[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20234-20244]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 558 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3074.

                              {time}  1120


                     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 further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Weiner (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday, 
July 23, 2007, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) had been postponed and the bill had 
been read through page 67, line 2.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        Housing Certificate Fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances, including recaptures and 
     carryover, remaining from funds appropriated to the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development under this 
     heading, the heading ``Annual Contributions for Assisted 
     Housing'', the heading ``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'', 
     and the heading ``Project-Based Rental Assistance'', for 
     fiscal year 2007 and prior years, $1,300,000,000 is 
     rescinded, to be effected by the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development no later than September 30, 2008: Provided, 
     That if insufficient funds exist under these headings, the 
     remaining balance may be derived from any other heading under 
     this title: Provided further, That the Secretary shall notify 
     the Committees on Appropriations 30 days in advance of the 
     rescission of any funds derived from the headings specified 
     above: Provided further, That any such balances governed by 
     reallocation provisions under the statute authorizing the 
     program for which the funds were originally appropriated 
     shall be available for the rescission: Provided further, That 
     any obligated balances of contract authority from fiscal year 
     1974 and prior that have been terminated shall be cancelled.


                    Project-Based Rental Assistance

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities and assistance for the provision of project-
     based subsidy contracts under the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) (``the Act''), not otherwise 
     provided for, $6,479,810,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the amounts made available under 
     this heading are provided as follows:
       (1) Up to $6,239,122,000 for expiring or terminating 
     section 8 project-based subsidy contracts (including section 
     8 moderate rehabilitation contracts), for amendments to 
     section 8 project-based subsidy contracts (including section 
     8 moderate rehabilitation contracts), for contracts entered 
     into pursuant to section 441 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11401), for renewal of section 8 
     contracts for units in projects that are subject to approved 
     plans of action under the Emergency Low Income

[[Page 20235]]

     Housing Preservation Act of 1987 or the Low-Income Housing 
     Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, and for 
     administrative and other expenses associated with project-
     based activities and assistance funded under this paragraph.
       (2) Not less than $238,728,000 but not to exceed 
     $286,230,000 for performance-based contract administrators 
     for section 8 project-based assistance: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may also use such 
     amounts for performance-based contract administrators for: 
     interest reduction payments pursuant to section 236(a) of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1(a)); rent supplement 
     payments pursuant to section 101 of the Housing and Urban 
     Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s); section 236(f)(2) 
     rental assistance payments (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1(f)(2)); project 
     rental assistance contracts for the elderly under section 
     202(c)(2) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q); 
     project rental assistance contracts for supportive housing 
     for persons with disabilities under section 811(d)(2) of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 
     8013(d)(2)); project assistance contracts pursuant to section 
     202(h) of the Housing Act of 1959 (Public Law 86-372; 73 
     Stat. 667); and loans under section 202 of the Housing Act of 
     1959 (Public Law 86-372; 73 Stat. 667).
       (3) $1,960,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital 
     Fund.
       (4) Amounts recaptured under this heading, the heading 
     ``Annual Contributions for Assisted Housing'', or the heading 
     ``Housing Certificate Fund'' may be used for renewals of or 
     amendments to section 8 project-based contracts or for 
     performance-based contract administrators, notwithstanding 
     the purposes for which such amounts were appropriated.


                      Public Housing Capital Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Public Housing Capital Fund Program to carry out 
     capital and management activities for public housing 
     agencies, as authorized under section 9 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g) (the ``Act'') 
     $2,438,964,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, during fiscal year 2008 the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development may not delegate to any Department 
     official other than the Deputy Secretary and the Assistant 
     Secretary for Public and Indian Housing any authority under 
     paragraph (2) of section 9(j) regarding the extension of the 
     time periods under such section: Provided further, That for 
     purposes of such section 9(j), the term ``obligate'' means, 
     with respect to amounts, that the amounts are subject to a 
     binding agreement that will result in outlays, immediately or 
     in the future: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided under this heading, up to $10,890,000 shall be for 
     carrying out activities under section 9(h) of such Act; up to 
     $10,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund; 
     and up to $15,345,000 shall be to support the ongoing Public 
     Housing Financial and Physical Assessment activities of the 
     Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC): Provided further, That 
     no funds may be used under this heading for the purposes 
     specified in section 9(k) of the Act: Provided further, That 
     of the total amount provided under this heading, up to 
     $17,000,000 shall be available for the Secretary to make 
     grants, notwithstanding section 204 of this Act, to public 
     housing agencies for emergency capital needs resulting from 
     unforeseen or unpreventable emergencies and natural disasters 
     occurring in fiscal year 2008: Provided further, That of the 
     total amount provided under this heading, $38,000,000 shall 
     be for supportive services, service coordinators and 
     congregate services as authorized by section 34 of the Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1437z-6) and the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 
     et seq.): Provided further, That of the total amount provided 
     under this heading up to $8,820,000 is to support the costs 
     of administrative and judicial receiverships.


                     Public Housing Operating Fund

       For 2008 payments to public housing agencies for the 
     operation and management of public housing, as authorized by 
     section 9(e) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437g(e)), $4,200,000,000: Provided, That in fiscal 
     year 2008 and all fiscal years hereafter, no amounts under 
     this heading in any appropriations Act may be used for 
     payments to public housing agencies for the costs of 
     operation and management of public housing for any year prior 
     to the current year of such Act: Provided further, That no 
     funds may be used under this heading for the purposes 
     specified in section 9(k) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937.


          Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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. 26 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
       Page 72, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $20,000,000) (increased by $20,000,000)''.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment with my friends, Ms. Barbara Lee of California and Ms. 
Corrine Brown of Florida, which emphasizes the need for HUD to place a 
greater priority on the security in our Nation's public housing 
communities.
  Indeed, I applaud the work of Chairman Olver and Ranking Member 
Knollenberg, and I am very supportive of their bill.
  However, a recent criminal act that occurred in the district that I 
am privileged to represent demands a response. I won't go into the 
details because it was a brutal act that was done allegedly by 10 young 
men in a project referred to, known as Dunbar Village.
  Until 2002, there was a program at HUD that funded security and 
safety in public housing communities. A footnote right here: I recently 
spoke with the inspector of HUD, who informed me that you cannot have 
good public housing without good security.
  However, in 2001, the Bush administration felt that the Public 
Housing Drug Elimination Program had a limited impact and did not 
reflect HUD's core mission. When the drug elimination program was 
consolidated with the public housing operating fund, a grant of 
$168,000 for securities services was cut just from the West Palm Beach 
Housing Authority, which overseas Dunbar village.
  Mr. Chairman, this incident has demonstrated that the Public Housing 
Drug Elimination Program had a far-reaching impact in reducing all 
forms of crime in public housing facilities.
  Our amendment sends a message to HUD to the tune of $20 million that 
the Department has a responsibility and the authority to fund security 
programs in public housing facilities around this Nation's communities. 
At this funding level, 10 percent of the $200 million increase in the 
account could fund security programs in over 100 public housing 
communities. These functions include employing security personnel, 
reimbursing local police for additional security services, making 
physical changes to improve security, funding community policing 
accreditation activities, as well as training and equipping voluntary 
tenant patrols.
  HUD should recognize this amendment and the despicable incident, like 
the one that occurred in my district, and others around this Nation as 
clear indication that they need to do more to improve the safety in 
their facilities. Unfortunately, it takes violent acts such as the one 
that I have discussed for us to open our eyes and for Congress to begin 
reversing funding trends and program adjustments that have left our 
communities vulnerable.
  This amendment does not place an undue burden on the desperately 
needed increase in the public housing operating fund. While all of the 
$200 million increase could be used for activities prioritized in this 
amendment, we rise today to call attention to the need for secure 
public housing.
  Once again, I commend Chairman Olver and Ranking Member Knollenberg 
for their work on this legislation and including the $200 million 
increase in the public housing operating fund. It is our hope that this 
amendment is a welcome contribution to their work.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to begin demanding 
that incidents like those experienced by the residents of Dunbar 
Village never occur again.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. I want to thank my colleague from Florida for bringing 
this issue to light.
  Mr. Chairman, all of our public housing and section 8 residents 
deserve to live in a safe environment. We have done our best to ensure 
that PHAs have adequate resources to address the security issues.
  The gentleman from Florida is correct, that there were public housing 
Drug Elimination Grants, a separate item in the budgets up until the 
fiscal year 2001 budget. The last time we had

