[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12792-12795]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               PUBLIC HOUSING DISASTER RELIEF ACT OF 2008

  Mr. CAZAYOUX. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 6276) to repeal section 9(k) of the United States Housing 
Act of 1937.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6276

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Public Housing Disaster 
     Relief Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL.

       Section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437g) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (k); and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (l), (m), and (n) as 
     subsections (k), (l), and (m), respectively.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Cazayoux) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAZAYOUX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAZAYOUX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6276, the Public Housing 
Disaster Relief Act of 2008. I am proud to stand here with my 
colleague, Congressman Childers, in bringing this legislation to the 
floor.
  This legislation is the product of a joint subcommittee hearing with 
the Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
Opportunity and the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency 
Communications, Preparedness and Response.
  The purpose of the hearing was to examine the roles and 
responsibilities of both HUD and FEMA in responding to the affordable 
housing needs of the gulf coast following emergencies and natural 
disasters.
  Nearly 3 years after Katrina and Rita, we are still struggling with 
how to better streamline the process of delivering relief through our 
administrative agencies. This burden is very well known to members of 
my delegation, Congressmen Melancon, Jefferson, Boustany, and Scalise, 
whose districts were directly impacted by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  The testimony at the hearing revealed that the Office of Capital 
Improvements within HUD, which awards capital funds to public housing 
authorities to maintain and repair public housing stock, also 
administers the public housing emergency and natural disaster grant 
program.
  The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act included a provision, 
provision 9(k), which permits HUD to award natural disaster grants to 
housing authorities. However, since 2000, Congress has prohibited HUD 
from using appropriated amounts under section 9(k) and provided a 
separate appropriation for emergencies and natural disasters. However, 
since its inception, this fund has diminished every year.
  In 2005, the year that Katrina and Rita struck the gulf coast, the 
funds appropriated for this purpose was $29 million. According to HUD, 
this funding was quickly consumed in New Orleans and Biloxi.
  The current funding level for 2008 is $18.5 million, which is 
woefully inadequate for any disaster, especially ones on the scale of 
Katrina and Rita. HUD has not asked for funding for this purpose in 
2009. In fact, HUD's proposed budget for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 
request no funding for disaster relief.
  Normally, public housing authorities' losses in natural disasters are 
mitigated through insurance. But the magnitude of the damage caused by 
these hurricanes was more than preexisting insurance could handle. When 
the PHAs that faced these shortfalls sought public assistance funding 
through FEMA pursuant to section 405 of the Stafford Act, they got 
caught in a bureaucratic mess.
  Despite a memorandum of agreement between HUD and FEMA in 2007 that 
would have made it possible for PHAs to apply for FEMA assistance as a 
last resort when insurance proceeds and disaster grants from HUD were 
inadequate, because section 9(k) exists, FEMA funding is not available 
because FEMA states that it violates congressional appropriations law.
  The administration has called for the elimination of section 9(k) and 
the set aside disaster grants to eliminate this confusion and to make 
it possible for housing authorities to have access to section 406 of 
the Stafford Act through FEMA.
  I agree with that assessment, and it is my belief that repealing this 
section will cut some of the bureaucratic mess that has prevented 
public housing authorities from doing the work of reconstruction in the 
aftermath of Katrina and Rita.
  We see today the importance of this legislation as our hearts go out 
to the people of Iowa, Illinois and Missouri who struggle against the 
flood waters that continue to threaten and wreak devastation on their 
homes and on their communities.
  While we are still learning the extent of the damage caused by the 
flooding in Iowa, and the anticipated flooding in Illinois and 
Missouri, we do know that this legislation will help them when it is 
time to rebuild. When this change is enacted into law, funds will 
become immediately available for public housing authorities struggling 
to rebuild affordable housing for Americans devastated by natural 
disasters whether in the gulf coast or in the heartland.
  We in Congress should always work to streamline government so that 
assistance gets to you where it is needed most as quickly as possible.
  I would like to thank Chairmen Frank and Thompson and subcommittee 
Chairs Waters and Cuellar for bringing this issue to light. I would 
also like to thank Ranking Member Capito for her support of this 
important legislation. In the nearly 3 years since hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita devastated the gulf coast, they have worked tirelessly to help 
our residents get the assistance they need. The entire gulf coast is 
thankful for their diligence on these matters.
  I hope that my colleagues join me in passing this bill today so we 
can eliminate one more bureaucratic hurdle that hampers the efforts of 
our citizens to rebuild in the aftermath of a natural disaster.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time, and I yield the balance of my time to 
the

