9/11 Commission Civil Liberties Board Act

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, the ranking member, Mr. Olver, and the chairman of this committee for the hard work that has been done. This truly does go, very briefly, to the American Dream. Interestingly enough, it is a bipartisan dream. It is a commitment that we have made over the years, which is to ensure the opportunity for homeownership for all Americans. This is made possible by the authorizing legislation, the American Dream Downpayment Act, which was a combination of Members, both Republicans and Democrats.

This amendment does a very simple act, and it is an act that we could consume and has a de minimis impact, except for those who are still trying to seek the American Dream. It allows them to do so until December 31, 2009. This amendment extends the availability of funding on the American Dream Downpayment Act for an additional 3 months.

On December 16, 2003, the President signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, a program that provides grants to help home buyers with downpayment and closing costs. The Home Improvement Partnership Program is funded at $1.9 billion in FY 2007, an increase of $159 million, or 9 percent above FY 2006, and equal to the President's request.

Since its inception, the HOME program has assisted more than 300,000 families to become homeowners, 55 percent of whom are minorities. More than two dozen organizations are working to create more than $1 trillion in mortgage financing for minority home buyers.

As we look at the landscape of America, one natural disaster after another, we know that we are in a crisis on either homeownership or the rebuilding of homes. So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important if we have a program that appears to be working that we give those extra added months in order to help Mr. and Mrs. Jones, Mr. and Mrs. Garcia, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, just Mr. and Mrs. America who are eligible for this program.

I would say to you that because 55 percent are minorities, that means that 45 percent are all of America. This is a 100 percent program that responds to working Americans. The purpose of this program is to increase the homeownership rate, especially, as I indicated, among minority groups, but not limited to such. It gives the opportunity to hardworking Americans, single parents, single individuals, married individuals, and people who want to invest in their community.

It allows communities that have lower rates of homeownership when compared to the national average to be engaged in the home-buying business. It provides them with lower closing costs by approximately $700 per loan in order to stimulate homeownership for all Americans.

About 3 years ago, Mr. Chairman, I had a homeownership fair where 6,000 Houstonians showed up. Six thousand, looking for the opportunity. This amendment is a simple statement that we are committed to homeownership and allows for the homeownership to go forward until December 30, 2009.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 5576, which replaces ``September 30, 2009'' with ``December 31, 2009'' as the date where funds made available for the American Dream Down Payment Act are available.

This amendment extends the availability of the funding under the American Dream Down Payment Act for an additional three months.

On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, a program that provides grants to help home buyers with downpayments and closing costs. The HOME Investment Partnerships Program is funded at $1.92 billion in FY 2007, an amount increase of $159 million (9 percent) above FY 2006 and equal to the President's request.

Since its inception, the HOME Program has assisted more than 300,000 families to become homeowners, 55 percent of which are minorities. More than two dozen organizations are working to create more than $1 trillion in mortgage financing for minority home buyers.

The purpose of the program is to increase the home ownership rate, especially among minority groups, who have lower rates of home ownership when compared to the national average, and to lower closing costs by approximately $700 per loan in order to stimulate home ownership for all Americans.

This amendment will help first-time homebuyers by allowing funds appropriated to be available through December 30, 2009, to coincide with typical lease calendars, and provide increased flexibility for purchasing.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the distinguished chairman that I would like to err on the side of hardworking, taxpaying Americans who have invested their taxes and look forward to a return back home to them.

There are all kinds of complications, and I would suggest that the extra added time frame for this program to be extended would in fact be a plus for hardworking Americans seeking an opportunity for the American Dream. I frankly think the procedural, if you will, barrier can be remedied by this extension and my amendment.

I would ask all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to invest in the American Dream by voting to extend this particular provision and this particular investment in allowing them to buy the one singular investment that all Americans should have an opportunity to have: young couples, retiring couples, working couples of all races, colors and creeds, and particularly the very positive impact it has on minority Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Do I have the opportunity to close, Mr. Chairman?

