[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22376-22379]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    HURRICANE KATRINA EMERGENCY RELIEF CDBG FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2005

  Mr. BAKER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3896) to temporarily suspend, for communities affected by 
Hurricane Katrina, certain requirements under the community development 
block grant program, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3896

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Hurricane Katrina Emergency 
     Relief CDBG Flexibility Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF PUBLIC SERVICES CAP.

       (a) Units of General Local Government and Indian Tribes.--
       (1) Suspension for directly affected communities.--The 
     percentage limitations under paragraph (8) of section 105(a) 
     of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5305(a)(8)) on the amount of assistance under title I 
     of such Act that may be used for the provision of public 
     services by a unit of general local government or Indian 
     tribe that is, or is within, a directly affected community 
     (as such term is defined in section 4 of this Act) shall not 
     apply with respect to any of fiscal years 2005 through 2008 
     for such unit of general local government or Indian tribe.
       (2) Authority to suspend for indirectly affected 
     communities.--For any indirectly affected community (as such 
     term is defined in section 4 of this Act), the Secretary may 
     waive the applicability, for such period during the fiscal 
     years referred to in paragraph (1) as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate, of the percentage limitations under paragraph 
     (8) of section 105(a) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(8)) on the amount 
     of assistance under title I of such Act that may be used for 
     the provision of public services by a unit of general local 
     government or Indian tribe that is, or is within, such 
     indirectly affected community. In determining the period for 
     which to waive such limitations, the Secretary shall take 
     into consideration the specific economic circumstances of 
     each such indirectly affected community.
       (b) Nonentitlement Communities.--Assistance provided under 
     title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 
     may be used for the provision of public services in any 
     directly affected community (as such term is defined in 
     section 4 of this Act) without regard to the percentage 
     limitations under paragraph (8) of section 105(a) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(8)) on the amount of assistance that may 
     be used statewide in nonentitlement communities for such 
     activities and any such amounts so used in any directly 
     affected community shall not be considered for purposes of 
     such statewide limitations.

     SEC. 3. SUSPENSION OF PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall, with respect to a 
     grant under section 106 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5306) for fiscal year 2006 
     for any unit of general local government or Indian tribe that 
     is, or is located in, a directly affected community, waive or 
     specify alternative requirements for the public hearing 
     requirements specified under subsection (b).
       (b) Public Hearing Requirements.--The public hearing 
     requirements specified under this subsection are--
       (1) the requirement under section 104(a)(2)(C) of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5304(a)(2)(C)) to hold public hearings;
       (2) the requirements under subparagraphs (D) and (F) of 
     section 104(a)(3) of such Act to make certifications in the 
     detailed citizenship participation plan regarding public 
     hearings; and
       (3) any requirement pursuant to section 106(d)(7)(C) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 5306(d)(7)(C)) to hold public hearings.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall 
     apply:
       (1) Directly affected community.--The term ``directly 
     affected community'' means a unit of general local government 
     or area for which the President has declared a major disaster 
     under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) in connection with 
     Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita.
       (2) Indirectly affected community.--The term ``indirectly 
     affected community'' means a unit of general local government 
     or area that--
       (A) is a metropolitan city, urban county, or Indian tribe 
     (as such terms are defined in section 102(a) of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5304(a));
       (B) is not, and is not within, a directly affected 
     community; and
       (C) is determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development to have been significantly affected economically 
     by the occurrence of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita 
     (including economic effects from the presence of persons 
     evacuated from an area for which the President has declared a 
     major disaster in connection with Hurricane Katrina or 
     Hurricane Rita).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).
  Mr. BAKER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3896, the Hurricane 
Katrina Emergency Relief CDBG Flexibility Act of 2005. Many local 
officials are quite familiar with the provisions of the CDBG block 
grant program, which enables local communities to meet needs at their 
discretion. Within the body of the existing rules that govern the 
applicability of these funds, however, there is a provision that 
restrains the utilization of money for certain purposes to no more than 
15 percent of the total funds made available.
  For example, the prohibited areas are limited areas and are known as 
public services, would include activities such as crime prevention. If 
a community wished to spend more than 15 percent of its block grant on 
crime-related services, it would be prohibited from doing so now under 
the current rule.
  Further defined under the definition of public services are homebuyer 
down payment assistance, fair housing counseling, health services and 
child care. So in the affected area of the Katrina disaster, if a 
community wished to help individuals get access to homeownership with a 
homebuyer down payment assistance program, they would be limited in the 
scope of those funds to only 15 percent being made available for that 
activity.

