[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7065-7075]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           GULF COAST HURRICANE HOUSING RECOVERY ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 254 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. 1227.

                              {time}  1039


                     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. 1227) to assist in the provision of affordable housing 
to low-income families affected by Hurricane Katrina, with Mr. Cardoza 
(Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, 
March 20, 2007, amendment No. 5 printed in part B of House Report 110-
53 by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), as modified, had been 
disposed of.

                              {time}  1040


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 110-53.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. 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. 6 offered by Mr. Neugebauer:
       Strike section 306 (relating to transfer of DVP vouchers to 
     voucher program).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 254, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) and a Member opposed each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, this is a pretty simple and 
straightforward amendment. It just simply just strikes section 306 from 
this bill.
  What we do in this legislation already is we extend many of the 
vouchers for the disaster voucher program. But what we are trying to do 
in this bill is not only just say we want to extend them, but that we 
want to make them permanent.
  Actually, this is not the place to debate whether we need to add 
additional vouchers to the voucher section 8 program. One of the 
concerns I have about this is that the scoring on this is an additional 
authorization of $735 million, nearly three-quarters of $1 billion. We 
are not opposed to debating whether we need to add additional vouchers 
or change the formula in the future, but this is not the place to do 
that.
  What I said yesterday and continue to say is we are using these 
disaster programs to push forward things that other people have been 
working on in other agendas and trying to do this on the backs of the 
people that have suffered a great disaster.
  One of the things I want to go back to is the fact that we stated 
yesterday that it's not like this Congress has not responded to the 
people in Louisiana and Mississippi; $110 billion has been authorized 
by this Congress for the disaster relief, and $116.7 billion in CDBG 
money has been provided to give flexibility for the housing needs of 
the people in this area.
  When we go back to the city of New Orleans itself prior to the 
hurricane, we had 7,000 public housing units in New Orleans, and 2,000 
of those were already scheduled to be torn down, and 5,100 were online, 
and not all of those occupied. Now approximately 2,000 units already 
have been repaired, 1,200 have been returned.
  Ten billion dollars has been allocated to the Road Home Program in 
Louisiana. Let me repeat that, $10.5 billion authorized, $300 million 
spent, a full 3 months after the hurricane.
  The problem making these vouchers permanent is we are giving 
preference to folks that are living in communities where other people 
have been in line. One of the things that I think there is a 
misconception on is we have talked the last few days about what is 
going on in New Orleans and what the future is. In 2019 or thereabouts, 
New Orleans will celebrate its 300th anniversary. For 300 years, that 
community has been building to what it was pre-Katrina.
  There is some misconception in the next 6 months by extending some of 
these programs and moving forward that all of a sudden everything is 
going to be back to normal in New Orleans. That is not going to be the 
truth.
  What we need to do is begin to build the housing back, letting that 
go forward. I know that yesterday, the distinguished chairman said, 
well, the reason we have to go back and get the units back in order is 
so that is not keeping them from building new units. In fact, it is. 
The fact is, we can't tear down some of those units. That is the very 
land that we are talking about going back and reusing. It doesn't make 
sense to me to go back and rebuild all of these units or remodel them, 
only to come back eventually and have to tear them down so that we can 
do the new planned communities.
  We should go back to the basic tenets of this bill. The basic tenets 
of this bill was to hopefully get off high center those few glitches 
that, quote, the leadership in New Orleans and Louisiana say is keeping 
them from moving their reconstruction forward. It hasn't stopped the 
people in Mississippi, but for whatever reason, it has stopped the 
people in Louisiana and moved forward.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not extend permanently these vouchers. This 
is not the form for that. It's not appropriate, it's not fiscally 
responsible for us to do that. We have extended those vouchers to meet 
the current needs of some of the folks. We really don't even know how 
much people will think about returning. But one of the things about 
making these vouchers permanent, I believe you will ensure that some of 
these people don't return because many of them have moved on to other 
places.
  Now, we are saying we are going to make your vouchers permanent. We 
are going to put you in front of people that have been in those 
communities for a number of years and have been waiting in line to be 
eligible for this very assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  The gentleman from Texas once again referred to an earlier amendment 
from yesterday, but trying to understand this particular amendment has 
nothing to do with whether you construct or destruct or replace public 
housing. What this says is the following: There were people who were 
living in the gulf area who were receiving some form of assistance 
under HUD programs. Some of them lived in public housing, some of them 
were in vouchers, some of them were living in subsidized housing for 
the elderly and the disabled. The places where they were living were 
washed away in the most literal, physical sense.
  We all agree that we have not yet, in the gulf area, replaced that 
housing. It's true there have been slowdowns, for instance, in Road 
Home money in New Orleans. But in Mississippi earlier this year, the 
Oreck Vacuum Company, which to its credit had tried to help the people 
in the gulf by reopening a factory that the company had in the gulf, 
shut the factory down because, they explained, the shortage of housing 
made it impossible for them to recruit people. There was a physical 
shortage of housing, and we have people who were once living in the 
area who have moved to other places. Some of them may still be in the 
area.
  We know that employment in the gulf area hasn't yet returned to its

[[Page 7066]]

prior level, and we have this chicken-and-egg problem of housing and 
unemployment. We have now about 12,000 people, who were affected by 
this amendment, who were previously receiving HUD assistance. Because 
of the hurricane, the form of assistance they were receiving is no 
longer possible. They are the ones who were on these disaster vouchers.
  Now, before we brought this bill out, those people were legally going 
to lose those vouchers as of the end of this fiscal year, September 30, 
an uncontested part of the bill. I appreciate the minority's 
acquiescence in that. There is some agreement here between us. An 
uncontested part of this bill extends into November.
  The amendment today says that those people who were on HUD assistance 
before, they have to have been eligible before and still be eligible by 
various income and other qualifications for HUD assistance, that if as 
of December 31 of this year they have not been able to find alternative 
housing, we will not administer what my friend from Texas called 
``tough love'' by kicking them out.
  I do not think these are appropriate candidates for tough love. These 
are not people who are in some situation through their own lack of 
character. They are people who were displaced by a great physical 
disaster.
  Now, I will acknowledge that the minority side in our committee 
offered an amendment in particular or raised an issue that we thought 
was correct. As originally drafted, this particular language would have 
not only extended the vouchers for those who have been in the disaster 
situation, but would have continued them, adding to the stock.
  Now, we did that because the gentleman from Texas correctly said you 
don't want to put these people ahead of other people who might be 
necessarily, who might have a need. So we wanted these to be additional 
vouchers, not to bite into the other section 8. But we incorrectly, in 
my judgment, drafted this originally so that even after the current 
recipients, the current recipients of the disaster vouchers, the 
victims of New Orleans, as they no longer needed the vouchers or were 
no longer eligible for them the vouchers would continue to be part of 
the overall number.
  We offered an amendment, unanimous in the committee, that said, no, 
they will be what we call disappearing vouchers. That is, there is a 
fixed number of people who now have these vouchers.
  As those people die, find other housing, become economically 
ineligible, as we hope many of them will be as they are able to return 
to jobs, for whatever reason, as they no longer need the vouchers or 
are eligible for them, the vouchers will cease to exist.