[[Page 12793]]

gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Childers), and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6276, the Public Housing 
Disaster Relief Act. This legislation will repeal section 9(k) in the 
Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, and clears the way for 
public housing authorities in need of repair following a disaster to be 
eligible for FEMA section 406 funds under the Stafford Act.
  Today, there are two programs that are designed to assist public 
facilities and private nonprofit facilities in times of disasters. 
Section 9(k) within HUD was set up to provide natural disaster grants 
to public housing authorities. Section 406 of the Stafford Act permits 
the use of FEMA funds for repair, restoration, reconstruction, or 
replacement of public facilities and private nonprofit facilities, as 
well as associated expenses.
  Since the 2000 appropriations, Congress has repealed section 9(k) and 
separately appropriated a set-aside amount within the Public Housing 
Capital Fund for emergencies and natural disasters. Congress has 
reduced this fund over the past 8 years. The funding has gone from a 
high of $75 million from 2000 through 2002 to a low of $16.8 million 
last year.
  In 2004, four hurricanes struck Florida, completely depleting the 
$39.7 million available in funding for that year. In 2005, hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita hit the gulf coast, and that year's funding of $29.8 
million was not adequate to restore public housing that was damaged or 
destroyed.

                              {time}  1445

  In 2006, Hurricane Wilma came ashore in Florida during the first 
month of the fiscal year, using much of the $16.8 million funding for 
2006.
  Despite the lack of funding available under the section 9(k) 
emergency reserve account, public housing developments have remained 
ineligible for FEMA funds under section 406.
  While current law is intended to prevent duplication by both HUD and 
FEMA for public housing facilities, it has put public housing 
facilities at a distinct disadvantage relative to other types of 
housing in disaster areas.
  In testimony before a joint subcommittee hearing on June 4, 2008, 
with the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and the 
Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response Subcommittee of the 
Homeland Security Committee, HUD testified that it did not believe that 
Congress intended to limit the ability of public housing authorities to 
access Stafford Act funding by providing funding under section 9(k).
  Specifically, HUD's testimony, stated this: ``In recent years the 
President has proposed eliminating both the portion of section 9(k) 
that provides the disaster grant funding and the set-aside for disaster 
grants in an attempt to alleviate the confusion about disaster 
assistance and make it possible for housing authorities to have access 
to section 406 Stafford Act funding.''
  HUD went on to suggest several ways to resolve this current 
situation: ``One potential solution to disaster funding shortfalls for 
public housing authorities would be the permanent repeal or amendment 
of section 9(k).''
  H.R. 6276, the Public Housing Disaster Relief Act, clearly paves the 
way for public housing authorities in need of repair following a 
disaster to be eligible for FEMA section 406 funds under the Stafford 
Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHILDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6276, the Public Housing 
Disaster Relief Act of 2008. I'm honored to join my colleagues in 
supporting this bill, specifically Chairman Frank and Congressman 
Cazayoux from Louisiana, Mrs. Capito from West Virginia and Mr. 
Neugebauer from Texas.
  The Public Housing Disaster Relief Act is a commonsense approach to 
