.
  That is what the Admission Act says we are supposed to do, for the 
betterment of Native Hawaiians. That is what this is about.

[[Page H10190]]

  If one is opposed to that for everybody, for all of the tribes and so 
on, I guess we can take it up with the other Members and so on. I don't 
know. But I don't think here on the floor in any bill that is a 
consequence of trying to fulfill our obligations constitutionally is 
the way to go about it. Take it to court. Put in a bill to do that, but 
don't hurt us today.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to give a little more 
information than we got in the last intervention from the gentleman 
from Georgia.
  He disappointed me when he decided to inform us that the bill had 
been defeated in March. Yes, it was defeated. It was ``defeated'' by a 
vote of 272 ``yes'' and 150 ``no.'' It lost because it required two-
thirds.
  But I must say, Mr. Chairman, to refer to a bill having been defeated 
to refute the notion that it was widely supported and to neglect to 
mention that in fact it got a 122-vote majority and simply failed by 10 
votes to get two-thirds, is a very incomplete reporting of the facts.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. 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 Georgia will 
be postponed.


              Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 9. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

       No amounts made available pursuant to any authorization of 
     appropriations under this Act, or under the amendments made 
     by this Act, may be used to employ workers described in 
     section 274A(h)(3)) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one that everybody 
in this body has seen before. It is an amendment that I brought to a 
number of the appropriations bills, and at least three times has been 
adopted by a bipartisan effort. In fact, I don't believe it has come to 
a recorded vote at any time.
  What it does is it limits the use of the funds that might be 
authorized by this bill. It says no amounts made available pursuant to 
any authorization of appropriations under this act or under the 
amendments made by this act may be used to employ workers described in 
section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  What this amendment does is it ensures that as funds are appropriated 
under this authorization, that they will not be used to hire people 
that cannot lawfully work in the United States. That would include 
those who are here illegally and those who are here legally without 
work authorization.
  I would point out that our Federal Government, by the statistics that 
have been produced by the inspector general of the Social Security 
Administration is likely, and I say ``likely,'' I don't think they say 
``likely,'' the largest employer of nonauthorized workers in the United 
States.
  We issued millions of Social Security numbers over the years going 
back into the 1990s to people who were not authorized to work but they 
needed a Social Security number for one reason or another, a list of 
benefits which I also don't agree with nor comprehend. We slowed that 
down dramatically, and I don't know that that practice continues to 
exist.

                              {time}  1230

  But those Social Security numbers have been used to gain employment 
and to gain employment with the Federal agencies. They monitored seven 
Federal agencies, seven State agencies and three local governments; and 
out of that came a number that about 44 percent of those non-work 
Social Security numbers had been used to gain employment. Even though 
those cards will say on them non-work, and even if you run the numbers 
through the Social Security Administration database, they all come back 
and say not authorized to work, we still have those people working for 
government at all levels and especially the Federal Government.
  And so if we are ever to clean up our act, if we're ever to compel 
private employers to no longer hire those who are illegally present in 
the United States, the least we can do is ensure that the employees of 
government are lawful employees.
  And so this amendment says that none of these funds that are 
authorized may be used to hire those people who are not legal to work 
in the United States. This would include illegal aliens. It would 
include non-work Social Security numbers, and to give a broader 
definition of this, those that are here on student visas without 
authorization to work, those who are here on visitors visas, those kind 
of lawfully present as well as unlawfully present people are not 
authorized to work in the United States. These funds would be 
prohibited from being utilized for that purpose.
  This is a step down the path, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we need 
to continue to take. We have a consensus that we need to turn up the 
pressure on employers. Well, government's the largest employer, and in 
fact, all of government in the United States has over 21 million 
employees. Out of 300 million people, over 21 million employees, and of 
those 21 million employees, a significant number are those that are not 
authorized to work in the United States. That means that whatever they 
might be doing, under this act they should be lawful employees.
  They can use the basic pilot program which now we call e-verify and 
run those Social Security numbers through there. I've sat and run it 
myself. It's pretty easy. The longest delay I could create by giving it 
a confusing message was 6 seconds. It's instantaneous analysis.
  We also need the Social Security Administration to run their database 
against the Department of Homeland Security's database. They would 
flush out most of these non-work Social Security numbers. The 
administration has to have conviction on this issue. This is a way to 
bring them towards more conviction on this issue. They've been 
reluctant.
  I would urge adoption of this amendment. This is something that, 
again, three times has passed this floor, and it's something I believe 
that's common sense that the American people strongly support, and I 
would urge its adoption.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I have a New Yorker cartoon that I 
have pasted to the wall of my office to try to remind me of my position 
in life and sometimes the irony of history.
  It pictures some Native Americans in tribal garb standing on a 
promontory gazing out on a bay in which a ship, strangely akin to the 
Mayflower, appears to be sitting. And some people in a boat wearing 
kind of quaint hats and cloaks with breeches seem to be rowing into 
shore. And the one Native American says to the other, Doesn't look like 
they have their documentation in order to me.
  Now, I don't know if that is anything other than perhaps mildly 
amusing, but perhaps it does make a point. I'm not sure that we're in 
any position to say to Native American tribes in this country that 
everybody ought to have their documentation in order. I wonder if those 
of us who are proposing that have our documentation in order.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as I understand this 
amendment, it is to make illegal what is already illegal, and since it 
was offered I