[[Page 22377]]

  This bill merely lifts temporarily that 15 percent limitation on CDBG 
block grants.
  I think it is a very good way to provide needed resources within 
local communities to meet the needs as they best see them. Of course, 
the grant is still subject to all the normal review and processes, so 
there is accountability for utilization, but it simply creates more 
flexibility within local governments to meet the needs of the 
communities as a result of these dire circumstances.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, today we stand here in the aftermath of Hurricane 
Katrina, considering uses for the community development block grant to 
address the housing and infrastructure crisis wrought upon us by 
Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Madam Speaker, it is ironic 
because it was not more than a few months ago that I stood with my 
colleagues, opposed to the administration's attempt to block grant CDBG 
to the States and to move CDBG and 17 other programs to the Commerce 
Department. I am so pleased that did not happen.
  Today, based upon the proven merits of this program, based on the 
effectiveness and consistency of a statutory mission, based on the need 
to quickly and effectively provide relief, the administration is now 
looking to CDBG, and I support that. H.R. 3896 attempts to make two 
major temporary changes to the community development block grant. H.R. 
3896 seeks to weigh the public services cap, which is currently set at 
15 percent, and which I support, that is, with a caveat, and H.R. 3896 
seeks to waive the requirement for public hearings concerning the use 
of CDBG funds, and I am concerned about that.
  Madam Speaker, at the core of CDBG is its original statutory goal to 
develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and 
suitable living environments and the expansion of economic 
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.
  When I traveled to Baton Rouge and New Orleans, I toured the 
devastation, the homelessness and the desperation that had been created 
by this disaster. This hurricane certainly exacerbated the poverty and 
lack of education, lack of economic opportunity that has plagued New 
Orleans and surrounding areas throughout the gulf, specifically the 
African-American population.
  This hurricane has shown a virtual spotlight on problems that are 
emblematic of inner cities all across this country. I spoke to people 
about their needs and their hopes for their immediate future. The one 
thing that was consistent, the one thing that was unchanging, was the 
determination of people to return home.
  Madam Speaker, community development block grant is a proven program 
that provides critical infrastructure resources, and it is a program 
that can help Katrina victims in their stated goal of returning home. 
CDBG is one of the best mechanisms that we can employ to help in the 
reconstruction of the gulf region, because it puts money in the hands 
of the community and the city government, and they know what to do with 
it. Furthermore, it is directed to rebuild critical infrastructure, 
which is a step or step one in reestablishing community. But, again, 
that amounts at best to flexibility and at worse a little more than a 
legislative process, exercise.
  H.R. 3896 provides no additional resources to the directly affected 
areas. Rather, this bill simply creates programmatic waivers which will 
allow flexibility but not expansion.
  Let me just say this: We all agree at this critical moment that CDBG 
is a great program. Many of us have thought to expand CDBG, because it 
is such a great program. This program helps large cities, small towns, 
communities, not only to repair its infrastructure but to provide 
services that cannot be provided in any other way because there are no 
other resources to provide these services.
  My colleague from Louisiana just identified a number of those 
services, helping people with down payment, helping with child care, 