Not having any other speakers, and you have no other speakers, let me again simply say that 55 percent of the individuals impacted by the American Dream program through the HOME monies are in fact minorities.

Having suffered through the travesty of Katrina, having suffered through Wilma and Rita, we know many are in the process of rebuilding and buying homes. Why not give them the extra added opportunity of a mere 3 months to be able to do what is right for them so that the American Dream is not extinguished because we are selfish on the floor of the House.

I am delighted to ask my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to support the Jackson-Lee amendment to invest in the American Dream for all Americans, and that is to have an opportunity to buy and live in your own home.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I offer my appreciation to the ranking member, Mr. Olver, and Mr. Knollenberg, and of course the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee.

This is a difficult task, but as I stand here today, I argue that it is a difficult posture to be in, to be elderly in America and to be without housing. We have already heard the stories about the choices that our elderly citizens have to make, sometimes between food, prescription drugs and, of course, housing.

In my own community in Houston as we are hosting thousands of Hurricane Katrina survivors, we have found the most vulnerable to be senior citizens, individuals who are without income or a future in terms of the work world and need to have some housing.

This is a simple amendment. This amendment says all tenant-based assistance made available under this heading shall continue to remain available to all eligible elderly applicants. Who could be against this simple statement?

I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to consider the vast numbers of the growing population of elderly, and let's try to do something about their plight.

In the year 2000, the elderly made up 12.4 percent of the population. The total number of elderly increased 12 percent from 1990 to the U.S. Census in 2000. More than 7.4 million elderly households pay more than they can afford for their housing. The number of elderly rental households rose to 1.2 million between 1999 and 2001, an increase of 14 percent.

This extension or this compliance with the idea of having elderly housing remain available for rental I think is a statement that responds to the changing demographics of America, the problems of low- income seniors facing multiyear housing assistance. Waiting lists are exacerbated by the shrinking supply of suitable, affordable housing as some owners convert existing units to market-rate housing.

Ask the many cities across America and the rural areas how many thousands of individuals are on the Section 8 housing, if you will, and they will respond thousands. And many of them are senior citizens. Nearly 21 percent of elderly 65 and older reported not being able to afford moderately priced housing in the area in which they live. Of those individuals, 79 percent of those renting housing reported not being able to afford rent prices in their own areas.

What can we do about it? We can simply acknowledge the fact that tenant-based housing should be available for the elderly. Thirty-four percent of older African American households and 41 percent of older Hispanic households rent their household, compared with only 19 percent of older white households. There is a population for rental assistance for the elderly, and particularly in view of the evacuation, the largest evacuation we can ever have imagined following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.

This is an important amendment that I hope my colleagues would support. But more importantly, I hope my dear friend would yield to waiving the point of order so this amendment might be able to be passed by this body.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 5576 that emphasizes that all tenant-based assistance made available under this heading shall continue to remain available to all eligible elderly applicants.

In the year 2000, the elderly made up 12.4 percent of the population. The total number of elderly increased 12 percent from 1990 (U.S. Census 2000).

More than 7.4 million elderly households pay more than they can afford for their housing. The number of elderly rental households with worst-case housing needs rose to 1.2 million between 1999 and 2001, an increase of 14 percent.

The problems of low income seniors facing multi-year housing assistance waiting lists is only exacerbated by the shrinking supply of suitable, affordable housing as some owners convert existing units to market-rate housing.

Nearly 21 percent of elderly 65 and over reported not being able to afford moderately priced housing in the areas in which they live. Of those individuals, 79 percent of those renting housing reported not being able to afford rent prices in their areas. (U.S. Census 1995, Housing Affordability)

Thirty-four percent of older African American households and 41 percent of older Hispanic households were renter households, compared with only 19 percent of older white households. (1995 American Housing Survey)

Approximately 19 percent of elderly African American and 11 percent of older Hispanic households reported moderate or severe problems regarding the physical condition of their housing units.