[[Page H10191]]

guess to the appropriations bill, it is to make apparently for the 
second time illegal what is already illegal, but the gentleman from 
Iowa explains why it is necessary.
  It is that as we approach the next to the last year of an 8-year term 
for President Bush, his administration is still unable and apparently, 
according to the gentleman, unwilling to enforce that law.
  The gentleman says the Federal Government, headed of course by 
President Bush, is the largest employer of people who are here 
illegally and not able to work; and he says that they lack conviction.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to take on various responsibilities as 
chairman of the committee. Defending the President against the 
gentleman from Iowa is not one of the things I'm prepared to do today.
  The gentleman from Iowa believes it's important for us for the third 
time to pass a law that he said the administration wouldn't enforce. I 
suppose the House could do that. I don't see any reason to think that 
they're going to enforce it any more this time than the other two times 
it was binding.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. 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 Iowa will be 
postponed.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 9. REQUIREMENT OF OFFSETS.

       (a) In General.--No authorization of appropriations made by 
     this Act, or by the amendments made by this Act, or any other 
     provision of this Act that results in costs to the Federal 
     Government, shall be effective except to the extent that this 
     Act, or the amendments made by this Act, provide for 
     offsetting decreases in spending of the Federal Government, 
     such that the net effect of this Act and such amendments does 
     not either increase the Federal deficit or reduce the Federal 
     surplus.
       (b) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms ``deficit'' 
     and ``surplus'' have the meanings given such terms in the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 621 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this commonsense 
amendment to H.R. 2786.
  This bill, as you know, would reauthorize the Native American and 
Native Hawaiian Block Grant programs, and the CBO, the Congressional 
Budget Office, estimates that appropriation of the amounts necessary to 
implement this bill will cost approximately $2.2 billion over the 2008-
2012 period of this reauthorization.
  This bill originally was authorized, or passed, in 1996 and then 
reauthorized in 2002, and the reorganization of the system of Federal 
housing assistance to Native Americans was accomplished by eliminating 
several separate programs of assistance and replacing them with a 
single block grant program.
  In addition to simplifying the process of providing housing 
assistance, the purpose of this is to provide Federal assistance for 
Indian tribes in a manner that recognizes the right of Indian self-
determination and tribal self-governance.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, equally as important I would suggest is fiscal 
responsibility. We've all come back from a month in our districts, 
working and listening to our constituents, and I heard repeatedly from 
my constituents that they continue to appeal to us to be more fiscally 
responsible. Many of my colleagues on our side of the aisle have 
attempted to offer amendments and bring about that kind of fiscal 
responsibility. This is another one of those amendments.
  This amendment will not prohibit funds from being spent on this 
program, but it will protect taxpayers by applying the principle of 
pay-as-you-go to the spending that's authorized by this legislation by 
requiring that any new spending as a result of this legislation must 
have a specific offset before the legislation can take effect.
  Now, if there is to be a taxpayer subsidy, as good stewards of the 
American hard-earned taxpayer money, we should provide a specific 
spending decrease to offset any new spending that would be required by 
this legislation.
  To be sure, this is important legislation, and I want to commend 
Congressman Pearce for his hard work on the legislation, ensuring its 
consideration on the floor. It's a testament to his hard work that he 
does every day for his constituents back home.
  But fiscal responsibility isn't something that we ought to just trump 
out during campaigns. We heard a lot about it during the last campaign; 
but I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is way past time that we act 
in this responsible manner.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment for PAYGO for 
authorization of the appropriations that will come as a result of this 
bill, and I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that 
does not make a great deal of sense, even in its own terms.
  First of all, the PAYGO principle applies in the appropriations 
process. Authorizations are authorizations. The Appropriations 
Committee balances the various authorizations. Nothing is committed to 
be spent by this bill.
  What it says, however, is really quite striking. It says no 
authorization or appropriation shall be effective except to the extent 
that this act or the amendments made by this act provide for offsetting 
decreases. In other words, if you thought that it was important to 
provide housing for the Native Americans who live in such desperate 
straits in so many places and make up for that elsewhere in the Federal 
budget, you couldn't do that.
  This says if you want to help the housing needs of American Indians, 
then you better reduce housing somewhere else. For the disabled? For 
the elderly? It does not allow for there to be offsetting decreases 
elsewhere.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  This language was taken directly from your side's PAYGO language in 
the rule. So what I'm attempting to do is to try to provide individuals 
with something which they hopefully have seen before. This is the PAYGO 
language from the PAYGO rules.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I will take back my time to say the 
gentleman has just stood up and said, look, I don't understand this 
language; I just borrowed it from you. Well, don't borrow things if you 
don't know how to use them. I mean, don't lend your car to someone who 
can't drive.
  The fact is that the gentleman apparently didn't understand the 
implications of what he borrowed because the way this goes now, PAYGO 
in general has broader application. In this particular case, what it 
says is within this act. So if you want to spend more money on Indian 
housing, you have to in the same act, under this act, find offsets 
elsewhere. This is an example of how he misunderstands the process.
  I would also say by the way there's a selectively to this because we 
don't get this amendment on every spending bill. Maybe it was offered 
on some of the other bills, the Ag bill, the space authorization. I 
don't see it all the time. I didn't see it on the Defense bill. Are we 
going to get this on the Iraq supplemental? I mean, I don't know how 
much we're going to spend here, but whatever we spend here, we spend in 
about, what, a week in the Iraq supplemental. I don't see it coming 
there. Somehow this becomes particularly important when we are trying 
to help people in dire straits; but even there, it's not logical.
  Nothing in here will break PAYGO. PAYGO applies in an overall basis 
at the appropriations process.
  If the gentleman wants me to yield, I'll be glad to yield.