reducing ambiguity between the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development and the Federal Emergency Management Agency by striking 
section 9(k) of the United States Housing Act which was implemented in 
1998.
  While certainly well-intended to encourage the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development to set aside funds in the event of a natural 
disaster, section 9(k) has proven to become an overburdensome 
authorization that has stalled Federal dollars from being disbursed to 
public housing authorities following a presidentially-declared natural 
disaster.
  Since 2000, the Appropriations Committee has allocated zero dollars 
toward section 9(k), and, instead, separately appropriated a specified 
amount within HUD's capital fund to be used for emergencies and natural 
disasters.
  We are all reminded of the devastating impact Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita had on the gulf coast in 2005, specifically, in the Fourth 
Congressional District of Mississippi, represented by my friend and 
colleague, Congressman Gene Taylor.
  I would also like to acknowledge Chairman Bennie Thompson for his 
hard work in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  To date, the confusion associated with section 9(k) of the Housing 
Act has blocked FEMA from disbursing any Federal disaster related funds 
to multiple public housing authorities in Mississippi due to an 
internal government disagreement on whether HUD or FEMA is responsible 
for providing natural disaster relief to public housing authorities 
across the gulf coast.
  The State of Mississippi was forced to allocate $100 million of its 
Federal Community Development Block Grant allocation to rebuild various 
public housing units, and the State is still in the process of 
receiving final approval to actually use the Federal grant dollars 
which were approved almost 2 years ago.
  Recently, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Development held a hearing in conjunction with the House 
Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, 
Preparedness and Response on this matter where Jeffrey Riddel, Director 
of the Office of Capital Improvements, Public and Indian Housing at HUD 
noted, ``One potential approach to disaster funding shortfalls for 
public housing authorities would be the permanent repeal or amendment 
of section 9(k).''
  The physical revitalization of communities following a natural 
disaster is critical to strengthening economic development. As a local 
county official for over 16 years prior to coming to Congress, I have 
witnessed the benefits and resources local public housing authorities 
offer to communities across the United States, even communities that 
are routinely impacted by natural disasters.
  I believe that H.R. 6276 removes unnecessary bureaucratic red tape 
between HUD and FEMA in order to provide tangible Federal support 
dollars for rebuilding affordable housing to communities struck by 
overwhelming natural disasters.
  Additionally, I would note the Congressional Budget Office has scored 
this legislation as budget neutral over 5 years.
  In conclusion, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting 
H.R. 6276.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, we're today talking about making sure 
that, in the event of a disaster, that we have the funds and we don't 
have to go through a lot of red tape to make sure that we can restore 
this housing, when it's repairable, in a feasible way, and to make sure 
that we continue to provide the shelter for some of our very needy 
Americans.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there aren't bills on the floor today. 
There should be bills on the floor, and there should be a bipartisan 
bill that works on another disaster that is impacting a lot of needy 
Americans today, and that's the fact of the rising electric