                              {time}  1050

  So they are permanent in one sense, but not in another. They are 
permanent as long as this universe of 12,000 recipients of HUD help 
before the hurricane still need them. But as the people in that 
category no longer need them or are ineligible, they will disappear. So 
they are not permanent in that sense.
  Now, again, we have acknowledged that there have been slowdowns in 
trying to rebuild the housing. So the question is, if we cut this off 
as of December 31, what will happen to those people? How many thousands 
of them will have no place to live?
  And then, by the way, they will become competitors with others for 
section 8. This is a separate category of vouchers for people who were 
victims of disasters. Some of them live now in other parts of the 
country. Abolish this separate category as of December 31, and then 
these people will be competing with other people.
  And again I want to go back to a point I made yesterday. I don't 
understand the resistance to reaching out to these people. They were 
living in their homes, and a hurricane wiped their homes out. They are 
not wealthy people. They are not middle-income people. They are people 
who were otherwise eligible for HUD programs. They were people who were 
complying with the terms of those programs because they hadn't been 
expelled from them, and their homes were destroyed.
  And we had hoped that by now we would have done a better job 
collectively of helping them relocate. We haven't. There is plenty of 
blame to go around. One place that does not seem to me the blame sticks 
is with these people, these people who had vouchers, who had public 
housing residences.
  And the question now is, do we say to these victims of the hurricane, 
we are sorry that it has taken us 18 months to get things organized? 
But you know what? You have only the rest of this year to find a new 
place to live.
  There are elderly people here. There are disabled people here. There 
are others. They came from a place where we know employment hasn't come 
back. Why the insistence on treating them as people who are somehow 
looking for something they don't deserve? Why the refusal to say, you 
know, we haven't done the right thing in terms of overall. We hope we 
will, but as long as you are in this situation where you were displaced 
physically by a disaster, and as long as back in your home area there 
isn't sufficient replacement housing, and you know, in Mississippi and 
it is true, Mississippi has done better on the CDBG than Louisiana. But 
you just have to pick up the paper to read about the insurance fights. 
There hasn't been a massive amount of rebuilding in Mississippi either.
  You then are telling the people who were the recipients of these 
vouchers as of December 31 you are on your own. Find the housing, or 
compete with a number of other people for limited stock.
  These vouchers go only to people who had previously been on HUD 
assistance who were physically displaced by the hurricane, and the 
vouchers are only for them. And as they begin to find other housing, as 
they die off, as they will, as people get new jobs and aren't eligible, 
the vouchers will disappear.
  I very much hope that this amendment is defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify a couple of things. 
What I think the question is here is not the fact that this Congress 
has reached out. We have reached out. I think we have all acknowledged 
that these families and folks in this area have suffered a tremendous 
disaster.
  The problem is, the question today, is how long is the disaster 
relief going to be extended to these people. I mean, when is the 
disaster over? And the problem I have with this bill is it says we are 
going to do it permanently.
  Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts stated that they disappear. 
Well, the scoring that the CBO did on this did an 8 percent attrition 
rate, saying that 8 percent of these are going to begin to roll off 
over a 10-year period, and that is how they came up with the scoring of 
$735 million. So that attrition has taken place in there.
  What I would submit to you is we temporarily extended these. We may 
need to extend a piece or a portion of them in the future. But what we 
are saying with this bill is we are going to make disaster assistance 
permanent by making these vouchers permanent.
  At this time I would like to yield to the distinguished ranking 
member of the Housing Subcommittee on Financial Services, the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for all his hard work on this bill as well as on this 
amendment, which I support.
  My problem with it is that right now we are doing a lot of housing 
law on these disasters, and what we are doing is setting precedent. And 
if this trend in the weather continues, I think we'll probably see a 
lot more. So I think we have to be very careful in how we move on this, 
because if it is made permanent, then the disaster voucher program will 
serve as a model for the future disasters, forcing Congress to act 
similarly time and time again.
  Assisted families will continue to receive this rental subsidy for 
several months. This is to continue allowing time to transition to 
other types of housing, including home ownership. And I think that what 
we are doing is really making, prematurely making

[[Page 7067]]

these DVPs permanent, so that as long as the recipient remains eligible 
for assistance it eliminates other approaches.
  Authorizing this, according to the Congressional Budget Office, puts 
the cost at about $11,900 per voucher per year. And I really wonder, we 
all have the goal of really getting the people, the victims of this 
disaster, back where they want to be, back in a home. And I don't know 
that by extending the time more, we have got until December, will 
encourage them, give them the incentive then to get moving. I think 
extending it through December 31 of 2007 allows Congress and HUD to 
assess the appropriate long-term solutions.
  What we have been talking about with all of these vouchers, we have 
got other ways to do this. And we put in the bill the survey, and until 
this survey is completed, it may be difficult to identify the need for 
a permanent disaster voucher program extension, as the disaster voucher 
program provides assistance to many of these former HANO tenants. So I 
think we are kind of putting the cart before the horse. We really need 
to know where the people are, if they are coming back, and what their 
future plans are. And until HUD has the opportunity to do that, which 
they have said they would do soon, but not soon enough in time for this 
bill. So I think that this is premature, making these vouchers 
permanent, so long as the recipient remains eligible for their 
assistance.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I want to first express appreciation to 
the ranking member and the maker of this motion for spending time down 
in New Orleans with the committee at Dillard University and then going 
over into Mississippi. I think it was very important for the people of 
Mississippi to see Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle 
coming into that devastated region, expressing concern and interested 
in putting forth legislation to help them out of something that has 
devastated their lives, yet they are not responsible for.
  I have got to oppose the gentleman from Texas' amendment. Let me just 
say that there are good and decent people who are poor. That is about 
the only thing good I can say about poverty.