helping with other programs. I would have hoped that we could have 
expanded this program. We could deal with the identified needs, not 
only of New Orleans but the other parishes and the surrounding 
communities and with Mississippi, Gulfport, and Alabama, but because 
CDBG is proven to be able to help move whole cities and communities 
from communities and cities where they have disproportionate poverty 
that they have no resources to deal with.
  I am pleased that we have it here today so that we can lift the cap, 
and they will have a little bit more flexibility. Ladies and gentlemen, 
I want this to be a lesson for us, a lesson for us all, that we should 
not only fight to maintain CDBG in HUD and not transfer it out to 
Department of Commerce, where we would get people who do not know what 
to do with it, do not know how to administer it and would only mess it 
up; but that we would expand it so that we would have the resources to 
deal with housing crises, because this is a great program to deal with 
housing needs in every city and every town across this country that is 
eligible for it.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), our ranking member, to further support 
CDBG.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, this is a bill that is broadly, probably 
unanimously, supported, or overwhelmingly; and it reflects a good deal 
of conversation. We appreciate the willingness of the Members on the 
majority side to come together. Obviously, there continue to be some 
differences between us on some policy issues; but in terms of 
responding to this emergency, those are not things that should get in 
the way. I think both sides showed a spirit of cooperation. The 
majority was very helpful, and we have legislation that can be widely 
supported.
  But, once again, the problem is what it does is good, but what it 
does not do is not so good. In particular in this case we ought to be 
substantially increasing the CDBG funding. Now, we are not the 
Committee on Appropriations. We do have an authorizing power.
  Giving the people the ability to spend on more things but not more 
money is better than nothing, but not nearly good enough. CDBG needs 
the kinds of things that CDBG does, both for the larger communities of 
50,000 or more, called ``entitlement cities,'' but also what we should 
be doing here is providing to the Governors of the affected States 
funding which they could use in their CDBG programming, because they 
get one-third of it, for those communities that are in areas of less 
than 50,000 population, that is, they are the Small Communities 
Program, and we should be increasing the funding there. I hope at an 
appropriate time we will do that, because these communities are going 
to need a great deal of help.
  The CDBG program is one of the logical ways to do it. We know how to 
spend here. It is a program which has had virtually no scandal, to my 
knowledge. It is a program which works well, and simply expanding this 
existing funding mechanism would be one very good way to get money to 
people very quickly in ways they know how to spend.
  But I also should note, as the gentlewoman from California noted, I 
guess in some ways those of us who have been advocates of an active 
government role in the housing and community development areas can feel 
somewhat more supported today than we often are on this floor, because 
we have now had three bills in a row which take advantage of the 
existence of federally funded programs which have a lot of critics 
around here.
  We have had proposals from the administration this year, from HUD, to 
dismantle in their existing form both the voucher program and the CDBG 
program. There was a proposal to block grant the voucher program. Block 
granting, by the way is what people do to programs they do not like. I 
have been here a long time. Nobody in my memory has ever proposed block 
granting a Federal program which he or she supported.