[[Page 20236]]

that separate program for Drug Elimination Grants, the appropriation 
for that was around $300 million on a nationwide basis for securing, 
for employing security personnel and employing local police and other 
additional security services that were necessary.
  At that time, in the fiscal year 2001 budget, the Drug Elimination 
Grants were combined with the operating fund. Since that time, the 
housing authorities, the public housing authorities have had the 
authority to use monies that were in the operating fund for the 
purposes that had been previously done with the direct Drug Elimination 
Grants.
  So we, as my colleague from Florida has pointed out, we no longer 
have the direct Drug Elimination Grants, but all of the functions of 
those grants may be funded at the discretion of the individual public 
housing authorities under the operating funds or under the capital 
funds. I support the use of either of those funds for the important 
functions of safety and security for our public housing residents.
  I am happy to work with the gentleman in the future on this issue. I 
thank the gentleman for bringing the issue to the discussion today and 
thereby highlighting the problem, which is severe in some cases, but 
the resources, as we have indicated, as he has indicated, and we have 
already done, have been added.
  We have added $200 million this year above the President's request 
for the operating fund of the public housing authorities, and that 
should give them the necessary money to do, where it is needed, as they 
deem appropriate, as the public housing authorities deem appropriate, 
the drug elimination activities. I am very pleased that the gentleman 
has brought the issue to the discussion today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words about 
why the Drug Elimination Grant Program was eliminated back in 2005.
  It was terminated in 2005 after numerous reports and investigations 
revealed that the program had been greatly abused and that funds were 
being spent for completely inappropriate activities ranging from 
picnics to conferences. Further, as a competitive grant program, HUD 
had difficulty receiving qualified applicants, and much of the funds 
went unspent. In fact, at the time it was terminated, almost 2 years of 
funds remained unspent.
  Instead, the Congress wisely, rather, increased the formula, the 
operating subsidy program, that has continued to significantly increase 
that program each and every year. As my colleague's amendment suggests, 
every activity funded by the former Drug Elimination Grant program is 
eligible for funding under the operating subsidy program. I think the 
chairman mentioned that.
  This is a better way to achieve the Members' objectives, since these 
funds are sent to the PHAs by formula, so no competition or plan is 
required, and because there is certainty of funding.
  Most importantly, it leaves it up to the PHA to determine the 
priorities of use of those funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of the time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1130

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


     Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing (Hope VI)

       For grants to public housing agencies for demolition, site 
     revitalization, replacement housing, and tenant-based 
     assistance grants to projects as authorized by section 24 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v) 
     $120,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008, 
     of which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may 
     use up to $2,400,000 for technical assistance and contract 
     expertise, to be provided directly or indirectly by grants, 
     contracts or cooperative agreements, including training and 
     cost of necessary travel for participants in such training, 
     by or to officials and employees of the department and of 
     public housing agencies and to residents: Provided, That none 
     of such funds shall be used directly or indirectly by 
     granting competitive advantage in awards to settle litigation 
     or pay judgments, unless expressly permitted herein.


                  Native American Housing Block Grants

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Native American Housing Block Grants program, as 
     authorized under title I of the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (``NAHASDA'') 
     (25 U.S.C. 4111 et seq.), $626,965,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding the Native 
     American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 
     1996, to determine the amount of the allocation under title I 
     of such Act for each Indian tribe, the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development shall apply the formula under section 
     302 of such Act (25 U.S.C. 4152) with the need component 
     based on single-race Census data and with the need component 
     based on multi-race Census data, and the amount of the 
     allocation for each Indian tribe shall be the greater of the 
     two resulting allocation amounts: Provided further, That of 
     the amounts made available under this heading, $4,250,000 
     shall be to support the inspection of Indian housing units, 
     contract expertise, training, and technical assistance in the 
     training, oversight, and management of such Indian housing 
     and tenant-based assistance, including up to $300,000 for 
     related travel: Provided further, That of the amount provided 
     under this heading, $1,980,000 shall be made available for 
     the cost of guaranteed notes and other obligations, as 
     authorized by title VI of NAHASDA (25 U.S.C. 4191 et seq.): 
     Provided further, That such costs, including the costs of 
     modifying such notes and other obligations, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a): Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize the total principal amount of any 
     notes and other obligations, any part of which is to be 
     guaranteed, not to exceed $17,000,000: Provided further, That 
     for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
     program, up to $148,500 from amounts in the third proviso, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses''.


                  native hawaiian housing block grant

       For the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program, as 
     authorized under title VIII of the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4221 
     et seq.), $8,727,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $299,211 shall be for training and technical assistance 
     activities.


              Amendment No. 14 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. 14 offered by Mr. Westmoreland:
       Page 74, strike lines 15 through 21.

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply eliminate 
the $8.7 million for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program. 
The 2007 level was $8.7 million, and the President requested $5.9 
million for fiscal year 2008. This would simply eliminate it.
  These funds, this Native Hawaiian Housing fund, has been funded since 
2002. So far there has been over $37 million going to the housing fund.
  In the 2000 census, the Native Hawaiians, and there was approximately 
750,000 Native Hawaiians, lived in homes on the island of Hawaii, the 
average medial value was $209,000. The Native Hawaiians that live in 
Georgia, and there is 2,200 of them by the 2000 census, their median 
value home was $111,000.
  These grants can only go to Native Hawaiians on the islands of 
Hawaii. I believe that this is probably unconstitutional in the fact 
that we are doing a set-aside for a racial group, and so I just wanted 
to point that out.
  It is a great opportunity to save some money. It is a great 
opportunity to look and make sure that we are all treated equally and 
that the 14th amendment of our Constitution is kept intact.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.