                              {time}  1100

  I know it personally. We are on a first-name basis. I grew up with 
poverty. I know it well. And so I had a clear picture of what happened 
after Katrina and Rita.
  Only one in six New Orleanians owns an automobile. One in six. That 
means that this city is a city of poverty. And when you think about the 
individuals at the Dome begging for help, probably 95 to 98 percent of 
them had no automobiles.
  My son was in New Orleans when the flood hit, a student at Dillard 
University. He had an automobile, and even with an automobile, he had 
difficulty getting out of New Orleans, ended up spending the night on a 
Wal-Mart parking lot. But he had a car, and he was able to get out.
  This is a very, very poor city. We are told that the poor shall be 
with us always, but then there is a transition word: ``unless.'' And 
the ``unless'' is something that I think this bill addresses. Unless 
men and women are willing to do what is necessary to enable people who 
are in poverty to escape.
  One of the things that this amendment does not take into account, for 
example, is 202 housing. I know the program well. I served as mayor of 
Kansas City. We did about 10 section 202 projects during my 
administration.
  Section 202 projects are designed to accommodate the elderly. In some 
instances HUD has allowed for 202 housing to be used by people who 
suffer from extremely difficult ailments, physical problems. So the 
people who live in 202 are either elderly, certified already as elderly 
with low income or no income, or they suffer from some malady, some 
physical, maybe even mental, malady. If this amendment is approved, it 
would mean that the people who are elderly and poor who were displaced 
from their 202 housing and are now living with a relative someplace or 
in some temporary housing, they end up being punished again because 
this means that there would be no opportunity for them to even return 
to the conditions under which they lived.
  These are not people who are somehow refusing to work or people who 
somehow don't want to find permanent housing. This was, in fact, 
permanent housing. Section 202 housing is permanent housing. And if you 
look at the HUD statistics, you will find that people who leave 202 
housing generally leave it for the funeral home. They die in 202 
housing. These are the elderly, and this Congress should exercise all 
the care we can conjure to take care of the poor and the elderly, 
particularly those living in section 202 housing.
  Now, my hope is that the gentleman from Texas would consider in his 
amendment, even though I would still oppose it for other reasons, at 
least eliminating 202 elderly housing.
  Additionally, HUD has a program, 811 housing, for the disabled. The 
same thing would apply for the disabled. These are people who lost 
housing because of Katrina and Rita, and then they end up being told, 
if this amendment were to pass, that they still will not be helped even 
to return to the conditions under which they lived prior to the flood, 
even if those conditions were not at the highest living standard. The 
disabled are all just saying, we want to return to where we lived. And, 
yes, it is permanent housing. It is not temporary. It was designed by 
HUD and approved by Congress as permanent housing. Sections 811 and 202 
are permanent housing projects. We cannot do additional damage to the 
elderly and the poor.
  Now, I think one of the things that we need to consider here as well 
is that this amendment would strike 1,200 vouchers to families who 
actually need them. And during our committee debate, I think the 
gentleman and the ranking member will remember that there was a 
discussion about substitute language, a compromise, if you will, using 
the word ``sunset.'' And if we had used the word ``sunset,'' and if it 
had been placed in the language of the bill, perhaps that would have 
satisfied Members on the other side who have difficulty with the term 
``disappearing vouchers.'' But that is exactly what would happen. That 
would be a sunset on the vouchers when they are no longer needed.
  Striking 1,200 vouchers from families who need them is very, very 
wrong. It certainly is unintentional in terms of wreaking havoc on 
those families, but that is exactly what would happen if this amendment 
is approved. Its impact would only hurt families who need the housing 
assistance.
  Now, the one thing I would like to leave in terms of what I hope can 
happen from this discussion today is that if we are unwilling or unable 
to continue assistance for previously, previously federally assisted 
individuals and families in public housing section 8, 202 or 811 
projects for the disabled, we are going to do immense damage and hurt 
families who don't deserve to be hurt further.
  If you can imagine living in a 202 housing project and realizing that 
you are never going to live in your dream home. There is no such thing 
as sitting down one day with an architect and designing your dream 
home. It won't happen. If you live in a 202 or an 811 HUD project, you 
are already in nirvana. That is as far as you are going to go. And we 
cannot tell those residents that they cannot return to those living 
conditions.
  The point I am trying to make, and perhaps poorly, is that we are 
hurting people who would have no other way of living. And if you are 
opposed to permanent housing, you are opposed to the 202 program not 
only in New Orleans, but all around this country. In every major city 
in the country there is at least one, and perhaps several, 202 project, 
and in every community there is at least one 811 project. And if it is 
wrong in New Orleans, it is wrong anywhere and everywhere.

[[Page 7068]]

  My hope, to the gentleman who has proposed the amendment, is that you 
withdraw the amendment and express appreciation for the debate, 
acknowledge that you were trying desperately to make sure that we don't 
overspend any taxpayer money that we don't have to expend. And I will 
lead a delegation from this side to congratulate the maker of this 
amendment for a valiant effort to do the right thing that is not quite 
as right as, in his heart, he would like for it to be.

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for his 
eloquent comments about the poor and the elderly. First of all, I want 
to make a couple of points. One, I understand when he speaks about 
that, he shared his family's story with me, it is a great story. It is 
an American success story, and I know that he knows a lot about public 
housing.
  One of the things I want to say about my amendment, my amendment does 
not show a lack of support for 202 housing or any other housing. I 
believe in and have supported housing proposals that this Congress has 
put forward. We have a number of wonderful, affordable housing programs 
that are administered through HUD, and we need to continue those. In 
fact, we are trying to get those programs off high center down in New 
Orleans in the hurricane area, because that is, long term, a better 
housing solution for many of the victims of the hurricane.
  The other thing that I think needs to be clarified, and I know the 
gentleman didn't intend to misrepresent this, this bill does not take 
away any benefits from any poor or elderly people. This bill extends 
that. My amendment does not take that away. What my amendment says is 
it is probably not good policy just to permanently extend this disaster 
program.
  What we do in the bill is already extend this program to many of our 
senior citizens. In fact, prior to the hurricane, there were 8,500 
people on section 8 vouchers. Today there are about 12,000 people using 
these emergency vouchers.
  So what we are really trying to do with this bill, if we go back 
again, sometimes we get off track, what is the purpose of this bill? 
The purpose of this bill is to get permanent housing back in New 
Orleans and Mississippi for all income groups; poor, elderly, the 
families that were residing there. We have allocated a substantial 
amount of resources to do this. But what we are saying with this 
amendment is we should not make disaster assistance permanent. We were 
extending it in this bill, and that makes sense, because, 
unfortunately, the folks in New Orleans are way behind schedule. They 
need to get off high center and get back on schedule.
  This amendment does not, and people listening to this debate today 
need to be clear, this amendment does not take away vouchers from 
anybody. What it doesn't do is just write a continuing blank check.
  In many of the cities and places where people that were displaced 
from this disaster are living, there are housing units available to 
them. It may be that they decide to make a permanent decision to reside 
in those communities that they have gone to. Many of them have gone 
back to cities closer to maybe their children or their families. We 
need to give them the opportunity. But what we don't need to do is 
create a whole new voucher program with this disaster.
  As the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Housing said, we are 
setting precedent every time we get up with one of these disasters and 
we try to outdo the last disaster. I think the American people have 
said, why don't you all come up with a plan and stick with it? We came 
up with a plan. We executed that plan. We sent the resources down to 
those areas. From a Federal perspective, I don't know how much more 
money we can throw at that initiative to get it off high center.
  One of the things we need to be clear on about this amendment, it 
doesn't take anything away from elderly people, it doesn't take 
anything away from poor people, it doesn't make a statement that we 
shouldn't have a permanent housing solution. A permanent housing 
solution is a better solution. But when you extend and make permanent 
some of these other side programs, you keep taking away resources that 
could go to the permanent housing.
  As I made the statement yesterday when we talked about going back and 
building maybe some housing for elderly and other folks down there, we 
don't need to go back and do it where they were before, because I have 
seen those units, and I know why a lot of people haven't gone back, 
because the thought of having to go back to those units, and I don't 
care how much money you spend on them, it wasn't a good situation 
before, it won't be a good situation today.
  You need to support this amendment because it is fiscally 
responsible. It meets the needs of the people. But it does say before 
we begin to create a whole new level of voucher programs, we need to 
have that debate in another forum, not on the backs of the resources 
needed for the people to rebuild after Katrina.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to transfer control 
of the time from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) to 
myself.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I have worked with Mr. Neugebauer, and he has been 
exceptionally cooperative, understanding the plight of the poor and 
those people who have been displaced who were victims of Katrina and 
Rita, and I am convinced, having listened to this discussion and this 
debate, that there is simply a misunderstanding, because I don't think 
that he intends for those people who were already assisted by HUD, 
those people, for example, who were living in section 8 housing, they 
were renting from landlords and the building was destroyed, to somehow 
not be permanently assisted and get back on their section 8.
  I don't think that he means that those people who were in public 
housing units who were assisted by HUD, if their unit does not get 
repaired, I don't think he means that they should not have a section 8. 
I don't think he means that for the disabled. I don't think he means 
that for the homeless.
  So I am going to chalk this up to a misunderstanding and 
miscommunication, and, as we continue this debate, I hope that we are 
able to help my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle understand 
what he is proposing.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the distinguished ranking 
member of the full committee.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that the minority is not opposed 
to a debate on section 8 vouchers for evacuees. We understand, and we 
have said on this floor that they have left New Orleans, they are in 
other cities, and there is a temporary need. We don't know how long 
that temporary need is. There is a temporary need for housing. Some of 
them will drop off in eligibility, and we are hearing that may be 8 
percent. But this is a 10-year permanent program.
  One of my concerns is they won't want to return to New Orleans with 
this section 302 housing that we are creating, a more or less permanent 
program where they can stay in Houston or they can move from Houston to 
Dallas.
  Now, yesterday we talked about what I consider is a rush to go back 
and take some of these dilapidated units, units that weren't habitable 
even before the hurricane, and fix them up. We say we need to do that 
because we needed to get everybody back to New Orleans as soon as we 
could.