[[Page 22378]]

  What we had basically was an effort to cut back on the voucher 
program. What we are doing now is taking the concept of the voucher 
program and greatly expanding it, through FEMA funding; but, yes, it is 
a voucher program that has not only proven its worth but is a lifeline 
at a time when we need one. It would have been a bad thing if we would 
have had to invent such a program right now because of all the startup 
problems you would have.
  Similarly, as the gentlewoman from California pointed out, this 
administration proposed the most hair-brained reorganization of the 
Community Development Block Grant program imaginable. They took the 
Community Development Block Grant, which aids communities, they took 
the Community Services Block Grant, which deals with poverty, they took 
the Community Development Financial Institutions, which deals with 
economic development in cities, and decided to put them all in the 
Commerce Department.
  CDBG and CSBG have a particular impact on poverty. I think what 
happened was they had a contest over there in the administration, maybe 
one of those lotteries they have when they try to help 1 percent of the 
people that need housing, and they decided to find the Federal 
Department that had the least orientation towards helping poor people, 
so they could take these programs that help poor people and give it to 
that Department.
  So we took it out of HUD, and we took it out of the Health and Human 
Services Department, and they took programs out of Labor, and they sent 
them to the Department of Commerce, I think on the grounds that the 
Department of Commerce really did not know enough about poverty, and 
this is a way for them to learn. I am all for educating people, but not 
by giving them Federal programs as their blocks.
  So what we have today is an affirmation in this bill of the 
importance of the Community Development Block Grant program as a proven 
mechanism for getting aid out.
  Again, I want to say, and I suppose this will cause a little 
friction, maybe some people will have to disassociate themselves, but I 
do appreciate the difference between the members of our committee on 
the majority side in their approach to these things and the 
administration. Unlike the administration, which had as its intention 
dismantling these things, and we, I think were not going to act on 
that, we are here trying to build on them.
  Of course, there is always room for improvement. We have been having 
some conversations about how to improve the voucher program, how to 
streamline it, how to make it more efficient. But substantially 
diminishing it would have been a mistake. So I am very pleased.
  Of course, that was also the case with rural housing, because one of 
the things I hope we will do in the near future, in the next few 
months, this year or next year, is to go to the rural housing program 
and take some steps that will preserve that as a source of affordable 
housing.
  There are trends and various complications that we do not need to go 
into here now, which, if not confronted, we could lose that housing. So 
we have a recognition today of the importance of the concept of the 
voucher program. We have a recognition of the importance of the 
Community Development Block Grant mechanism in delivering services with 
Federal funding. We have a recognition of the importance of preserving 
and using that rural housing stock. I hope all of those will go 
forward.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do want to repeat again, these steps are 
useful. They leave us with a lot to do. The problem is that the Bush 
administration at this point has zero proposals that will respond to 
the longer-term needs of these affected communities. I am told these 
proposals are coming, and I do not doubt some of my colleagues will be 
coming forward with them.
  But we did have a speech from the President of the United States in 
which he outlined his plans; and the one I looked at very closely was 
his housing plan, his housing plan consisting of an effort to find 
existing Federal properties that the Federal Government does not want 
or need and have a lottery, so a very small percentage, 1 or 2 percent 
of the people in need, can get Federal property and zero dollars from 
any source that we control to help make them into housing. And that, 
let us be clear, that is the sum total of the President's proposal for 
the longer term. It is wholly inadequate.
  We have made a step here today. I look forward to our being back on 
this floor in coming months to talk about a broader set of proposals 
for community development, for housing and for other things; and I hope 
at the time we will keep in mind the importance of building on and 
improving these existing programs and continue to reject the kind of 
radical dismantling that the administration has proposed, and instead 
to try and have their return to the 19th century with the concept of 
homesteading, which is inappropriate, inadequate, and ill thought out.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment, but a heartfelt comment, 
about my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) as to the true 
bipartisan manner in which these matters have been debated, considered, 
and supported.
  I also want to make known that the administration has exhibited great 
concern, the President visiting the affected areas now many times, the 
various agency Secretaries, an innumerable number of Federal employees, 
occupying one of the former largest department stores in our community 
in an operations center that we have never seen anything like before. 
Although inefficient at times, never meeting anyone's expectations 
appropriately, many people, volunteers as well as paid employees, have 
spent now countless hours on the ground in all of the communities that 
are affected.
  It is indeed a disaster beyond one's comprehension, and the remedies 
offered will take considerable time. There is no magic wand in any 
Department of the government, State, Federal or local, one can wave and 
make the hurt go away. This is going to take a decade, if not longer. 
Restoration of the levees to a category 5 integrity, environmental 
remediation to remove the siltation that was deposited, restoration of 
bridges and structures to provide people merely access to the 
communities in which they once resided, restoration of employer 
opportunities so people can have jobs, and schools need to be built so 
kids can get an education, fire stations and police stations must be 
built to provide for civil order, this is no small task.
  So I say to my colleagues in the United States House, I am deeply 
appreciative of your kind expressions of concern and offers of 
assistance. In fact, one of the barriers to speeding up assistance, I 
wanted, along with Chairman Ney, to create a House Intranet, just for 
House Members. I had Members who went to FEMA with resources they 
wanted to volunteer to give to us in our communities, and they could 
not get through the regulatory processes to do it in any reasonable 
time.
  I am now told if I were to propose, which I intend to do, the 
establishment of a Web page on the official services of the House on 
which Members could voluntarily list assets which they would make 
available to communities to be used freely for restoration of services 
in small towns across the gulf coast, that would be a violation of 
House ethics, using official resources for a charitable solicitation.
  I am asking Members to join on to a letter asking that the rules be 
waived or, if necessary, an act be passed on this House floor, to allow 
those Members who have come up to me and said, I would like to offer 
this, to be able to offer that to the mayors, police systems and those 
affected across the stricken region.
  My point is there is great empathy here in this body when disaster 
strikes this country. I am very appreciative of that. I merely ask 
going forward that we continue to work in a bipartisan manner as we 
propose remedies coming