[[Page 20237]]


  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The 
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program is a small program, a small 
account that makes a big difference in the lives of Native Hawaiians 
who happen to reside on Hawaiian homeland.
  From 2002 through 2005, when the gentleman's party was in the 
majority, Congress funded in each of those years an average of $9.4 
million for this program. We held it to $8.7 million in the 2007 
budget, and have frozen it at the same level as the 2007 budget in the 
recommendation in this budget for the 2008 fiscal year.
  So this is not an increase. We are, in fact, holding it steady for a 
program that has been funded at higher levels earlier when the 
gentleman's party was in the majority and in substantial majority 
control of this process.
  With the funding in the bill, more than 100 Native Hawaiian families 
will be provided with the opportunity for home ownership, including 
counseling, construction, and rental assistance during that process. 
This is one of the HUD programs. We have programs for Native Alaskans, 
we have programs for American Indians and so forth that are helpful in 
providing the hope for home ownership on the part of some of our small 
minorities in our population. I think it is a goal that we should 
support, and I strongly support the program and urge a ``no'' vote on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Westmoreland to eliminate funding for the 
Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program.
  The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant is authorized under title 
VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 
Act (NAHASDA). The 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 (HHCA).
  Due to a variety of factors, including long-term leases for purposes 
outside of the HHCA and the lack of funding for infrastructure, only 
8,000 individuals currently hold leases, and approximately 19,000 
remain on a waiting list, and many of our elderly, our kapuna, have 
died waiting for the dream of home ownership.
  I submit for printing in the Record an article from the Honolulu Star 
Bulletin that introduces these families to us.

            [From the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, July 9, 2006.]

Homestead awards end long wait for lucky few--One Hawaiian homestead is 
         awarded to a woman 57 years after her father applied.

              (By Alexandre Da Silva with Leila Fujimori)

       The line for a homestead was so long for Aloysius Lincoln 
     that he never saw the end of it.
       But yesterday, 57 years after the former Honolulu Gas Co. 
     employee applied for a lease, his daughter claimed the lease 
     awarded for the second phase of a Department of Hawaiian Home 
     Lands project in Kapolei.
       ``Unfortunately, he died two years ago. He was 87,'' said 
     Frances Segundo, 60, who was a baby when her father signed up 
     for the program. ``However, his legacy goes on, because this 
     award is for our ohana, our family.''
       About 2,000 people showed up yesterday morning at the Neal 
     S. Blaisdell Center Exhibition Hall, where the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands awarded 250 lots in Phase 2 and Phase 3 
     of in their Kaupe'a project in Kapolei.
       The 52-acre subdivision has 326 lots, 76 of which were 
     awarded in November 2005.
       Segundo, a clerk at Maui Community College, said her 
     cousin, Naira Martin, would live in the four-bedroom, three-
     bathroom house with her daughter, but there would always be 
     room for another relative.
       ``I'm free from the rent, which is going to be over with,'' 
     said Martin, 56. The $2,000 she pays each month for rent will 
     now go toward her mortgage. ``When the whole family comes 
     from the mainland, Louisiana, they will stay with me. It's a 
     very good feeling.''
       Gov. Linda Lingle, who was present for yesterday's 
     selection meeting, said the latest awards would help the 
     state's shortage of affordable rentals as new homeowners are 
     able to free up rental homes and apartments.
       ``Those units now become available for the general 
     public,'' Lingle said. ``It is better for the entire 
     community.''
       Yesterday's crowd was a fraction of the nearly 20,000 
     native Hawaiians currently on the homestead waiting list, 
     about half of which are on Oahu, said Lloyd Yonenaka, a 
     spokesman for the Hawaiian Home Lands Department.
       Even though more than 1,200 leases have been given out 
     since 2003, the department's waiting list keeps growing, at a 
     pace of about 100 people a month, Yonenaka said.
       To qualify, applicants must have at least 50 percent 
     Hawaiian blood and be pre-approved to afford one of the five 
     Kaupe'a models, which range between $238,600 and $296,100 in 
     lots averaging 5,000 square feet. The lease rent for the land 
     under their homes is $1 per year.
       The first phase of the Kaupe'a project is expected to be 
     completed by the end of the year, while Phase 2 and Phase 3 
     should be done in the first and second quarters of 2007, 
     according to the department.
       As she signed documents for her new lease yesterday, Vivian 
     Perreira, 71, said she would vacate her Maili home in 
     Waianae--where she lives with husband, Alfred, her son and 
     his two children--sometime next year. Perreira said her 
     youngest son, 47-year-old Prince, a refuse truck driver for 
     Rolloffs Hawaii Inc., had to co-sign her application because 
     her Social Security earnings weren't enough for a loan.
       After waiting 48 years for her name to be called, Perreira, 
     now in a wheelchair, will lease a four-bedroom home on a 
     corner lot in Kapolei.
       ``I signed up when I was 23,'' she said. ``I almost gave 
     up, but I left my name on for so long.''
       The federal government set up the Hawaiian Homes Commission 
     Act in 1921, eventually reserving 200,000 acres statewide to 
     benefit native Hawaiians. But development of land to provide 
     homes has been slow, and many families have been on the 
     waiting list for decades.
       Last month the state Supreme Court ruled that 2,700 native 
     Hawaiians can seek monetary damages in a lawsuit against the 
     state for its alleged mismanagement of the Hawaiian Home 
     Lands program.
       Not everyone who came yesterday had a happy story to share. 
     Homes went to 250 families, but 750 people qualified for 
     lots, which are awarded on the basis of seniority. People who 
     have qualified and waited the longest are the next in line 
     for a home.
       Lee Kogler, 54, who has been researching her genealogy for 
     more than 20 years, had to leave without a lease after 
     arriving at 7 a.m. with her husband, daughter, grandson and 
     two sons.
       Kogler turned in her paperwork in 1991. But after marrying 
     and moving to New York, Kogler's application was returned, 
     with the department saying she needed to show the Hawaiian 
     lineage on her father's side. Finally, in 1994, Kogler combed 
     through the bound volumes of records at the state Archives, 
     where she found a Census Bureau report listing her 
     grandmother, Hannah Kaulia, at age 19, living in the house of 
     her father, Samuel, a master carpenter.
       Kogler, who is number 7,954 on the wait list for Oahu, said 
     she would never quit trying for a lease.
       ``It's not a sad day,'' Kogler said, citing plans by the 
     department to award another 300 lots in Kapolei in October. 
     ``I'm still with hope. I've waited a long time for this, and 
     I'm not going to give up.''

  Aloysius Lincoln first applied for Hawaiian Home Lands in 1949. In 
2006, a wait of 57 years, his daughter, Frances Segundo, claimed the 
lease awarded for the second phase of a Department of Hawaiian Home 
Lands project on the Island of Oahu. Frances claimed the lease because 
her father had, unfortunately, passed away 2 years before. Frances 
herself, now 60 years old, was a baby when her father first signed up 
for the program. Frances stated that ``[her father's] legacy goes on 
because this award is for our ohana, our family.''
  That is something I would like this body to remember: That this is 
not just money we are talking about today. We are talking about the 
opportunity for families to live the American dream of home ownership, 
and Native Hawaiian families are among those with the greatest need. A 
study conducted in 1996 by the Urban Institute, the National Commission 
on the American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing, and 
the State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, found that nearly half of 
Hawaiian households and 67 percent of those on waiting lists for 
Hawaiian Homes Lands experienced housing problems related to 
affordability, overcrowding, or structural inadequacy. That compares 
with 44 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives living on tribal 
lands, and 27 percent of all U.S. households.
  In 1992, 49 percent of Hawaiian Home Lands applicants lived in 
overcrowded