[[Page 7069]]

  What we said yesterday, we talked about East Lake in Atlanta, where 
they took a large public housing project which was, as I said, 56th out 
of 56. It was the most dangerous precinct in the city of Atlanta. 
Seventy percent of the youth in some of these public housing projects 
ended up in the State penitentiary. There was an article in the New 
York Times about that in New York. We wanted to replace that with 
mixed-income units. That is going to take time. For that to happen, we 
will have to have some people stay in other cities.
  But we don't think that we can determine right now what we need 10 
years from now and commit to spending $735 million. At the same time, 
if we are going to do that, why do we go back and replace all these 
units? These people are either going to come back, or they are not. 
They are not going to do both. But it seems as if we are creating 
public housing for everyone in New Orleans that has a potential of 
coming back, and, at the same time, we are creating a program over here 
where everybody can stay away from New Orleans.
  The end result is, I think, a lack of planning. I think we ought to, 
instead of replacing the failed public housing in New Orleans that we 
all agree was a disaster, we ought to replace it with something where 
people have a safer home, a better community, more quality of life. 
While we do that, we determine how long that is going to take and 
fashion this program around what we think is a better day for people in 
New Orleans, a better public housing system there.
  Instead, I think we are creating two stand-alone programs, both 
designed for the same group of evacuees. It simply is going to create a 
disincentive to come back. At the same time, we are creating housing in 
New Orleans that is really not suitable for anyone, replacing units 
that need to be torn down and replaced with better units.
  As I have said, this is the greatest natural catastrophe this Nation 
has faced. That, if anything, ought to lead us to do this right, and 
not just throw money at it, but to spend it wisely.

                              {time}  1120

  This amendment by Mr. Neugebauer is a way to do that. Section 302 is 
a duplication of effort, and I think it is ill conceived.
  I will close with this: Yesterday, if I heard it once, I heard it a 
hundred times. And we agree, we want people to come back to New Orleans 
as long as there is suitable housing there and to do so as soon as 
possible. This section 302, which the gentleman from Texas would 
strike, is a disincentive to New Orleans recovering as soon as 
possible.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I think our friends on the other side 
of the aisle have framed this in a way that I think is legitimate, 
which is, how long will this relief be extended. We talked about this 
in committee. And my feeling is the relief has got to be extended until 
we actually get on the job.
  Mr. Neugebauer mentioned the fact that there has been a substantial 
amount of money appropriated and obligated to repairing and 
reconstructing these homes in New Orleans, but a very small portion of 
it has yet to be extended.
  We had a debate over a couple of sections; one, that vouchers, it has 
been 18 months or 19 months now, shouldn't be available for people 
outside of New Orleans; and now we are saying those same vouchers 
shouldn't be available for them in New Orleans. The problem that we 
have here, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the job hasn't been done. 
There have been mistakes, missteps, miscommunication. Eighteen months 
seems like a long time, but very little has been done to reconstruct or 
renovate or rebuild the homes for so many people that were displaced. 
That is the bottom line here.
  The bottom line is, coming from Colorado, coming from my background, 
my faith, we want to help people who are poor, we want to help them if 
they have been displaced by a huge natural disaster. They haven't been 
able to return because, through no fault of their own, things haven't 
been rebuilt or reconstructed. I can't see why we would want to strike 
section 306 because we haven't gotten the job done. Not through any 
fault of the people who have been dispersed throughout the country, but 
because of some problem either between the administration and the State 
of Louisiana or whatever. That is what has got to be straightened out 
here. We can't cut out this section and look ourselves in the mirror 
thinking that we have done the job.
  The people that were displaced are entitled to return to New Orleans, 
they are entitled to return to these homes, and that is what this bill 
is about. That is why we brought this bill. You know, in a perfect 
world, everything should have been done by now, but it has not been 
finished, not anywhere near it. So we have got to step forward again.
  We aren't trying to outdo ourselves. We are trying to finish what all 
of you started 18 months ago; but for whatever reason, we can blame the 
administration, we can blame the State, we can blame a lot of things, 
but it hasn't been finished. Our job is to finish the job and allow 
people to return to their homes in New Orleans as quickly as possible 
and not to cut this section 306.
  So I am going to urge the House to defeat this amendment. I 
understand Mr. Neugebauer's desire to be fiscally responsible, I 
couldn't agree with him more. But the fact of the matter is the money 
is out there, things haven't been finished, and these vouchers are 
important to keep for the people.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's remarks. I think what you 
hear from both of us is frustration that things haven't moved along 
faster.
  What I would point out to the gentleman and to the folks on the other 
side of the aisle is the point that we have been making that we believe 
that this keeps people in limbo, causes them not to begin to make some 
kind of a permanent housing decision. I use the example that in New 
Orleans today there are about 2,000 units of public housing that are 
available today, but they have about 400 or 500 vacancies that people 
are not applying for.
  Secondly, they have had to go back on a number of occasions because 
those units have been vacant so long, they had to go back and make them 
ready again. In that climate, when a unit sits vacant for a short 
period of time or an extended period of time, the unit gets stale and 
they have to go back and do some mold mitigation and some other things 
because there is not someone occupying it.
  The point here is we have extended the benefits. The benefits are in 
this bill for all of the people that have been talked about here this 
morning. But what we are saying is two things: One, we are trying to 
permanently increase the amount of section 8 vouchers available in a 
bill that is about disaster. Secondly, we are talking about extending 
things where people do not have to come to some kind of a decision 
about what they want to do.
  We want them to go back to New Orleans. I think the people of New 
Orleans want the people to come back, they want to have the community 
and the sense of community that they had prior to the storm. But I will 
tell you that I think we are being the enemy here by not bringing some 
deadlines and definition to this disaster program. At some point in 
time the disaster piece is over and the recovery piece has to begin.
  We have made an allowance for the transition to do that, but when you 
make something permanent, even when you say, well, it disappears, what 
we know about Federal programs is they don't have a history of 
disappearing. Once we put them on the books, they generally stay with 
us.
  We have the ability down the road, this Congress will, if in fact 
there needs to be another extension, and in fact the administration has 
some flexibility. But when you put the word ``permanent'' on anything, 
it is permanent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 7070]]