[[Page H10192]]

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding again.
  The amendment's pretty simple. It says that if we're going to spend 
more money out of this Congress for this appropriation that we ought to 
find money elsewhere to make certain that we're not taking more hard-
earned taxpayer money----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, that's not what it says.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. That's exactly what it says, precisely what it 
says.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will take back my time to say the 
gentleman hasn't read his amendment. Here's what it says: to the extent 
that this act or the amendments made by this act provide for offsetting 
decreases in spending of the Federal Government.
  Now, the rules of the House are such that you could not here offset 
other programs. You have germaneness rules. So under the terms of this 
amendment, you would have to make reductions in this same act subject 
to the same act.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, because the gentleman keeps repeating 
his error.
  The fact is that PAYGO applies in a broader context. That's the 
problem. If you want to do PAYGO, you want to be able to say at the 
appropriations process, we'll shut this down here and we will increase 
it there.
  Again, as I said, it's very selectively applied. The amendment does 
not have any real effect on PAYGO, except if it were adopted it would 
apparently require us in this very bill, in which we authorize more 
money for Indian housing, to reduce, I don't know, Indian housing or 
something else because it's internal to this.
  You couldn't say that a Mars space shot was wrong or that we're 
spending too much money in the farm bill. It would be internal to this 
act. That's the problem with taking the general PAYGO principle and 
trying to microapply it.
  The fact is that the Indian housing program is a very important one. 
To single this out for this kind of restrictive approach beyond the 
general PAYGO principle would victimize people who are very much in 
need. So I hope the amendment is defeated.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Price 
amendment.
  One of the things I wanted to speak to was the list that was read to 
us earlier about Native American issues that show growing numbers of 
Republicans that voted ``no'' on appropriations or authorizations for 
Native American issues, the 50-some that went to 70-some that was 
presented by the gentleman from Hawaii, whose judgment and opinion and 
spirit and personality certainly I appreciate here. I make nothing but 
complimentary comments with regard to that.
  But I would submit that voting ``no'' on a bill that increases 
spending or expands authorization and considering that to be somehow a 
vote against a Native American tribe or against an ethnicity, 
protecting the American taxpayers and protecting the Constitution is a 
vote for Americans. That's what we have to be first. That was a point I 
made earlier.
  I just wanted to have that opportunity to speak to that issue, that 
voting ``no'' on appropriations and authorizations because they have 
something in their title that sounds good that has to do with our 
collective national history or heritage doesn't mean that it's against 
the descendents of the ones that earned that reputation.
  What it does mean is that we defend the Constitution, we defend the 
appropriations process, the taxpayer, fiscal responsibility and PAYGO. 
That's what I am standing here now and endorsing, promoting and asking 
adoption of the Price amendment because it defends PAYGO.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Iowa and I 
appreciate his support.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the vigor with which the other side 
opposes this amendment, because I think it sets up a clear distinction. 
The vigor and the enthusiasm with which they oppose responsible 
spending is clear. It's clear to us. It will be made clear to the 
American people repeatedly over the next number of months, and then the 
American people will decide.
  The enthusiasm that the gentleman has voiced in opposition to this, 
which clearly states that if any new spending, any increase in spending 
occurs because of this bill, then there must be offsets elsewhere. The 
gentleman clearly knows, the gentleman clearly knows the rules are 
germane. This requires that that's the way this be written, clearly.
  We can start at this point being fiscally responsible, or we can 
never start. But it's clear that what we desire and my colleagues 
desire to do is to begin that fiscally responsible move now and support 
this amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Again, Mr. 
Chairman, I rise in support of the Price amendment and PAYGO.
  PAYGO often, in this Congress, includes finding new ways to collect 
revenue from people that didn't owe it before. That was never my idea 
of PAYGO. My idea of PAYGO was we would limit our spending to stay 
within the constraints of the revenue stream that's coming in.
  So the day is going to come when the American taxpayers rise up. They 
understand what's going on here. They are seeing that a lot of the 
effort to ignore PAYGO is resulting in increased taxes and increasing 
the revenue stream of the United States at the expense of our 
businesses.
  We know that businesses don't pay taxes. It's the consumers that pay 
taxes, businesses tack the tax onto the retail prices.
  We need to slow down this appetite for spending. We need to slow down 
this appetite for expanding authorizations and appropriations and the 
services of the Federal Government. You can go with one of two 
equations, and one of those equations is government can be all and do 
all and become the complete nanny state, or you can ask for more 
personal responsibility. That means less government, it also means less 
taxes, and the bottom line is, more freedom.
  The Price amendment endorses PAYGO, holds us to those guidelines that 
we have agreed to here, and, in the end, it yields more freedom, more 
personal responsibility and less tax burden.
  I urge adoption of the Price amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
  The gentleman from Georgia misunderstands my view.
  What I want is fiscal discipline. What I object to is the very 
selective application of that to people who are in need. The gentleman 
from Iowa says we are going to restore freedom.
  I don't think the freedom of Navajo children that live in inadequate 
housing is something worth defending. I am especially struck by the 
fact that we are about to ask the President to spend tens of billions 
more where we spent hundreds of billions in the war in Iraq.
  I offered an amendment a year ago to restrict spending on a manned 
space shot to Mars. I lost on the floor of this House.
  I don't know how every Member voted. I do know a majority of the 
Republican Party voted against me because the President wanted to send 
a man to Mars.
  I voted against the Agriculture bill. I voted for an amendment that 
would have cut the spending there. But to be accused of being careless 
with the taxpayers' money by people who have supported this enormous 
corruption-ridden expenditure of hundreds of billions in Iraq is like 
being called silly by the Three Stooges.
  Now, back to the gentleman from Georgia. He says well, don't blame 
me. The gentleman says he just borrowed the amendment from other 
people. It's germane to its rules. The gentleman could be more creative 
than that.

[[Page H10193]]