New tools are needed to help preserve these units and to provide the supportive services that are so necessary for an aging population.

Housing for the Elderly and Housing for Persons with Disabilities are funded at the FY 2006 levels of $735 million and $237 million respectively. The President's budget cut Elderly Housing by $190 million (26 percent) and Housing for Persons with Disabilities by $118 million (50 percent).

This amendment emphasizes the intent of the funding under this heading to assist the elderly, only and specifically the elderly, with rental housing.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Am I able to speak after the ruling of Chair on the point of order?

Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I have asked respectfully for the opposing side, for the Republicans, to acknowledge the plight of the elderly, and the percentage of them who are suffering without having the ability to have housing.

My position is that the enormity of the need warrants a waiver of the point of order, and I would ask the majority to waive the point of order so the elderly might be served in rental housing so the choice they make is not health care or housing.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair in favor of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and would point out that this is not an amendment that simply cuts money out of the bureaucracy. It is not a bureaucratic cut.

The cuts proposed by the amendment are irresponsible in today's atmosphere where immigration and terrorism threats to the government and U.S. citizens are real.

Cutting the Federal buildings fund by $261 million would leave the fund without the resources it needs to build critical, secure crossings on our southern border with Mexico and strengthen the Federal buildings against the threat of terrorism.

Let me repeat that. Vote for this amendment and you are voting against building border crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border and against funding to secure Federal buildings against terrorism.

The amendment would completely eliminate GSA's new construction of six border stations at the crossings in McAllen, Texas; El Paso, Texas; San Luis, New Mexico; Columbus, New Mexico; Calexico, California; and Nogales, Arizona. In addition, the amendment would eliminate the Food and Drug Administration's Montgomery County, Maryland project, as well as the remote delivery facility in Anacostia for mail sorting for the Federal Government, something that is sadly needed with the threat of anthrax and other deadly substances in our government now.

Funds would be cut that are needed to secure Federal buildings to protect workers and the general public from possible terrorist attacks.

As much as higher funding for the capital fund would be nice, there are more pressing needs in this bill.

This amendment is irresponsible, and I would urge its defeat, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my good friend that I probably, more than any other Member in this body, have great understanding of what public housing funds are for. I grew up in public housing. Nevertheless, this bill is about balancing the priorities that we need in this age of terrorism and threat of terrorism. In this age of immigration reform, I think that these funds need to fully be kept in as they have been appropriated by the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

In conclusion, let me just say I strongly oppose this amendment because of its impact on some vital security needs. I would point out to the gentleman and my friends, of the $261 million he diverts over into public housing, 20 percent of it could be used for administrative costs in the current form of the structure that it is used.

This money is needed and has been prioritized as such, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York if his intention is to withdraw the amendment, as we were led to believe.

It is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do so in opposition to this amendment which I understand takes part of the program and makes it available into the first quarter of fiscal year 2010. The problem with that is that this adds an unneeded complication to the administration and accounting of the HOME program and is unnecessary since under existing rules, if the funds are obligated on time, they will be available to homeowners during the last quarter of the year.

Mr. Chairman, this causes a great deal of problems in the administration of this program, so I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers and I will close on this side.

Mr. Chairman, once again I reiterate the opposition by the committee to this amendment. It is unnecessary and is an unneeded complication. But I would make the final point that already in existing appropriations the problem of the first quarter of next year will be satisfied with $25 million that has been appropriated next year, which will overlap between the 2007 and 2008 cycle, meaning this amendment is not only unnecessary but wouldn't have the impact which is already covered in the bill, in prior bills passed.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while I recognize that the gentlewoman from Florida has great intentions here, this bill, as we have said, is all about choosing priorities and making some difficult choices. The proposed reduction in HUD S&E funds, combined with the need to absorb a one-half percent increase in the Federal pay raise, will necessitate a further reduction in HUD's staffing level of several hundred full-time equivalent staff positions, making it more difficult for HUD to provide sufficient oversight and risk management in its significant housing and community development program delivery.