  Ms. WATERS. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I don't get it. I am just reading section 
306 as being stricken now, and it says, this is a direct quote, blah, 
blah, blah, ``for the period that such household is eligible for such 
voucher assistance.'' Once the household is no longer eligible, the 
voucher disappears. What is permanent about that? Subsection 3 says, 
``Such vouchers shall not be taken into consideration for purposes of 
determining any future allocation of amounts to such tenant-based 
rental assistance for any public housing agency.'' What is permanent 
about that?
  Now I don't know, if you just don't like the section 8 program, I 
respect that. That is a respectful and honest difference of opinion on 
how to help people have a home, have a roof above their head. But let's 
just try to get rid of the entire section 8 program. Let's not just 
pick on the people that got hurt the most in this entire country and 
have been shafted from the day of the hurricane until now.
  I haven't looked at the numbers, but your own numbers a few minutes 
ago where there were 8,000 before the hurricane and now there are 
12,000, maybe I missed something. That is not as big an increase as I 
would have suspected would happen if there was such a big sham going 
on.
  And by the way, if it is all about a sham, you have got to give these 
people in New Orleans credit. They had a house, they were poor, they 
qualified for a Federal program that has been around for years, and 
they somehow mysteriously worked it so that their houses would be 
destroyed so they could stay on this program. Their houses and their 
jobs, by the way; that is why you have 12,000 people eligible because 
they have no jobs. The economy hasn't come back. When they get their 
jobs back and the economy comes back, they will no longer be eligible 
and they will be off the rolls and we will be back to 8,000. This is 
not a permanent program.
  Again, if you just don't like the section 8 program, I respect that. 
We will have a legitimate difference of opinion on that; that's above 
the board. I understand that that is a philosophical view that I don't 
share, but I respect it. But you can't just go and take the people in 
this country that got hurt the worst, for no cause of their own, and 
somehow think they are trying to scam the system because they happen to 
live in the path of the worst hurricane this country has seen in my 
lifetime.
  You can't pretend that this is a permanent program when the language 
itself says it is temporary. As long as these people are eligible, they 
would have a section 8 certificate. If they get their jobs back and the 
economy comes back and they make enough money to no longer be eligible, 
they will be off the rolls, we will be back to the 8,000. And then 
maybe we will have the discussion we should be having, which I would 
disagree with then, but it is an honest one; we just get rid of the 
section 8 program altogether and that is the end of it.
  In the meantime, quit trying to pick on the people that got hurt the 
most in this country, no cause of their own, no fault of their own. I 
can't imagine anybody down there, any little old lady is sitting there 
trying to figure out how to scam the system so they can rebuild the 
house that shouldn't be rebuilt, so they don't have a job. If that is 
happening, find me the three people that are doing that, and I will 
agree with you and we will get them off the rolls.

                              {time}  1130

  Other than that, let's get on with fixing New Orleans so we can get 
back on track for this country and for this world.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' point. One, I don't 
see anywhere in here where there is any expression on my part or have I 
made the point that I am against section 8 vouchers. What I am for, and 
as the gentleman mentioned, if we have an opportunity and a place and a 
forum to debate the section 8 program, many of us believe that there 
can be some things done to the section 8 program to actually make it a 
more effective program.
  The other piece of the deal is that we are not taking away any 
section 8 vouchers with my amendment. In fact, as I mentioned a while 
ago, there were 8,500 section 8 vouchers in New Orleans prior to the 
storm. Anybody that is living in Houston or Oklahoma, anywhere else 
right now, that wants to come back to New Orleans, there is a section 8 
voucher, if they qualify, available for them today.
  I don't understand this. I think the other side is trying to somehow 
argue against my amendment because they know what making something 
permanent means. It means permanent. They want to try to say that we 
are somehow depriving people of the ability to have vouchers. If people 
qualify for vouchers in Houston, they can qualify for them in Houston. 
If they want to come back to New Orleans, they can come back to New 
Orleans. There are vouchers available for them there. We made sure, and 
I thought it was the right policy, and the gentlewoman from California 
made this point, I believe, in the hearing, that we need to make sure 
that we keep New Orleans' hold on the programs that they had available. 
I believe this bill takes steps to do this.
  Really what we are talking about, we need to get back to what this 
amendment does. It just says, you know what, it doesn't make sense in 
this bill to make this disaster relief permanent when it goes to 
section 8 vouchers. It doesn't take vouchers away from anybody. It 
doesn't say anything about 202 housing. It doesn't say anything about 
rebuilding the affordable housing projects in New Orleans. It just says 
it is not appropriate policy to start using disaster bills to make 
other programs permanent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Orleans (Mr. Jefferson).
  Mr. JEFFERSON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  I am having a great deal of trouble connecting the debate here to the 
reality that people are facing back home. Starting out, you have to 
know, and just look back to what the conditions were in New Orleans 
before the storm. Before the storm there wasn't enough affordable 
housing there even then. There were 18,000 people on a waiting list, 
10,000 or so for public housing, 8,000 or so for section 8 vouchers. 
There were people on waiting lists for 202 housing. All sorts of needs 
were there. The folks who were down and out then are worse off now. And 
the folks who were doing a little bit better then are worse off than 
they were. And so the need has expanded for more assistance there 
rather than less.
  With respect to the issue of permanency, which seems to be the 
gravamen of the gentleman's objection here, we are talking about people 
who were eligible for section 8 or 202 or whatever the programs might 
have been before the storm, who were displaced to other places, and who 
will remain eligible there in these new places. We passed laws early on 
after the storm to make sure that people were eligible who otherwise 
might have lost their eligibility because of the fact they were just 
physically in another place. We took care of that.
  Now, none of us here would have anticipated it would have taken so 
long to get people back in their places, to get folks back to New 
Orleans, to get this whole thing fixed. But it has. For whatever 
reason, it has. We can cast blame here or there, but whatever the 
reason is, people have not been able to come back home.
  I can tell you this much. There aren't many people I have met, and I 
have been all over the place, in Memphis and in San Antonio and in 
Houston and in Atlanta, just above in Baton Rouge and up the river. 
There aren't many people out there who do not want to make their way 
back home. They are trying desperately to get home. Many of them are 
close in, doubled up and tripled up in houses, trying to find a way 
back home. They do not want to be outside of New Orleans. They do not 
want to be