[[Page 20238]]

conditions compared with 37 percent of all Hawaiian households, and 21 
percent of non-Hawaiian households. Twenty-eight percent of Hawaiian 
households put more than 30 percent of income toward housing compared 
with 22 percent for non-Hawaiians. The rate of homelessness among 
Hawaiians at 12.2 households per 1,000 is double that of non-Hawaiians.
  In 1982, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of the 
State of Hawaii established a Federal-State task force to renew HHCA 
and the programs carried under that act. The Federal-State task force 
issued a report in 1983 with specific recommendations, including one 
that the State and Federal Government should each make contributions of 
$29 million per year to accelerate the program.
  For the first time in 2000, Federal funding was made available when 
housing assistance for Native Hawaiians was added to NAHASDA through 
the Native Hawaiian Block Grant. This amendment follows what I sense is 
a developing pattern of challenges to programs benefiting Native 
American, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian people.
  The earlier failed challenge to the previously uncontroversial Native 
Hawaiian Housing Act earlier this year was the first apparent salvo 
against Native American programs. The attempt to strike funds in the 
Labor and Education appropriations bill for the Alaska Native, Native 
Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and the Higher Education Act raises the 
concerns that all programs benefiting Native Americans will be 
subjected to attack by certain groups.
  The same arguments of constitutionality of these programs benefiting 
Native Americans have been raised and rejected by this body time and 
again. This is not race-based discrimination. The relationship between 
the United States and Native Americans is based on a political 
relationship, as Supreme Court decisions have consistently held.
  Like other indigenous peoples, such as Native Americans and Alaska 
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 Native Americans and Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians 
suffered the loss of their sovereignty and lands to the United States.
  I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but for these and many other reasons, I 
strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  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, apparently we are going to have to 
come to the floor over and over on this. I would appreciate it if the 
gentleman from the Eighth District of Georgia representing the people 
in Grantville, who I presume have more courtesy than the gentleman from 
that district has, could let us know besides the smirk on his face when 
he intends to come and attack someone else in another district. I don't 
know how you were raised; I know how I was raised.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind the gentleman to address 
his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am confining my remarks to the Chair, because if I 
was saying it directly to the gentleman, he would know it a lot more 
physically.
  Now, the way I was raised, when you have something to say to 
somebody, you come and say it to their face. Now, if the gentleman 
would like to accompany me sometime out to Hawaii, I will introduce him 
to some of these folks that he is attacking today.
  This act was established by the Congress, and every single dollar and 
every single item associated with that has been set forth by the 
Congress over time. The President of the United States, Republican or 
Democrat, including this President, has put these funds in the budget 
in order to meet the obligations of the contract.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with how the gentleman from 
the Eighth District of Georgia handles contracts, but we honor them 
where I come from.
  There is 200,000 acres set aside, and the original legislation states 
as follows, section 1065-569, I commend to the gentleman's attention: 
``Congress does not extend services to Native Hawaiians because of 
their race, but because of their unique status as the indigenous people 
of a once sovereign nation as to whom the United States has established 
a trust relationship.''
  The Admissions Act that brought us into the Union as the 50th State 
says specifically that, with regard to these lands, the Hawaiian Homes 
Lands, that they are to be administered by the State of Hawaii and the 
United States ``for the betterment of the conditions of Native 
Hawaiians as defined under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920.'' 
And it goes on from there to cite what is involved.
  Now, the block grant program provides funds for infrastructure to 
help Native Hawaiians obtain mortgages on lands set aside for them from 
Congress. Because of the conditions set out by the Congress, ordinary 
financing is not available to them. This is why we have to do it. If 
the gentleman had had the courtesy to sit down for 2 minutes with us, 
we could have explained what this was about.
  A decision has to be made here. Of course we have to come and defend 
our programs. Everybody does. I am quite content to do that.

                              {time}  1145

  But this is the first time ever in my experience, my legislative 
experience of more than 33 years, that this kind of thing has taken 
place.
  Now, I know you folks over there. I'm looking at friends of mine 
right here. You would never have, me or Ms. Hirono would never do this 
kind of thing to you. If you have a disagreement about it, come and see 
us. Let's sit down and talk about it. And if you still disagree with 
what we're doing and why we're doing it, by all means bring it to our 
attention on the floor. But these kinds of attacks are unworthy of this 
House. It's unworthy of us to have relationships with one another like 
this. I don't understand it. I've never experienced it before.
  Now, we can do this in 5-minute segments if we want to, but that's 
not the way to handle this. I appeal to you, if this is going to be a 
continuing onslaught, let's sit down and talk it over.
  This legislation, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands is one of the 
most effective housing efforts that we have in order to try and meet 
the conditions that were set forth by the Congress and administered 
faithfully by the State of Hawaii since our entrance to the Union in 
1959.
  The House supported reauthorization of this program; 272 Members, 
including 45 Republicans, voted for it. It is not a partisan issue.
  And I'll finish with this, Mr. Chairman. The Republican Governor and 
the Republican Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
in Hawaii, as well as the Democrats, support this program. It is not a 
partisan issue.
  And so I ask, out of courtesy for Members, that if we're going to 
have a discussion about this, at least let's have it on the merits of 
what the issue is before us. And if we're going to do this kind of 
thing, at least have the courtesy, the common courtesy that should be 
extended to any Member of House, to let us know that it's happening so 
perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could resolve the issue beforehand.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I missed in the rule book where

[[Page 20239]]

you needed to call any Member or anything to discuss an amendment that 
you might have, and I apologize for not reading that chapter in the 
rule book.
  And, Mr. Chairman, I think I was raised very appropriately from a 
family that had to watch their money. My father worked two jobs. He was 
an Atlanta firefighter, and he worked shifts. In one week he'd be gone, 
work at the fire department during the day and then he'd be home at 
night. And then the next week he worked surveying during the day and 
the fire station at night, so we didn't see him for a week at a time. 
And he would watch every dollar that he had, and I think he did a great 
job in raising me and my sister and providing for our family.
  He never really asked for anything from the government, and so I 
guess that I'm very careful about some of the ways that we spend our 
money, and especially when it is on a program that I look at as a set-
aside program. And whether the gentleman from Hawaii or the lady from 
Hawaii look at it as a set-aside or not, I don't know. That's their 
right. And I understand that they may know some things that I don't 
know. And I can just look at this as a Member of Congress and look at 
see what the Congresses have done in the past.
  And for some reason, Mr. Chairman, the tendency for the majority 
party now is to tell me and other Members that stand up here and try to 
look after the taxpayers' dollars what the Republicans did. I don't 
care what the Republicans did. What they did, what other people did in 
the past doesn't make what we're doing today right or wrong.
  And so all I'm doing is bringing up the point that this is a set-
aside for somebody, for a group of people that are not Native 
Americans. They're not an Indian tribe. This is a race group, and 
that's as simple as it is.
  Now, we can argue all the points that we want to argue, and the 
learned gentleman from Hawaii is a very smart guy. I know he's probably 
a doctor in sociology. And he can come down here and talk negatively 
about me if he wants to. That's his prerogative.
  But I was asking a learned defense attorney one day, I said, you 
know, what does it feel like to have a client that you're trying to 
defend, and all the information and the facts are against you?
  He said, you know what, you just have to really get up and talk as 
loud as you can and really be as mad as you can and really talk about 
anything other than the facts. And I know I've seen that on a couple of 
occasions here from different people.
  And so all I'm asking is that we have a chance, in this House, to 
vote on this amendment. And I think it's fair that we vote on this 
amendment; that we vote on this amendment to try to decide if we want 
to give another $8.7 million, and regardless of what they've gotten 
from the Republican Congress since 2002, that we could start anew. And 
so I think it's worthwhile that we can offer an amendment that we can 
have a vote on trying to take a special set-aside for a racial group to 
have something different than the rest of the people in this country 
have.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. First off, I've been listening to this debate, and I felt, 
candidly, that it was getting a little personal and I'm uncomfortable 
with that. But I'm also now uncomfortable with what was described.
  I believe, and I want to be on record, since I was on this floor, 
that Eskimos and Native Hawaiians are a group of people no different 
from American Indians. They were there before we got there. And that's 
the way I view it.
  And I think that we need to look at how we provide funding for all 
Native Americans, Native Eskimos, and Native Hawaiians. But I don't see 
their difference. I see them all collectively the same.
  I oppose this amendment. I will be voting against it. But I certainly 
understand the right of my colleague from Georgia to introduce an 
amendment. And I certainly agree, though, that it should be opposed.
  I yield back.
  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.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


           Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section 
     184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 
     U.S.C. 1715z-13a), $7,450,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That such costs, including the costs of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize total loan principal, 
     any part of which is to be guaranteed, up to $367,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, up to $247,500 from amounts in the 
     first paragraph, which shall be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses''.