Regarding the cuts to GSA, I make note that we are at the start of the hurricane season, and these funds that would be cut support the Office of Citizen Services and Communications, the Nation's focal point for information and services offered by the Federal Government. This infrastructure has been a resource in the time of crisis or unexpected events, most recently as a means to provide valuable information to citizens after Hurricane Katrina. Reductions could impact the hours of operation of our call centers for victims of hurricanes this year.

These accounts also fund GSA's real and personal property utilization and disposal programs from which we transfer assets no longer needed by the Federal Government to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations, saving millions of dollars.

Cutting these funds delays in transferring properties to eligible recipients and delays in generating sales proceeds from disposal actions.

The amendment would cut funds for the Office of Governmentwide Policy, which carries out various policy functions assigned by Congress that is separate from GSA's operations. For example, these are the folks who set per diem rates and travel policy for government employees.

Mr. Chairman, cutting GSA operating expenses is the surest way to bring the operations of the Federal Government to a grinding halt. And while ``government'' bashing may be popular with many folks, we found out with the devastating hurricane season last year that many citizens want their government to respond to them in times of need. I ask Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment is not merely perfecting and adds additional legislation.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize noble intentions are at work here, but I am very opposed to increasing this program at the expense of other critical programs, and there are a number of reasons.

The committee mark fully funds the amount requested by the administration and fully funds the program that has been in place for the past decade. These funds go to State and local governments to abate lead-based paint in homes that will not be restored through privately funded modernization or resale.

Three years ago the Senate began a new demonstration program and added between $50 and $75 million in additional funds. The House has not included these funds in subsequent years, and the Senate has attempted to continue the demonstration program each year. They may well try to do it again.

The committee is simply not in a position to absorb a $35 million increase in funding for this demonstration program at the expense of other programs that are being funded at the 2005 level or below.

Once again, the proposed reduction in S&E funds, combined with the need to absorb a one-half percent increase in the Federal pay raise, will necessitate a further reduction in HUD's staffing level of several hundred full-time equivalent staff positions, making it more difficult for HUD to provide sufficient oversight and risk management in its significant housing and community development program delivery.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by reiterating my remarks that this is, as Mr. Terry pointed out, a year of very tough budget numbers. But not only that, we need to control our spending here.

The committee understands that, but also understands that it needs to meet other priorities. The mark fully funds the amount requested by the administration and fully funds the program that has been in place the past decade. The cuts that are proposed as offsets would be too substantial to absorb in the other programs. It would have a devastating impact.

I would urge our colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Point of Order

I will make the point order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that is not authorized. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order, and I will reserve the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I will make these very quick points: First, that section 108 is an eligible use of economic development funds. And, therefore, there is no reason to have a separate set-aside of funds, as is proposed here in this amendment. In fact, in this bill we have added $1 billion in CDBG funds for the fiscal year. So there will be plenty of opportunities for States to do exactly as the gentlewoman calls for, and we believe that is the best way the program should be run.

With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for Section 8 housing vouchers by $70 million to enable an additional 10,000 low- income families to afford safe, decent housing.

To offset this increase, the amendment cuts the Working Capital Fund for a poorly managed computer upgrade program. Even with the reduction, the bill would still provide $94 million in working capital funds for IT projects in eight accounts scattered around the bill other than the Working Capital Fund itself.

We have a choice, Mr. Chairman. Do we want to help thousands of families obtain affordable housing, or do we think it is more important to have a somewhat faster computer upgrade in HUD? If we support American families, we should support this amendment.

We all understand the budget is extremely tight and that many programs are facing cuts. Our amendment, therefore, does not seek to restore the amount to the amount that the President recommended, which is $144 million more than the committee recommends, it seeks merely to restore $70 million, or about half of what the difference is to what the President recommended.

This is less than the bare minimum of what is needed. We have hundreds of thousands of families on waiting lists, waiting 8, 9, 10 years for decent housing for Section 8 vouchers.