[[Page 7071]]

away. We don't need to worry about creating a disincentive for people 
who return. They want to return home right now, already. Believe me, at 
the bottom of it all, people want to come back home.
  Our objective here is to say as long as they are displaced through no 
fault of their own, as long as programs aren't working to get them back 
home right now, we have got to make sure that they have a chance to 
live decently and in some order outside of the city. That is really all 
that is going on here. You need to understand that the need remains, 
and it is even greater than it was before the storm for the programs we 
are talking about here.
  As to this notion of setting a deadline, we have tried this before in 
almost every program. All we do is just kind of make people's lives 
unsettled. We say to people who are in assisted housing in someplace in 
Houston that by deadline X, you must be out of your place. This is, 
simply put, to put pressure on people to hope they'll find a way to 
find a house somewhere. They can't, and so the deadline gets moved 
anyhow. If we set a deadline here, it can only be arbitrary. We don't 
know that by December such and such there won't be a need for these 
programs. We don't know that. What this legislation does is take the 
more reasonable view that so long as they need the program, then they 
remain eligible. When they don't need it, then the eligibility 
disappears, and the people are no longer on the program.
  That is the only sensible way to deal with this, because no one of us 
knows, no one of us here can say today when this disaster will be at 
its end, when recovery will be done. We need to see this through and be 
logical about it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to the time both sides 
have left here?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentlelady from California has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for having 
this amendment. I have called this Congress the smoke-and-mirrors 
Congress because of the way the majority party has presented their case 
to the public, and it has been a process of smoke and mirrors. This 
seems to be a fuzzy math program.
  If you have 7,000 section 8 homes in New Orleans, and it's funny, we 
haven't heard from the people in Mississippi or Florida or some of the 
other places. This is specifically for the New Orleans housing. Seven 
thousand section 8 homes. Only 5,000 of them were occupied before the 
hurricane, and now we are wanting to put all 7,000 back. Yet in New 
Orleans today, there are 500 that is uninhabited that they can't get 
people to come back to. So somewhere there is a need to help people 
that don't seem to be taking that first step to helping themselves.
  We have people from New Orleans in Atlanta and in a lot of places in 
Georgia. If they want to go back to New Orleans, I am sure that we want 
them to be back in their hometown, and that probably the Federal 
Government would give them some assistance to get back to New Orleans 
and to know that there are 500 vacant section 8 houses for them to go 
to.
  I think the other interesting thing is that if you were in a section 
8 house prior to Hurricane Katrina, and Hurricane Katrina destroyed 
your home that you were living in under the section 8 program, then you 
would now be entitled to section 8 for the rest of your life. Maybe for 
the gentleman from Texas that we would need to say that anybody, and I 
feel sorry for these people, but anybody that has an unfortunate 
situation happen to them in their life, that they could come to the 
government and just give us a list of things that they would need for 
the rest of their life.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for offering this amendment, 
and I hope that this House will see fit to support it.

                              {time}  1140

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on behalf of the people of 
New Orleans and of the gulf coast who are having such a difficult time, 
who have not really gotten all of the assistance that I think we could 
have given them from the very beginning.
  I think when the gentleman spoke, he said the people did not seem to 
be taking the first step to help themselves. That is an insult. I 
reject it. I speak on their behalf. We were there, and we know how hard 
they have been working, and they deserve to be seen in a better light 
than the gentleman just described them.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Well, I just want to reiterate what this bill does and what it does 
not. We have heard a lot of things about what people think it does, but 
I think we need to go back and review what the bill does. Reviewing 
what the bill does, it strictly strikes section 306. What the bill 
doesn't do is it doesn't take away benefits to elderly and benefits to 
the poor. In fact, we have a number of people who are on these 
emergency vouchers who actually don't qualify for section 8.
  It doesn't say to people that we don't care. But what it does say is 
that this is not the appropriate form. As the gentleman from Louisiana 
stated, there is a waiting list. For all kinds of housing in many 
cities all across the country today, there are waiting lists for 
section 8 vouchers and there are waiting lists for housing for the 
elderly. All across this country there are those opportunities.
  Our job here is not to fix preexisting conditions. Our job here is to 
help with disaster relief, bringing that community back to some 
semblance of what it was prior to the hurricane and not to try to fix 
problems that were existing in that community before.
  There are opportunities within this relief to fix some of the issues 
that were going on. We had housing projects that were massive, that had 
a huge accumulation of poor people and a lot crime and a lot of things 
going on in those that we don't find acceptable in our country.
  With this disaster recovery money we have appropriated, we have an 
opportunity to go back and make those communities better. But we should 
not be trying to fix preexisting conditions with this legislation. And 
by making these vouchers permanent, we are trying to say we had a 
problem before and we want to fix that.
  What we want to do, and I think what I heard from the testimony from 
the mayor and from the Governor and from the community leaders down 
there, we are trying to rebuild our community.
  But when you make these disaster vouchers permanent, people can stay 
in Houston and they can stay other places, and they don't have to come 
back to this community. As we stated, there are housing units available 
here. There are vouchers available here. To the point we can, we need 
to focus our money and our resources on bringing people back and giving 
them the ability to come back.
  I urge Members to support a fiscally responsible bill that is 
compassionate in that it doesn't take away anything, but it just says 
this is not the appropriate forum to be adding vouchers to the section 
8 program. It is not appropriate to use a disaster bill to have the 
dialogue about whether we should increase the amount of section 8 
vouchers.
  I know that the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial 
Services is going to have a hearing on that, and I welcome that 
discussion as we talk about it, and it shouldn't be just about section 
8. When we sit down and talk about housing for our poor and our 
elderly, we ought to talk about a comprehensive look at it. Is section 
8 the best way to do that, or are more permanent housing projects 
better?
  But that is not the debate here on this bill, nor should we be trying 
to have that debate and to make that policy within this bill.
  I urge Members to vote for my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 7072]]


  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman of the Committee on 
Financial Services, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas 
has given us a good example of the meaning of true conservatism.
  He had a speech written on this amendment when the bill was first 
introduced. We have amended the section he is talking about, but he 
still likes that speech so much he won't get rid of it. He keeps 
talking about permanent section 8s. They were permanent when the bill 
was introduced, I agree. When the bill was introduced, they were not 
just disaster vouchers for the people who were displaced from their 
homes by a flood in New Orleans, but even after those people no longer 
used the vouchers, they would remain on the books. He objected to that 
and we agreed to that part of his objection.
  We adopted an amendment that says they disappear when the people 
disappear. So let me put it this way: These vouchers are permanent only 
if 12,000 refugees from the New Orleans hurricane are permanent human 
beings. If they live forever, so does the voucher program. But I do not 
think that every recipient of elderly housing is going to be 
permanently with us. I will lament their passing, they are undoubtedly 
decent people, but they are not permanent. And so the gentleman's 
politics and theology are both incorrect in this case. They are by no 
means permanent.
  He said anybody who had a voucher in New Orleans can go back and get 
it, but they were people who lived in public housing. They can't have a 
voucher. Public housing was physically destroyed. There were people who 
lived in 202 housing for the elderly, and housing for the disabled; 
that housing has been destroyed.
  What we are doing here is providing a replacement not just for the 
vouchers in New Orleans but for physical housing that was destroyed in 
New Orleans.
  Finally, the gentleman said they can go to Houston if they are 
eligible in Houston; but previously he said we don't want them 
competing. So either they compete with the people of Houston, who have 
already been very decent, or they get nothing. I hope the amendment is 
defeated.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. 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 Texas will 
be postponed.


            Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 110-53.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       Strike section 103 (relating to elimination of prohibition 
     of use for match requirement).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 254, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I begin, I do want to set the record straight a 
little bit. I think it is important for us to appreciate and for 
America to appreciate that the comments by Members on the other side, 
who have stated over and over that there seems to be a resistance by 
Members on our side of the aisle to helping individuals out after 
Katrina, simply is not borne out by either the facts or history, and it 
is not an appropriate reflection of history.
  The heart of the American people is immense, and we all poured out 
our hearts and we helped immensely when Katrina occurred. We opened our 
homes and our communities. In my district in the north side of Atlanta, 
we opened up shelters and provided great assistance, as I know men and 
women and boys and girls did all across this Nation. The heart of 
America is huge.
  I offer my amendment today in an effort to try to prevent further 
waste and fraud and abuse of Federal spending on Hurricane Katrina 
recovery efforts in Louisiana.
  Mr. Chairman, as a condition of Federal assistance, Federal grants 
oftentimes require State and local governments to match Federal grants 
or to provide a portion of matching funds with State or local spending 
contributions, oftentimes in the range of 10 percent. This is in order 
to encourage the efficient administration of the assisted activities 
giving local recipients an incentive for good management.
  Why do we do this? Mr. Chairman, I would suggest it is analogous to a 
copay when you go to your doctor. As a former physician, I am familiar 
with those, and most Americans are familiar with those. When you go to 
your doctor, you have a bit of a copay. And what that does is provide 
for you an opportunity to encourage appropriate and proper attention 
and oversight. It actually increases the responsibility of individuals 
and it increases the financial soundness of the entire system. This 
amendment would provide that same type of responsibility.

                              {time}  1150

  Striking section 103 would prevent the use of Federal CDBG funds, 
these are Federal funds, these are hard-earned taxpayer dollars, for 
the local match requirements and maintain much-needed local incentives 
to maximize Federal assistance.
  I think it is also important for Americans to appreciate that 
Congress has already promised over $100 billion, that is with a ``B,'' 
since Katrina and Rita have occurred. To put that in some context, the 
Louisiana State budget prior to Katrina was $16 billion.
  Although we have held over 11 hearings and four briefings and 
questioned over 137 witnesses, what is needed is increased oversight of 
that Federal assistance. The underlying bill weakens that ability to 
provide that oversight. Why, I would ask, would we want to weaken that 
ability?
  In fact, a report by Representatives Waxman and Cardoza and Obey and 
Tanner and Holmes-Norton and Tierney by the Democratic staff on the 
Committee on Government Reform in August of 2006 itself identified 19 
contracts that were offered or that were given during Katrina 
collectively worth over $8.75 billion that they themselves say have 
been plagued by waste and fraud and abuse, citing wasteful spending, 
lack of competition, mismanagement, et cetera.
  Examples from a GAO audit provided to the Senate Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in testimony in December of 
last year stated just as an example nearly $17 million in potentially 
improper and/or fraudulent rental assistance payments to individuals, 
nearly $20 million in potentially improper or fraudulent payments went 
to individuals who are registered for both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 
using the same property. Millions of dollars of improper and 
potentially fraudulent payments went to nonqualified aliens, including 
foreign students and temporary workers.
  Why is it, Mr. Chairman, that we would want to lower the threshold of 
due diligence that should be applied to spending Federal assistance 
when waste, fraud and abuse has already been so well documented?
  It is obvious to everyone that better oversight of Federal spending 
is needed. This amendment would assist in providing that oversight and 
making certain that local and State individuals would have a greater 
responsibility, a greater incentive to make certain that the programs 
and the grants that they receive, those moneys are spent in a 
responsible way.
  It is an effort to be better stewards of the American taxpayers' 
money, and I

[[Page 7073]]