      Native Hawaiian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section 
     184A of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 
     U.S.C. 1715z-13b), $1,044,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That such costs, including the costs of 
     modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize total loan principal, 
     any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed 
     $41,504,255.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, up to $34,650 from amounts in the 
     first paragraph, which shall be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses''.

                   Community Planning and Development


              Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the Housing Opportunities for Persons with 
     AIDS program, as authorized by the AIDS Housing Opportunity 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 12901 et seq.), $300,100,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2009, except that amounts 
     allocated pursuant to section 854(c)(3) of such Act shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2010: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall renew all 
     expiring contracts for permanent supportive housing that were 
     funded under section 854(c)(3) of such Act that meet all 
     program requirements before awarding funds for new contracts 
     and activities authorized under this section: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary may use up to $1,485,000 of the 
     funds under this heading for training, oversight, and 
     technical assistance activities; and $1,485,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund.


                 Rural Housing and Economic Development

       For the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development in 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development, $16,830,000, 
     to remain available until expended, which amount shall be 
     competitively awarded by September 1, 2008, to Indian tribes, 
     State housing finance agencies, State community and/or 
     economic development agencies, local rural nonprofits, and 
     community development corporations to support innovative 
     housing and economic development activities in rural areas.


                       Community Development Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For assistance to units of State and local government, and 
     to other entities, for economic and community development 
     activities, and for other purposes, $4,180,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2010, unless otherwise 
     specified: Provided, That of the amount provided, 
     $3,929,300,000 is for carrying out the community development 
     block grant program under title I of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974 (the ``Act'') (42 U.S.C. 
     5301 et seq.): Provided further, That unless explicitly 
     provided for under this heading (except for planning grants 
     provided in the second paragraph and amounts made available 
     under the third paragraph), not to exceed 20 percent of any 
     grant made with funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     be expended for planning and management development and 
     administration: Provided further, That $1,584,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund:

[[Page 20240]]

     Provided further, That $62,000,000 shall be for grants to 
     Indian tribes notwithstanding section 106(a)(1) of such Act, 
     of which, notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including section 205 of this Act), up to $3,960,000 may be 
     used for emergencies that constitute imminent threats to 
     health and safety.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $160,000,000 shall be available for grants for the Economic 
     Development Initiative to finance a variety of targeted 
     economic investments: Provided, That none of the funds 
     provided under this paragraph may be used for program 
     operations: Provided further, That, for fiscal years 2006, 
     2007, and 2008, no unobligated funds for EDI grants may be 
     used for any purpose except acquisition, planning, design, 
     purchase of equipment, revitalization, redevelopment or 
     construction.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $20,000,000 shall be available for neighborhood initiatives 
     that are utilized to improve the conditions of distressed and 
     blighted areas and neighborhoods, to stimulate investment, 
     economic diversification, and community revitalization in 
     areas with population outmigration or a stagnating or 
     declining economic base, or to determine whether housing 
     benefits can be integrated more effectively with welfare 
     reform initiatives.
       The referenced statement of managers under this heading in 
     title II of division I of Public Law 108-447 is deemed to be 
     amended with respect to item number 194 by striking ``for 
     costs associated with replacing the roof on the historic 
     Luckey, Platt Building'' and inserting ``for building 
     stabilization measures at the historic Hoffman House''.
       The statement of managers correction referenced in the 
     second paragraph under this heading in title III of division 
     A of Public Law 109-115 is deemed to be amended with respect 
     to item number 846 by striking ``Mahonoy City, Pennsylvania 
     for improvements to West Market Street'' and inserting 
     ``Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania for improvements to Centre 
     Street''.
       The statement of managers correction referenced in the 
     second paragraph under this heading in title III of division 
     A of Public Law 109-115 is deemed to be amended with respect 
     to item number 250 by striking ``for renovation and 
     construction of a resource center'' and inserting ``for 
     construction of a homeless shelter''.
       The statement of managers correction referenced in the 
     second paragraph under this heading in title III of division 
     A of Public Law 109-115 is deemed to be amended with respect 
     to item number 713 by striking ``for construction of a senior 
     center'' and inserting ``renovation and expansion of 
     facilities''.
       The statement of managers correction referenced in the 
     second paragraph under this heading in title III of division 
     A of Public Law 109-115 is deemed to be amended with respect 
     to item number 844 by striking ``Liverpool Township'' and 
     inserting ``Liverpool Borough''.
       The referenced statement of managers under this heading in 
     title II of division I of Public Law 108-447 is deemed to be 
     amended with respect to item number 36 by striking ``respite 
     care facility'' and inserting ``rehabilitative care facility 
     for the developmentally disabled''.
       The referenced statement of managers under this heading in 
     title II of division I of Public Law 108-447 is deemed to be 
     amended with respect to item number 608 by striking 
     ``construct'' and inserting ``purchase and make improvements 
     to facilities for''.
       The referenced statement of managers under this heading in 
     title II of division I of Public Law 108-447 is deemed to be 
     amended with respect to item number 521 by striking 
     ``Missouri'' and inserting ``Metropolitan Statistical Area''.


        Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida

  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. 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 Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida:
       Page 80, after line 22, insert the following:
        The referenced statement of managers under this heading in 
     title II of Public Law 107-73 is deemed to be amended with 
     respect to the item relating to the City of Maitland, 
     Florida, by striking ``for a senior citizens center'' and 
     inserting ``for the Minihaha Park development''.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply 
reprograms funds for a project that was included in the 2002 VA-HUD 
appropriation bill to another project in the same city.
  The city of Maitland, Florida, which is located in the southern 
portion of my district, had money allocated to them for the 
construction of a community center. Unfortunately, the project was 
completed before funds were distributed by the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, and they are now unable to use this money.
  The city of Maitland, the recipient of the funds, has requested that 
the funds be redirected to another EDI project that involves the 
redevelopment of a public park that includes the creation of age-
specific exercise courses and walking and bike paths.
  The money promised to Maitland is still available at the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development and will have no financial impact on 
this year's bill. The community center is fully completed, making funds 
earmarked for this project useless to the city.
  Every Member knows this type of Federal funding is crucial to a small 
city like Maitland, and I would hate to see funds meant for my district 
go unspent because we could not, HUD, get their act together and make 
this change.
  I would ask the chairman to work with me as this bill moves forward 
to try to help the city of Maitland solve this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm going to withdraw this amendment, but I'm hoping 
that as we move forward, you will work to help rectify this problem 
that was created by the Department of HUD and this administration.
  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. I would be very pleased if you would withdraw this, and 
then I will work with you as best we can to try to resolve this problem 
in an expeditious and favorable way, if it is at all possible to do as 
we go forward in this process.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


         Community Development Loan Guarantees Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $2,970,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2009, as authorized by section 
     108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5308): Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, 
     That these funds are available to subsidize total loan 
     principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $137,500,000, notwithstanding any aggregate limitation 
     on outstanding obligations guaranteed in section 108(k) of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as 
     amended.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, $743,000 shall be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses''.