[[Page 22379]]

from those in the affected communities that we believe appropriate and 
responsible.
  I do not wish to leave this day without expressing the view held by 
all members of the Louisiana House delegation: we understand this is 
United States taxpayers' money. We understand there are people in jobs 
across this country working to pay their bills; and we are asking, 
through you, to take their money and give it to us. Certainly we have 
need, but we also understand there should be accountability. It should 
be transparent, and any abusive practice should be held accountable; 
and people who take advantage of this circumstance should be held to 
the measure of conduct that is appropriate.
  So I say to my Members of the House, continue to work with us. We 
understand your obligation to protect the public trust, but we have to 
balance that with the needs of people who are now the victims of the 
greatest natural disaster in our Nation's history. I assure you, we 
will do our part. We will introduce a bill to provide for permanent 
resolution of our housing disaster, and I hope you will give it the 
care and concern you have demonstrated today.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague on the opposite side 
of the aisle, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), that I agree 
with him that there should be a mechanism by which people who have 
goods and services to donate to these small towns and these parishes, 
there should be a way by which they should be able to do that; and I 
would support such an effort. Because as I traveled throughout my 
community, in the churches where we talked about this disaster, I had 
many of the parishioners say to me that they owned land in Louisiana or 
in Texas and they would like to donate their land for the siting of 
manufactured housing or even for RVs or something of that nature. They 
were not sure, but they knew they wanted to put the land to use for the 
victims of the hurricane. So I think we should find a way by which to 
do that.
  In addition, CDBG is such a good program that I could not help but 
wonder as I sat here whether or not some of the money that may not be 
well spent in FEMA should be transferred in some way over to CDBG. 
Because, again, I wonder about those persons who lost their homes and 
all of their furnishings and they have no flood insurance. They will 
receive FEMA assistance of $26,000, some of which will go toward rent, 
and then it will run out, but the house is still left there, to be 
rehabilitated if it can be, or to be rebuilt and furnishings need to be 
purchased, et cetera, et cetera. It seems to me that CDBG would be a 
wonderful way by which to do rehabbing of housing and reestablishing of 
housing and homes.

                              {time}  1630

  I am just wondering aloud and hopeful that we will all give it some 
very, very deep thought, about how we can truly be of assistance to 
these victims long after the FEMA assistance is no longer operative or 
the Red Cross assistance is no longer operative.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3896, the 
Hurricane Katrina Emergency Relief CDBG Flexibility Act of 2005. This 
legislation would temporarily remove the public services cap on a 
locality's Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, funds and would 
waive the program's public hearing requirement for Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita affected areas.
  In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Federal and 
local governments now face the Herculean task of coordinating the 
relocation of thousands upon thousands of individuals and families 
whose lives have been torn apart by devastation and rising flood 
waters.
  This bill would allow communities affected by Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita to receive grants under the CDBG program in an expedited fashion. 
First, temporarily removing the public services cap would give affected 
communities flexibility in applying grant funds to hurricane affected 
areas. Second, although the community participation provision is an 
important part of the CDBG program, it is not currently feasible for 
affected localities to hold a public hearing. In the interest of time, 
temporarily removing the public hearing requirement would allow funding 
to be dispersed more efficiently so that affected communities may begin 
the rebuilding process.
  In times like these, it is more important than ever for Americans to 
stand united in helping our fellow citizens. The House of 
Representatives will continue to stand with the people of the gulf 
coast throughout this effort, and we encourage Americans who want to 
help to contact charitable organizations in their area. America has 
overcome challenges in the past. As members of the House and 
specifically the Financial Services Committee, we are prepared to roll 
up our sleeves and do the hard work to overcome this tragedy. Giving 
communities easier access to their CDBG dollars is just one step in the 
process of helping those who have been affected by Katrina and Rita's 
waters.
  I would like to thank Housing Subcommittee Chairman Bob Ney for his 
expeditious work in sending this bill to the floor. I would also like 
to thank Chairman Richard Baker, Congressman Barney Frank, and 
Congresswoman Maxine Waters for their bipartisan support in moving this 
bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3896, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________