[[Page 12794]]

costs, utility costs for many of the people that live in these housing 
authorities. The mass transit that they use to go to and fro work is 
going up. They're having to raise their fares. Even gasoline for them 
to go to their work and back.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill which certainly we 
support, I support. I would hope that we would bring some other 
bipartisan bills to the floor that would address probably one of the 
most looming disasters for many of these families, as well as families 
all across the country.
  I get to thinking about the fact that today America had to write a 
check for about a billion dollars to provide energy supplement for the 
energy that we already produce in this country. I think about the fact 
that $170 million of that went to Hugo Chavez. I think about what we 
could do together if we were to begin to have an energy policy in this 
country today where we were investing $170 million in America every day 
rather than investing $170 million in a dictator from Venezuela, that 
we can create jobs, and that maybe many of the folks that are in the 
housing authorities around America today, with those jobs, that they 
could move into conventional for-rental housing, or even experience the 
American dream of owning their own home.
  So while I support this bill, I would hope that we could take this 
same bipartisan spirit, working in the future, to solve America's 
energy needs instead of solving the financial needs of many folks or 
countries around the world that don't really care whether our folks in 
public housing have a nice, clean, safe place to live or not.
  But we care, and we need to show the American people that we care 
about them, not just the people that are in public housing, but the 
families all across America today that are struggling with double the 
price of a tank of gasoline.
  Just the other night I was on the phone with some constituents back 
in Texas, and this gentleman was on the phone. He said, ``Congressman, 
I have to go get dialysis three times a week. I have to drive over 100 
miles to do that. And now I'm down to making a decision whether I'm 
going to be able to afford gasoline, groceries, or the rent.''
  That's not a decision we want people in America making. And so 
certainly, in the future, I hope that we will be able to not only 
address some of these important housing issues, as we've done in the 
Financial Services Committee, but I hope, also, that we would remember 
that part of the American dream is also having the ability to have a 
nice place to live, but also to be able to have an economy where we can 
grow and prosper and make, hopefully, some of our subsidized housing a 
temporary spot for American people and not a permanent spot. But with 
these rising costs of utilities and gasoline, I'm afraid we may be 
locking them into a scenario from which they would like to get out.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHILDERS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess as I get older my memory is even worse than I 
thought. I thought I remembered what it was like when the Republicans 
were in power. But I don't seem to remember any of those bills my 
friend from Texas was just talking about. Apparently they were saving 
them up until we came to power, because I don't remember them ever 
bringing them up when we were here.
  Having said that, I do want to apologize to my friends on the other 
side for talking about the legislation under consideration. I hope they 
will indulge me as I do that.
  And as I do it, I want to say that I think what we've seen in the 
bill being brought forward by our newest colleagues from Louisiana and 
Mississippi is the importance of timing. We've had this problem in 
which public housing authorities in Louisiana and Mississippi were 
being treated unfairly. This is not singling them out for special 
treatment. This is ending a bureaucratic glitch that disadvantaged 
them. And we're doing it in the way that was suggested by the Bush 
administration, and I give them credit for that.
  But it ought to be clear to people that having new Members here from 
Louisiana and Mississippi, the areas affected, had an impact. They are 
both on the Financial Services Committee, and I'm very proud that the 
Financial Services Committee on which they are now members gave them 
the opportunity to bring this bill forward.
  I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Mississippi and the gentleman from Texas, the Chair and Subcommittee 
Chair of the Homeland Security Committee.
  One of the things that plagues this institution is jurisdictional 
arguments and turf fights. I'm very pleased that we've been able, my 
colleagues particularly on the Homeland Security Committee, to work so 
closely together on this. I'm also glad to say that this is genuinely a 
bipartisan issue, and I appreciate the Republicans supporting us.
  But I do want to stress again, this is no special deal for Louisiana 
and Mississippi. By a bureaucratic glitch, the existence of a provision 
that has never been funded keeps them from getting money to replace 
public housing that was destroyed. And there's a Federal program under 
FEMA that provides Federal funds for public buildings that are 
destroyed. This simply allows public housing a fair share.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. CHILDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise also to salute the 
two newest members of this committee for introducing this legislation.
  This legislation, the Public Housing Disaster Relief Act of 2008, 
will strike section 9(k) of the U.S. Housing Act and clarify the 
funding structure of public housing authorities in the wake of 
disasters.
  Just 2 weeks ago, the Financial Services Committee and Homeland 
Security Committee held a joint hearing to examine the housing 
conditions of individuals displaced by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. 
During this hearing, the testimony provided by the FEMA and HUD 
witnesses revealed that there is confusion between the two agencies 
over who is responsible for providing disaster recovery funds to public 
housing authorities that are damaged by disasters.

                              {time}  1500

  A number of public housing authorities received significant damage, 
Mr. Speaker, during Hurricane Katrina. But these housing authorities 
did not receive any funds from the 9(k) account because there simply 
were not any funds available.
  Public housing authorities did receive some assistance from the 
Public Housing Capital Fund Emergency Needs Account, but the funds were 
quickly exhausted and left many housing authorities without the 
resources they needed to repair their units.
  In total, Mr. Speaker, only $29 million was made available to the 
housing authorities along the gulf coast. If you are familiar with the 
degree of devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and Rita, you know 
this was not enough.
  H.R. 6276 will eliminate an account that has historically been 
underused and clarify the funding structure by making it clear to FEMA 
that public housing authorities are eligible for Stafford Act 
assistance.
  I urge the passage of this important legislation, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. CHILDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Cuellar) 3 minutes.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Childers. I also 
want to thank Chairman Bennie Thompson of the Homeland Security 
Committee and Chairman Barney Frank of the Financial Services 
Committee, as well as Chairwoman Maxine Waters of the Subcommittee on 
Housing and Community Opportunity and our ranking members, also, for 
working together on this piece of legislation.
  I, too, congratulate our two newest Members of the House, Congressman

[[Page 12795]]