                       Brownfields Redevelopment

       For competitive economic development grants, as authorized 
     by section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5308(q)), for Brownfields 
     redevelopment projects, $9,900,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009.

                              {time}  1200


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Shays

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shays:
       Page 81, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 97, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment today to increase 
the brownfields program funded at HUD by $1 million. This funding will 
be taken from the Department's general salaries and expenses.
  I believe the brownfields program is one of the most successful 
programs the Federal Government has to help revitalize urban areas. 
These sites, typically in the heart of urban areas, lie idle because no 
one wants to incur the large costs associated with Superfund cleanups 
and the uncertainty of whether, in fact, it is a Superfund. As a 
result, cities are marked by abandoned buildings and vacant lots while 
developers construct new buildings on what was previously open space in 
the suburbs.

[[Page 20241]]

  Though small, these grants serve as seed money, enabling dozens of 
communities to leverage millions of State and private dollars to move 
into the actual cleanup phase. This funding should encourage more 
environmental cleanup and bring about economic development of 
brownfield sites. By reusing brownfield sites, we are not only 
rebuilding blighted communities, but also targeting development in city 
centers and avoiding unnecessary urbanization on fringes of 
metropolitan areas.
  Mr. Chairman, a brownfield is an abandoned, idle, or unused property 
where expansion of redevelopment is complicated by the presence or 
potential presence of contaminations. Brownfields redevelopment can 
benefit both private investors and the communities in which they are 
located. For the private sector, brownfields redevelopment can mean new 
business opportunities, the potential for profit on unused or 
underutilized properties, improve community environmental stewardship, 
and access to untapped urban markets.
  The retail purchasing power of a central-city resident is 
conservatively estimated at $665 billion. Even households in those 
economically distressed urban neighborhoods possess $85 billion in 
annual retail purchasing power. Brownfields redevelopment is critical 
to tapping into these consumer markets.
  Cities encounter many impediments to developing brownfields: the lack 
of necessary funding for cleanup, concerns over liability, the need for 
environmental assessments of properties, uncertainty over cleanup 
standards, unfavorable neighborhood and market conditions, land 
assembly issues, reluctance to invest in distressed communities due to 
concerns with urban social and economic conditions.
  The bottom line for me is the most successful program that we have 
encountered in this Congress to deal with urban areas is the 
brownfields program. Whether it comes from EPA or whether it comes from 
HUD, we need to do everything we can, in my judgment, to clean up these 
sites and make them productive, and thereby in the end saving our 
greenfield sites that should stay undeveloped.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that the gentleman will 
withdraw his amendment here, and I would be happy to work with him 
because in substantial measure I support the intent of the amendment, 
but I have concerns about the offset, even though it is a relatively 
small offset. But I do want to use this time to point out what has 
happened here on the brownfields program.
  The President, in the 2007 budget process, ended up recommending that 
we zero out this program in the 2007 budget, and he actually 
recommended rescinding the 2006 moneys, which were exactly the same 
amount of money that has been put in the 2007 finally and had been put 
in the 2006 budget. And under those circumstances, when they are making 
recommendations to rescind, their approach is not to give out any 
grants under the program until after the budget process for the 
following year is complete, and, therefore, those moneys just don't get 
put out until very late. There is a real big gap in it. That is what 
has happened previously.
  This year the President did not propose to rescind the 2007 budget 
moneys for the simple reason that the 2007 budget moneys were not 
settled in this until the CR was adopted after the budget was 
submitted. If that had been done prior to when the budget was 
submitted, my guess is that the President would have proposed 
rescinding the 2007 moneys as well as zeroing out the 2008 moneys, 
which is what has happened in his recommendations for this year's bill.
  So we are in this game, in a situation where the people over at OMB 
believe, I believe wrongly, but they seem to insist that there is 
someplace else in the budget, namely under EPA, where brownfields 
redevelopment is going to get done. That doesn't happen. The moneys 
that are in for brownfields under EPA are for assessments, and we have 
been doing assessments, and I believe that this should be funded. So in 
the face of what I have described, we have for the last couple of years 
continued to appropriate, but at the constant value of $9.9 million for 
this program, to keep it there until such time as we have someone who 
understands that that kind of program isn't being done anywhere else 
and is willing to move the moneys along, which the administration, as I 
have described, simply is not willing to do. So that is the situation 
that we are in.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I won't ask for a rollcall vote on this 
amendment, which may amount to the same thing as withdrawing this 
amendment, but could I have a dialogue with this gentleman?
  Mr. OLVER. I have yielded.
  Mr. SHAYS. What I am hearing is that you are not saying that these 
dollars are now going to be in EPA. You are saying basically what is in 
EPA are for assessments, but not to help developers come in and start 
to clean up. And what I am hearing you say is that these dollars, 
therefore, are just being maintained at a constant amount, and that 
this administration is choosing not to allocate them and spend them.
  Is that what I am hearing from you?
  Mr. OLVER. I am saying that they finally put the grant proposals out 
for award, but a year late essentially, and each time only after it is 
clear, for instance, the 2007 moneys will finally be sent out for grant 
announcements at the very end of this fiscal year when it is clear that 
we have not rescinded the 2007 moneys.
  Mr. SHAYS. Could I ask the gentleman another question?
  Mr. OLVER. Yes.
  Mr. SHAYS. The $10 million that is in here, which is a smaller amount 
than the 25 million that used to be there a few years ago, it will be 
available if we can convince the Secretary of HUD to allocate these 
dollars to communities; is that correct?
  Mr. OLVER. Repeat it, please.
  Mr. SHAYS. There is money for brownfields in this legislation. I am 
just adding 10 percent more. But let's take my amendment out of the 
equation and at least have this dialogue about brownfields for my 
edification and for the Record. Is it your point that you are 
appropriating this $10 million in this budget that you have, but that 
you do not anticipate it will be spent?
  Mr. OLVER. It will not be spent probably until the very end of the 
2008 fiscal year, is when finally the RFPs will go out for possible 
granting.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Shays, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
could I just ask is there any legal impediment if we in Congress are 
able to convince HUD to spend the money? This is not a trick question. 
This is an edification question. Is there any legal impediment to the 
administration's spending the $10 million that you have allocated?
  Mr. OLVER. No, there is none. There is none. But the offset that the 
gentleman has used is salaries and expenses, salaries and expenses is 
an account which, in the tightness of this budget, in trying to do for 
section 8 and CDBG and the other places, we have already cut a bit, not 
a great deal, but a bit, and I oppose, as I said before, in good 
conscience, the movement of salaries and expense moneys into this where 
we know that it is not going to be spent with any alacrity and any 
expedition.
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by

[[Page 20242]]

the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                  HOME Investment Partnerships Program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the HOME investment partnerships program, as authorized 
     under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12721 et seq.), $1,757,250,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2010, of which $990,000 
     shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund: Provided, 
     That up to $9,900,000 shall be available for technical 
     assistance: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided in this paragraph, up to $41,580,000 shall be 
     available for housing counseling under section 106 of the 
     Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x).