Here's the point. This is why you don't do the PAYGO in this 
restrictive fashion program by program, selectively by program by 
program.
  When you like a program that spends a lot of money, in some areas you 
don't do it. If you don't like the program, you do it, and you claim 
it's just the neutral principle of fiscal responsibility. But PAYGO is 
sensibly applied over the whole budget, over the whole appropriations 
process. You can say, you know, we need more in the environmental area, 
we need more in the housing area, we need more in the transportation 
area. Let's reduce it in the manned space shot to Mars.
  The way this is written, the only way you could have this pass and be 
valid would be if you cut within this program. The gentleman says, 
well, those are the rules of germaneness. Yes, that's why you do PAYGO 
on a broader scale.
  To say you can only do Indian housing if you cut other things that 
are germane to this bill is precisely to shield the manned space shot 
to Mars, it's to shield expensive military spending, it's to shield 
cotton subsidies beyond what ought to be, and then say, you know what, 
if you're going to interfere with the freedom of these Navajo children 
to live in squalor, then we're going to have to make you cut back on 
money elsewhere.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Just a couple of notes. My good friend from Iowa was 
complimentary to me, and I am appreciative of that. I want to indicate 
to him, perhaps he misunderstood my intention in citing just a couple 
of instances where the vote was taken by himself and others with regard 
to minorities, with regard to Native Alaskans and tribal members and 
Native Hawaiians.
  The reason that I cited it was not because I was trying to look for 
something for them that they did not deserve or would not prove useful 
to them, but let me explain why I cited them, because I thought it was 
undermining the principles that were cited by our friend from Georgia 
and our friend from Iowa, initiative, working yourself up the economic 
and social ladder of success.
  Take the two bills. First, the Minority Serving Institutional Digital 
and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act. If you go into the bill 
itself, what it is is to try to assist in the areas where minorities 
are at issue, with trying to increase their capacity to do business, to 
increase their abilities to deal with wireless technology, digital 
technology today, as the keystone to economic opportunity and economic 
success. It's to give people the opportunity to increase their ability 
to pay their taxes to participate in the American foundation of 
American economic opportunity so that they could actually increase 
their capacity to succeed economically.
  The same with the other bill, which is why I cited it. I thought that 
these were the kinds of things that we could all get behind, improve 
and expand the small business development centers. I know, out in 
Hawaii, for a fact the small business development centers have been 
crucial to getting small businesses under way to aiding and assist 
people who need not just a handout but a hand up, and to give them the 
technical skills not ordinarily available to them, to give them some of 
the institutional references that they need to make in order to be able 
to apply for loans to succeed in achieving, getting the loans to get 
started, particularly microloans and so on.
  I can't speak for you, but I am sure you, as well, are familiar with 
small business development centers. What we are trying to do here, in 
the area of Indian tribe members, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians 
is to extend that helping hand so they can participate even further and 
achieve the very goals my good friend from Iowa and my good friend from 
Georgia have cited as being worthy of pursuit, not just by way of 
legislation, but by way of the everyday activities of constituents as 
they try to partake in the American Dream.
  That's all this is about. We want to give people the opportunity 
legislatively to take advantage of the small business development 
centers, to take advantage of the new wireless technology in a way that 
might not have been available to them otherwise.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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 Georgia will 
be postponed.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I noted in the list of 
amendments submitted there was a second amendment that the gentleman 
from Georgia had on the question of illegal immigrants being in the 
program.
  I was wondering whether that was going to be offered.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  No, I have no plan to offer that at this time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I appreciate that. I was struck by the 
gentleman offering it. I thought it was dangerous for the gentleman to 
offer this amendment to a Native American housing program which cracked 
down on illegal immigrants, because I think the Native Americans' 
response would have been, why didn't we think of that? So it was 
probably good for all of us that he decided prudence overruled his 
decision to offer it.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.