This amendment will enable us to provide vouchers to about 10,000 of those families. That is our choice. The Section 8 housing voucher program provides safe, affordable housing to approximately 2 million American families in urban and rural communities in our country.

Those vouchers are often the only resource for low-income families confronted by our Nation's affordable housing crisis.

Mr. Chairman, many Republicans support this amendment. We passed a similar amendment last year with Republican support. 141 Members have signed a letter in support of fully funding the President's request, which would be twice the size of this amendment. 225 Members, including 30 Republicans, voted for an essentially similar amendment last year.

I urge everyone on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment.

Finally, let me say that we may be told that the offset would leave no funds in the computer account. The fact is the committee has been very ingenious in squirreling away money in different accounts.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a list of all of the places in the bill where money is squirreled away for these computers. There is a total of $194 million. With this amendment it would still leave $94 million for this purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. I urge everyone to vote for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would offer this chart for the Record. I am pleased to announce also that the amendment has gained the support of the AARP and the National League of Cities. Once again, the choice is, will we provide 10,000 families with safe, decent housing, at the price of slightly slowing down a computerization program for the bureaucrats at

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is we have waiting lists in many of our cities of 8, 9, and 10 years for Section 8 vouchers.

We could do much, much more than this amendment would do and shorten these waiting lists to 5 and 6 years.

Mr. Chairman, it is wrong for low-income Americans to have to wait 8, 9 and 10 years for decent, safe housing. This amendment will go a little ways toward supplying that need.

The chairman says that the committee's proposal funds all of the Section 8 vouchers. It funds enough Section 8 vouchers to continue a waiting list of 8, 9, and 10 years.

Now, it is true the offset takes some money away from a computerization account at HUD, but it leaves $94 million for that purpose. The computerization at HUD can go a little more slowly, and 10,000 additional families will have decent housing.

That is the choice. HUD can do, and do very well, with $94 million for this computerization program squirreled away in different sections of the bill as I have here outlined.

But 10,000 families might not have to wait 9, 10 years for decent housing. Mr. Chairman, that is the choice in the amendment. That is why I urge everyone to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the appropriation for the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS program, or HOPWA, by $10 million.

Frankly, this is a very modest amount. Earlier this year, more than 100 Members joined me and Representatives Ros-Lehtinen and Crowley in asking the Appropriations Committee for $424 million in HOPWA funding for fiscal year 2007.

I am relieved that the President finally asked for a $14 million increase over last year in HOPWA funding, and I am very grateful to Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver for meeting his request and funding the program at this level.

But the sad truth is that this year's HOPWA level barely keeps up with inflation. Three years ago in 2004, HOPWA was funded at $295 million. That the program will see an increase in 2004 to 2007 of $5 million in 3 years is not enough even to meet inflation.

Housing needs have grown faster than inflation. Adequately meeting the housing needs of all those living with HIV and AIDS would take over $2 billion. Nationwide, thousands of people are now on waiting lists for HOPWA-funded housing, and with 91 percent of HOPWA recipients having family incomes of less than $1,000 per month, program recipients simply cannot afford the shortfall.

The costs associated with new AIDS treatments often force people to choose between essential medications to enable them to survive and the necessities such as housing. Without adequate HOPWA funding, AIDS patients will continue to flood our emergency rooms and our Medicaid rolls and will be forced to live on the streets.

This HOPWA funding does not simply get people with HIV and AIDS off of the streets. Recent studies have shown that housing in many cases equates directly to HIV prevention because people with housing are much more likely to know their HIV status and, therefore, less likely to transmit the disease to others. Improvements in housing status also lead to lower rates of high-risk behavior, such as intravenous drug use, which can lead to the spread of the disease.

HOPWA is an extremely fiscally sound program. It is locally controlled and provides maximum flexibility to States and communities to design approaches that best respond to local housing needs. In fiscal year 2006 alone, HOPWA funds will support the delivery of services to roughly 71,500 households in all 50 States.