Cazayoux from Louisiana and Congressman Childers from my home State of 
Mississippi for drafting H.R. 6276.
  As you know, earlier this month, Ms. Waters and I teamed up to hold a 
hearing examining the roles and responsibilities of HUD and FEMA in 
providing affordable housing to disaster victims under the direction of 
Chairman Frank and Chairman Thompson. During this hearing, there was 
confusion as to which agency is responsible for providing disaster 
recovery funds to public housing authorities damaged during disasters.
  The Public Housing Disaster Relief Act of 2008 will strike section 
9(k) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 clarifying the funding structure 
for public housing authorities in the wake of disasters. After 
Hurricane Katrina, housing authorities received no funds from the 9(k) 
account, and it's not hard to see that this account is no longer 
needed. In fact, this account only caused us confusion as to who is 
responsible for providing disaster recovery funds to public housing 
authorities. Let's do our part to eliminate this confusion.
  This legislation, H.R. 6276, will eliminate the 9(k) account and 
clarify the funding structure by identifying FEMA as the responsible 
party for providing assistance to public housing authorities through 
the Stafford Act. We need to streamline government and provide services 
to our constituents in a more efficient and effective manner, and this 
is exactly what H.R. 6276 does.
  So I encourage our Members, all of my colleagues, to support H.R. 
6276.
  Again, I congratulate both Mr. Cazayoux and Mr. Childers for bringing 
up this good piece of legislation.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. CHILDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Jefferson) 2 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, no place on the planet needs this more than my district 
in Louisiana. Before the storm, there were some 5,000 families in 
public housing representing some 30-or-so thousand people who were 
living there. Since the storm, there are some 800 people or so, well 
down from our prior number. That's because the storm damaged almost all 
the public housing virtually thoroughly to the point now that the areas 
where public housing used to occupy are laid as a wasteland, and we 
have had nothing but administrative fighting and confusion over this 
issue.
  And what is happening here today that Chairman Frank and our two 
newest colleagues, Mr. Cazayoux and Mr. Childers, are bringing today is 
a bill that is very much needed.
  In my area, the cost to rebuild public housing is going to be 
astronomical, but the families who are depending on it, it's quite a 
large number of people. And there is no way we can restore affordable 
housing in our area without restoring public housing. There is no way 
to restore public housing unless there is an agency that has a 
tradition of dealing with bringing public buildings back into place as 
FEMA does. It's an unusual argument for us to make that we want FEMA to 
do more in our area, to have more responsibility, given the record it 
has of being far less than perfect. But that is a case where it makes 
sense for FEMA to take over and fill the gap.
  So I want to congratulate you again for coming forward. This 
legislation is going to mean a lot to our people in Louisiana, a lot to 
the folks I represent in New Orleans, and a lot to the families who are 
struggling to get back into their homes.
  So thank you very much. I appreciate it.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was going to inquire to see if the 
gentleman has other speakers.
  Mr. CHILDERS. I actually have one more speaker.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. CHILDERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, 2\1/2\ 
minutes, to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, Members, I would like to commend all of our 
authors and co-authors on this legislation. We learned a lot because of 
Hurricane Katrina. We learned that FEMA and HUD are confused. They 
don't work together. As a matter of fact, they work against each other. 
And the most vulnerable of those who were victimized by Hurricane 
Katrina, the public housing residents, were so negatively impacted by 
all of this.
  We found that when there was a subcommittee hearing that we held, 
this joint hearing with Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency, 
Communications, Preparedness, and Response, we talked about the roles 
of HUD and FEMA in responding to affordable housing needs following 
natural disasters and emergencies. At that hearing, we learned that HUD 
Section 9 program, the public housing reconstruction, has never been 
funded because of language in appropriations acts that has barred the 
program from receiving any appropriations. Although HUD has been 
providing a limited amount of funds from its already underfunded 
capital fund this year, the department proposes not to provide any 
emergency capital funds.
  In addition, because section 9(k) is authorized, FEMA has refused to 
allow PHAs to access funds under its section 406 reconstruction 
program. This is in spite of the fact that there is no statutory or 
other prohibition on PHAs using these funds. FEMA is simply refusing to 
grant PHAs access to section 406 funding because it says that PHAs have 
another source for this purpose, section 9(k), which has never been 
funded.
  You've heard a lot from Members here today about this, and I'm going 
to yield back my time so that the gentleman can do a close appropriate 
to this legislation that he so courageously authored.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Childers).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I would 
like to say I think this does go a long way to probably eliminate some 
confusion between these two agencies. It makes sense to do this.
  I want to welcome the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cazayoux) to the 
committee and thank him for his willingness to participate in this 
issue.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHILDERS. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to thank those who 
spoke on behalf of this today. And in conclusion, I simply, again, urge 
all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6276.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cazayoux) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6276.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________