                  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. 7 by Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. King of Iowa.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


              Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Westmoreland) 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 112, 
noes 298, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 856]

                               AYES--112

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)

[[Page H10194]]


     Stearns
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                               NOES--298

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Andrews
     Carter
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Gohmert
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kucinich
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Reynolds
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Shimkus
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Visclosky
     Watson
     Weller
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1325

  Messrs. BOYD of Florida, BERRY, MELANCON, CUMMINGS, PICKERING, BARTON 
of Texas, ALTMIRE, BARTLETT of Maryland, JONES of Ohio, Ms. BERKLEY, 
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, and Ms. KILPATRICK changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WELDON of Florida, SMITH of Texas, FRANKS of Arizona, 
BURGESS, LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, and BRADY of Texas changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 263, 
noes 146, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 857]

                               AYES--263

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Dicks
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                               NOES--146

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Castor
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortuno
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Olver

[[Page H10195]]


     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Andrews
     Calvert
     Carter
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     Doggett
     Faleomavaega
     Gohmert
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hooley
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kucinich
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Shimkus
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Visclosky
     Watson
     Weller
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1333

  Mr. HARE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Price) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 228, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 858]

                               AYES--184

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     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
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                               NOES--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     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
     Cooper
     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
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     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)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     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
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Andrews
     Carter
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Faleomavaega
     Gohmert
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hooley
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kucinich
     McCarthy (NY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Shimkus
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Visclosky
     Watson
     Weller
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1342

  Ms. GIFFORDS changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SHUSTER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the 
rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Israel) having assumed the chair, Mr. Costa, 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. 2786) to 
reauthorize the programs for housing assistance for Native Americans, 
pursuant to House Resolution 633, he reported the bill back to the 
House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 333, 
nays 75, not voting 24, as follows:

[[Page H10196]]

                             [Roll No. 859]

                               YEAS--333

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                                NAYS--75

     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Coble
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Drake
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Andrews
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     Gohmert
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hooley
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kucinich
     McCarthy (NY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Shimkus
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Visclosky
     Watson
     Weller
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BRADY of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________