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Turner

  Mr. TURNER. 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. Turner:
       Page 82, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,760,000)''.
       Page 82, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,760,000)''.
       Page 100, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $6,760,000)''.

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, coauthored by Representative 
Biggert of Illinois and Mr. Gillmor of Ohio, seeks to help families who 
are potential victims of lending practices that could lead to 
foreclosure. The amendment increases the amount of funds available for 
housing counseling under section 106 of the Housing and Urban 
Development Act of 1968.
  The amendment would increase the program's funding by $6.7 million. 
The increase is offset by reducing the Office of Inspector General 
account by $6.7 million. The CBO has scored this amendment as budget-
neutral.
  Funding for housing counseling has increased by only $2 million since 
fiscal year 2003.
  Mr. Chairman, as a former mayor of the city of Dayton, Ohio, I have 
seen directly the detrimental impact that predatory lending and the 
practice of unwarranted subprime loans have had on urban families and 
communities. In 2001, the University of Dayton released a study of how 
mortgage foreclosures were affecting urban areas in Ohio. My community 
of Dayton had 1 foreclosure for every 43 households. Similar findings 
were seen in Cleveland, Akron, Columbus, and Cincinnati.
  The problem of home foreclosures isn't limited to Ohio and the 
Midwest. According to a June 12, 2007, Bloomberg article, national home 
foreclosure rates in May soared 90 percent from last year. Many of 
these are tied to the subprime loan industry.
  Many foreclosed homes sit vacant and boarded up for long periods of 
time. These properties go beyond just being an eyesore and become a 
threat to public health and safety. These properties are a blight to 
our neighborhoods and result in falling property values and increased 
crime, lead to an eroded tax base, and impair a city's ability to 
provide important services to families.
  Beyond the individual impact these practices have on our 
neighborhoods, the subprime foreclosure crisis is resulting in the loss 
of capital in the financial market, a market that, if not righted, 
could threaten our growing robust economy.
  Today we are seeing headlines from all across the country showing the 
growing concerns of financial markets regarding predatory and subprime 
lending practices that have resulted in a record number of 
foreclosures.
  Recently, members of the Ohio delegation, led by Representatives 
Gillmor, Pryce, LaTourette, and Senator Brown, held a forum on the 
predatory lending crisis in Ohio. At this forum we heard from a variety 
of groups, from banks to fair housing groups. All of these groups 
shared a mutual concern over the issue of predatory and subprime 
lending, and many agreed that an increased focus on housing counseling 
was a key component to fighting this problem.
  It is my hope that increased funding possible through this amendment 
will allow housing counseling agencies the ability to provide vital 
counseling services to families in need. These services will give 
families the assistance they need to protect themselves from practices 
and circumstances that could lead to foreclosure.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that homeownership is a privilege that 
everyone should enjoy. We must give all American families the tools 
they need to be successful homeowners.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if he would 
withdraw his amendment, and I would be happy to work with him, as I am 
sure the ranking member would as well, though I would lead him to 
comment, to work with him in conference to address this issue.

                              {time}  1215

  Otherwise, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I believe the need, as he has indicated, for housing counseling is 
strong. But what his offset does in this instance is to take the 
funding for the Inspector General for HUD back to the level of the 
budget request for the year 2007, where we had increased in the 
supplemental budget the appropriation for the IG to $88.2 million, in 
the supplemental budget had been added to the IG to do its work, and 
have recommended in this bill a less than 2 percent increase. So that, 
compared with the 2007 appropriation for the IG, the amendment would 
represent a 5 or 6 percent decrease in the amount of funding available 
for the IG.
  We simply are not in a position to be able to increase this account 
because of the deep holes that the President handed to us in the HUD 
budget. We froze the account at the FY07 level, with the supplemental 
amount there, which is the best that we could do without harming other 
HUD programs.
  Now, taking the funding from the Inspector General to increase this 
account is counterproductive to the gentleman's amendment. Should we 
reduce the oversight in order to increase the housing counseling? 
They're both vital programs. We feel that we have struck the correct 
balance here for this pair of needs.
  I commend the gentleman's passion on the issue, and I would be happy 
to work with him in the future on the issue related to housing 
counseling. And I do recognize that we are likely to have some, in the 
secondary lending market, problems later this year, continuing 
problems, as we have been having, but I would urge the gentleman to 
withdraw the amendment at this time and we would try to work it out in 
conference.
  Mr. TURNER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your commitment to look to 
work on this issue; however, the housing crisis is enormous. It is 
impacting a number of families and neighborhoods throughout the 
country. We're seeing the impacts are grave.
  I would like to work with you on where, perhaps, an offset would be 
acceptable. But at this time we would like the House to be on record in 
support of this increased funding, so I would desire not to withdraw 
the amendment. But I appreciate your support of the increased funding 
and will look forward to working with you.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Turner-Biggert-
Gillmor amendment to increase funding for HUD-approved housing 
counseling services by $6.76 million, bringing the HUD total housing 
counseling budget to $48.34 million for fiscal year 2008.

[[Page 20243]]