would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) rise? Does the gentlewoman wish to claim the 
time of the opposition?
  Ms. WATERS. I do.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I am so overwhelmed with the gentleman's statement that would deny to 
the people of New Orleans basic assistance that would allow them to use 
their Community Development Block Grant money as match, no new money, 
but simply the money that has already been allocated to them to be used 
as a match to FEMA money in order to help the area move forward with 
reconstruction, redevelopment and getting people's lives together.
  I do not think that most people in America would believe that there 
was something wrong with giving this basic kind of assistance. Here we 
have cities where the city halls have been destroyed, water systems 
have been destroyed, schools, hospitals, roads, sewer systems, police 
departments, and we would then deny them the opportunity to use money 
that has already been granted as matching money so they could make use 
of the FEMA money that they are eligible for? I cannot believe that the 
gentleman would want to do that.
  I am adamantly opposed to this amendment. It is one of the most mean-
spirited amendments that I have heard that has been attempted to be 
attached to the bill that I have introduced. I would ask my colleagues 
to reject it out of hand. It does not make good sense. We do not gain 
anything from it.
  We have not heard anybody come to this floor from the opposite side 
of the aisle, and certainly this gentleman, talk about fraud and abuse 
by Halliburton or any of those companies that are known to be ripping 
off the government, and here we have a Member of this floor who would 
come to the floor and a Member of this Congress who would come to the 
floor and suggest to us that they may misuse it, they may abuse it. I 
do not think we want to entertain that. I do not think we want to be a 
part of denying basic help to people who need it so desperately.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
comments. However, the hyperbole and the emotion brought with it is 
curious, again in light of the remarkable assistance that the American 
people have provided out of their own generosity privately and the 
generosity that this Congress has provided to the tune of greater than 
$100 billion of assistance to individuals who have suffered from the 
greatest devastation of Hurricane Katrina.
  The purpose of this amendment is an attempt to move in albeit a small 
direction, but a small direction of fiscal responsibility. We hear 
comments by the Members on the other side all the time about how they 
want to bring new fiscal responsibility to Congress. Well, Mr. 
Chairman, in fact, what we have had is a step in the opposite direction 
ever since they have taken charge.
  So I would hope that Members would appreciate that this bill, again, 
is a small step in the direction of financial and fiscal 
responsibility. It does not preclude the use of previous moneys prior 
to this bill. If $110 billion is not enough then to provide for 
allowing individuals to have some local assistance use, I am not 
certain how much will be.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I again state that this is a small step for fiscal 
responsibility and encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the way he has framed this 
issue as a fiscal responsibility issue; although I think he frames it 
incorrectly in this case.
  There really is no precedent in disaster situations if you go back 
throughout all the disaster situations for even requiring a local 10 
percent match, and I think in another bill there will be language that 
would actually waive the 10 percent local match.
  This component of it disallows the use of Federal money that has been 
granted to the local communities to provide that 10 percent match. I 
think the issue is going to go away in another context anyway, but it 
is counterintuitive to say to local communities whose complete tax base 
has been destroyed that they should somehow provide a 10 percent match 
for Federal funds that are given, and historically in disaster 
situations, there really has never been a 10 percent match at all 
because we have recognized that the distress situation that is created 
by a disaster makes it highly unlikely, improbable, impossible in many 
circumstances, that the 10 percent match would be able to be met by the 
local community.
  You take that and multiply it times five, because this is five times 
the worst natural disaster that our country has ever had. So we should 
reject this five times, not just once.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. MELANCON. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me talk about the fraud. The fraud was 
perpetrated by people throughout this country in Florida, in 
California, in Colorado, that used addresses in Louisiana. The money 
that was spent was spent by the Federal agencies, and not misspent by 
the State of Louisiana.
  I am speaking today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the 
Gulf Coast Recovery Act and against the Price amendment, which would 
keep in place a major roadblock to Louisiana's recovery from Hurricanes 
Rita and Katrina. Rebuilding in the wake of these two hurricanes is the 
biggest challenge people on the gulf coast and, for that matter, in 
this country, have ever faced.
  Katrina was the worst natural disaster ever in the United States 
history. Rita, which has been dubbed the forgotten storm, was the third 
worst catastrophic event in this country. Local governments are 
valiantly moving forward to try and rebuild, but without the ability to 
have the tax base that they need just to do day-to-day operations. If 
you have lived in a gulf coast community, you know the communities come 
back under normal circumstances. That is not happening.
  This was devastating, totally devastating. Bureaucratic red tape is 
holding us back. Our local tax base in south Louisiana is gone. Local 
governments have no way of coming up with money for the 10 percent 
match. For some parishes, the cost of local match for projects is many 
millions of dollars and could go as high as $1 billion across the 
devastated area. Ninety thousand miles, square miles, of devastation 
was caused by these two storms the size of Great Britain. We are 
sitting here and worrying about a 10 percent match that was harmful to 
these small communities and the City of New Orleans but has devastated 
this entire area.
  One thing that I need to point out: The President has the authority 
to waive the local match requirements with the stroke of his pen. In 
fact, this authority has been exercised 32 times since 1985 for other 
major disasters.
  In 1992, George H.W. Bush waived the requirement when the per capita 
recovery cost of Hurricane Andrew reached $139 per person. It was also 
waived for New York City following the attacks of September 11, $390 a 
person.
  But despite a $6,700 per capita recovery cost following Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita, the administration has refused to waive the local 
match, despite repeated requests. How is this fair to Louisiana? I am a 
fiscal conservative, but this policy is ridiculous. It is dooming the 
recovery to failure, and it's time we correct it.
  I emphatically urge you to defeat the Price amendment, and pass the 
Gulf Coast Recovery Act, which will help thousands of people return 
home and begin rebuilding their lives.

[[Page 7074]]


  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. May I inquire of the Chair, do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady has the right to close.
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR. First let me tell the gentleman from Georgia I appreciate 
him trying to save some money. I think his efforts, though, are a year 
late. If you want to look for Katrina fraud, look for Katrina fraud 
that was perpetrated by the Bush administration.
  In south Mississippi we had 40,000 people at one point living in FEMA 
trailers. We are grateful for every one of them, but those trailers 
were delivered by a friend of the President, Riley Bechtel, a major 
contributor to the Bush administration. He got $16,000 to haul a 
trailer the last 70 miles from Purvis, Mississippi down to the gulf 
coast, hook it up to a garden hose, hook it up to a sewer tap and plug 
it in; $16,000.
  So the gentleman never came to the floor once last year to talk about 
that fraud. But now little towns like Waveland, Bay Saint Louis, Pas 
Christian, that have no tax base because their stores were destroyed in 
the storm, a county like Hancock County where 90 percent of the 
residents lost everything, or at least substantial damage to their 
home, he wants to punish Bay Saint Louis, he wants to punish Waveland, 
he wants to punish Pas Christian.
  * * *


                  announcement by the acting chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask Members to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to whether or 
not those words are eligible to be taken down.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot render an advisory opinion on 
that point.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand that his words be taken 
down.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman specify the words?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The words accusing this Member of action 
unbecoming of the House as it relates to having Members of my district 
not be held to the same account.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members will suspend, and the Clerk will report 
the words.

                              {time}  1232

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Holden). The Clerk will report the words.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  ``Mr. Price, I wish you would have the decency, if you are going to 
do that to the people of south Mississippi, that maybe you ought to 
come visit south Mississippi before you hold them to a standard that 
you would never hold your own people to and that you failed to hold the 
Bush administration to. With that, I yield back my time.''
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pastor) having assumed the chair, Mr. Holden, 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. 1227) to 
assist in the provision of affordable housing to low-income families 
affected by Hurricane Katrina, when certain words used in debate were 
objected to and, on request, were taken down and read at the Clerk's 
desk, and he herewith reported the same to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union reports that during consideration of 
H.R. 1227 certain words used in debate were objected to and, on 
request, were taken down and read at the Clerk's desk and now reports 
the words objected to to the House. The Clerk will report the words 
objected to in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  ``Mr. Price, I wish you would have the decency, if you are going to 
do that to the people of south Mississippi, that maybe you ought to 
come visit south Mississippi before you hold them to a standard that 
you would never hold your own people to and that you failed to hold the 
Bush administration to. With that, I yield back my time.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair holds that remarks in debate that 
question the decency of another Member improperly descend to 
personality. The words are not in order.
  Without objection, the words are stricken from the Record.
  There was no objection.
  Without objection, the gentleman from Mississippi may proceed in 
order on this day.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, is it in order to move that 
the gentleman from Mississippi's right to address the House be 
restored?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That motion may be offered.


            Motion to Permit to Proceed in Order on This Day

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move that the rights of 
the gentleman from Mississippi to speak during the remainder of the day 
be restored.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) that the gentleman from 
Mississippi be permitted to proceed in order.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 265, 
nays 160, answered ``present'' 0, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 167]

                               YEAS--265

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar

[[Page 7075]]


     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--160

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Baker
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fattah
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Pence
     Sessions
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1301

  Messrs. MILLER of Florida, SULLIVAN, WELDON of Florida and Ms. 
GRANGER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. CARNEY, SAXTON, ROTHMAN, LoBIONDO, PORTER, OBERSTAR, SHAYS, 
JOHNSON of Illinois, FLAKE, PLATTS, ROHRABACHER, JONES of North 
Carolina, GILCHREST, DENT, DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, and MORAN 
of Kansas changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________