  As the ranking member of the Financial Services Housing and Community 
Opportunity Subcommittee, I want to thank my colleagues from Ohio for 
their work on this amendment, which is a modest increase in funding 
that could prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes.
  I've spent many an hour this year listening to witness after witness 
testify before our subcommittee and the Financial Services Committee 
about the current home foreclosure spike. According to data released by 
the Mortgage Bankers Association, while our country will continue to 
enjoy record homeownership rates, foreclosures are on the rise and we 
should expect another 1 million Americans to lose their homes this 
year. These mortgage foreclosure rates raise eyebrows and call into 
question what actions can be taken to help homeowners keep their homes. 
I would like to emphasize the word ``action.''
  Almost 2 weeks ago this body passed, by a vote of 411-7, House 
Resolution 526 sponsored by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings). 
This resolution called on this body to take action to support home 
ownership and responsible lending. The resolution directed us to 
increase opportunities for loan counseling. So what can Congress do to 
meet this directive today? What is it we should be doing right now to 
ensure that 650,000 homeowners and those who may follow can keep their 
homes? One step in the right direction is to support the Turner 
amendment to increase funding and, therefore, opportunities for housing 
counseling.
  It is crucial to promote financial literacy and educate our youth and 
adults. This is the most direct way of ensuring that consumers 
understand the terms of their loans so that they may avoid predatory 
loans and foreclosure altogether.
  I'm pleased that on June 25, NeighborWorks America and the Ad Council 
launched a national ad campaign aimed at preventing home foreclosures. 
Homeowners in trouble can try to save their homes by calling a hotline, 
888-995-HOPE, a number provided by the Homeownership Preservation 
Foundation.
  In addition, we have about 2,300 HUD-certified housing counseling 
agencies across the country. Americans should know that they can visit 
HUD's Web site or call 800-569-4287 to find a HUD-certified counselor 
in their neighborhood. HUD-certified counselors can give 
straightforward and free or low-cost advice to potential or existing 
homeowners about buying a home, refinancing a mortgage or preventing 
foreclosure.
  The Turner amendment is one way that we can enhance the ability of 
our local HUD-certified housing counselors to help our constituents 
avoid foreclosure and keep their piece of the American Dream. But I 
think this amendment is good for the economy, good for American 
homeowners, and I think it's crucial that we act upon it now, where so 
many people are in these dire straights.
  I know that there are groups that are in support of this, and one 
that comes to mind that we just received a letter from is Acorn. So I 
would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this funding for 
housing counseling.
  I know, Mr. Chairman, you have a view about hoping to see him 
withdraw, but there is an urgency involved here. This amendment 
recognizes the harsh realities that in many places across the country 
families face delinquencies in mortgage payments. And they're on a 
rapid rise. Michigan is one of those States as well. This modest 
amendment would add funds to professional counselors to help families 
keep their homes and perhaps help them avoid high-risk loans to begin 
with.
  The program has been a proven success. Michigan, like Ohio, has been 
experiencing a rise in delinquent loans. This increase could make a 
huge difference for so many families who are facing a mortgage crisis.
  The Inspector General has received significant increases since 
Katrina to ensure that it can monitor the use of funds in the 
reconstruction. Therefore, I do not believe the reduction will in any 
way impact the IG's ability to do its job, and could greatly improve 
the lives of many families facing a financial crisis.
  I do support the amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILLMOR. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I will enter my statement in the Record, 
and I am going to be very brief.
  I rise in support of the amendment. I want to commend the gentleman, 
Mr. Turner, for taking leadership on this amendment. He has a record of 
being very active, when he was mayor of Dayton, trying to deal with the 
problems of predatory lending. And I want to commend Mrs. Biggert for 
her work on this, as well as her work on financial literacy.
  Ohio, unfortunately, has been one of the leaders in foreclosures. And 
I want to point out one of the things that we found about foreclosures 
nationally and also in the Midwest, most of those foreclosures have not 
come as a result of loans by federally regulated banks and savings and 
loans. They have come from those lenders and mortgage brokers who are 
not regulated by the Federal Government but by the States, who have not 
done their job.
  I called together a conference, I guess about six weeks ago, of Ohio 
financial institutions, of regulators, of community groups, to talk 
about the foreclosure crisis and what effectively could be done. And I 
was surprised that the consensus that came out of that meeting of all 
those groups was that the single most important thing you could do 
would be to provide for housing counseling. And the people who did have 
counseling had a very low foreclosure rate. And all this bill would do 
would be to provide a modest increase in counseling. We will get a 
tremendous benefit and a decrease in foreclosures as a result of it.
  I think this amendment presents a choice. You have two agencies, and 
you have a choice between them. You've got the Inspector General and 
the Housing Counseling Program. Which one are you going to fund level 
to last year and which one are you going to increase? And I would say 
to you, if you look at what's going on in the housing market, it is 
pretty clear that if there is to be a priority between those two, it 
ought to be to put more money into counseling so that you can save 
people and their homes.
  I also point out that the Senate has already passed language that 
goes much further than ours. So I would ask for support of the Turner-
Biggert-Gillmor amendment.
  Today I rise in strong support of the Turner-Biggert-Gillmor 
amendment. Not a day goes by that we do not see reports of another 
facet of the growing turmoil in our housing markets. For far too long, 
Ohioans and others have been subject to predatory lenders, loose 
underwriting standards and too few housing counseling opportunities. My 
colleagues Mr. Turner, Ms. Biggert and many others have explored these 
issues for years and have worked tirelessly to find solutions to the 
problem of foreclosure. Mr. Turner was active in efforts to prevent 
predatory lending as the mayor of Dayton. My colleague Ranking Member 
Biggert has been a leader in efforts to promote financial literacy. 
Housing counseling is a critical element to helping Americans stay in 
their home. During a recent summit I put together on Ohio's foreclosure 
crisis, regulators, lenders and housing advocates from Ohio alike 
presented an opinion that a significant number of homeowners were not 
able to tell you whether they had a fixed-rate or an adjustable-rate 
mortgage. Today, too many find out the hard way when their loan resets. 
It is expected that some $600 billion in subprime loans will reset in 
the next 18 months and the fallout could be devastating to many of our 
constituents.
  The consensus of all those attending was that the most important 
single thing we could

[[Page 20244]]

do to prevent foreclosure was to provide counseling before people 
actually entered into a mortgage. Housing counseling will not be a 
silver bullet, nor will it prevent someone currently in the foreclosure 
process from losing their home. That being said, there is a clear need 
for additional federal resources in this area and would hope my 
colleagues will support this small increase.
  Legislation I recently introduced with Representatives Bachus, Pryce 
and others would authorize some $100 million per year in housing 
counseling, a more than doubling of FY2007 enacted levels. The Senator 
has proposed a comparable increase. While I hope this stand-alone 
legislation is quickly adopted by the House, this amendment assures 
that moving forward, Congress is in favor of additional resources for 
housing counseling.
  I urge my colleagues to accept this modest increase in funding so 
that our constituents can keep their homes once they realize the 
American dream of homeownership.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I asked for time simply to 
have a discussion with Mr. Turner, if I might, regarding his amendment.
  Mr. Turner, in ancient history I had the privilege of chairing this 
subcommittee, and during those early years I was very, very concerned 
with what was happening within the total housing programming, what 
happens to the money as it flows to communities, et cetera. The focus 
then was upon section 8 housing. I will never forget my trip to New 
Orleans to try to see what was happening with money we sent there over 
a lot of years to the Housing Authority. I met with the Inspector 
General in the offices of the FBI to discuss what I had seen and some 
of my concerns. The FBI guy who was there listening to our conversation 
was heard to say, Congressman, if you really want to get a handle on 
this, I would suggest that one of the things that you might do is put 
enough money into the Inspector General's office so you can have a 
full-time inspector general here in New Orleans, for this fellow flew 
in from Houston to talk with you today.
  I heard a while ago that there had been added monies to the Inspector 
General's office since Katrina. I have no idea what that means in terms 
of the real volume, et cetera, but I do perceive that there is an 
ongoing problem across the country.
  So this discussion, or my reason to talk with you, is I admire very 
much what you're about. I would hope also, as you go about it, that you 
work very closely with the chairman and ranking member about finding 
another source of money. The issue is a very important one, but I'm not 
certain just how well off the Inspector General is.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. TURNER. I certainly appreciate your description of the needs for 
the Inspector General. And I support, of course, the chairman's 
description of searching for additional offsets for this in order to 
find additional monies for housing counseling. And in that, I'm certain 
that after the amendment passes the House, that there would be a great 
deal of effort by the chairman in conference to seek, perhaps, an 
additional offset where the Inspector General amount could be restored.
  But as you have heard from so many of the Members that are here, this 
is an issue that strikes at the very heart of the fabric of our 
neighborhoods and our families. I have so many families who have come 
to me to tell me the stories of what they have experienced. There are 
nonprofit organizations in my community who are every day working with 
families who have faced this issue of foreclosure, and they want to 
know that we support the services that are being provided to them and 
that might be available to them.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, let me say that it is my 
intention to support the gentleman's amendment. I would urge the 
chairman to consider doing the same as we search for an offset 
somewhere else. But in the meantime, the issue is a critical issue. It 
is spreading across the country like wildfire. We are going to see an 
awful lot more of this challenge, not less of this. So I appreciate the 
gentleman's effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Holden) having assumed the chair, Mr. Weiner, 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. 3074) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and 
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________