I realize that, given the record deficits that we have, funding HOPWA at the $2 billion level it should have is not realistic. The financial constraints that we face put us in an unfortunate bind. There is much room for improvement.

I, again, thank the chairman and ranking member for the increase that they proposed, but given the scarce resources of this bill, a $10 million increase beyond that, which means we will have an increase by $5 million in 3 years, is I think more than warranted, and that is what this amendment is.

I am grateful for HOPWA's increase this year, but I urge a further increase of $10 million, so it is a net increase of $5 million in 3 years.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the amendment if necessary.

I regret to hear that, but I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the recognition. I have an amendment at the desk which is a repetition of a bipartisan amendment that was brought to the floor of the House a year ago, and it has to deal with the HOPE VI housing program. Many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have seen their districts benefit from HOPE VI.

It is a program that was launched under the George Herbert Walker Bush administration. In fact, its chief architect was former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp. It is a program which has been in place for 16 years now, and it has literally changed the face of public housing in numerous communities around our country.

I have seen it happen three times in Birmingham, Alabama and Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Abandoned, near dilapidated public housing projects, which had been given up, have now been turned into mixed- income developments. And whole communities of Birmingham and Tuscaloosa, which had been squandered, are now on the road toward economic revitalization and recovery.

That has been the story of Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. It has been a story that has spread all over this country.

When we brought this amendment to the floor last year, no less than 59 Republicans joined in support of it with 188 Democrats, one of the strongest levels of bipartisan support that any amendment has commanded. I simply ask the House to do essentially what it has done before.

The President attempted to zero out funding. The committee has not added funding. We propose to add $30 million from the Administration and Management Fund to the Working Capital Fund. The reason, Mr. Chairman, that it goes in the Working Capital Fund is we have a reauthorization issue around HOPE VI. As of September 30, the program will have lapsed. It is our full expectation that it will be extended.

There has been a unanimous voice vote in the Financial Services Committee to reauthorize it, and there has been strong support on the other side of the Capitol in the Senate to reauthorize it. What we simply want to do is make sure that when the program is reauthorized, that the money is being held so these projects can go forward. $30 million is a very conservative amount of money.

The average HOPE VI project is indeed around 20 or $30 million. But what this commitment of resources will do is to in effect preserve the HOPE VI program and effectuate the intent of the Financial Services Committee that HOPE VI be reauthorized.

Let me thank someone who is not in the Chamber at this point, my colleague from Florida, Congresswoman Katherine Harris. She worked very hard to bring this amendment to the floor last year. She has worked very hard to give us support for it tonight. I certainly thank her for her bipartisan commitment.

But it is a very simple statement, Mr. Chairman. If we value a future for public housing, if we want to transform the lives of these communities, this is a small nominal amount in a massive Federal budget of $3.7 trillion. It is literally a drop in the bucket, but it is a very meaningful drop in the bucket for many families who are living in urban centers all around this country.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) and thank her for her outstanding work on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me put several things in perspective. Mr. Watt made the obvious point that these projects take awhile to succeed. Therefore if we stop the funding flow, it will make it impossible for commitments to be made that have been kept.

Observation number two, we need this appropriation of funds to effectuate the intent of Congress. The committee that has jurisdiction over HOPE VI, the Financial Services Committee, has voted unanimously on a voice vote to reauthorize HOPE VI.

The Senate has expressed or manifested the same plan to reauthorize HOPE VI. If we don't put funding forward, the clear-cut congressional intent will be undercut in this instance.

Third of all, there is a strong, clear congressional intent from the last several budget cycles. Four times in a row now, the administration has tried to zero out HOPE VI. Every single time Congress has put it back.

The Senate had put $100 million back last year. The House, in a strong bipartisan vote, put $60 million back. We anticipate the Senate will put another significant amount back into this budget.

The next point, talk to the people who have seen this work on the ground. The League of Cities, a bipartisan collection of mayors and leaders of municipalities, has endorsed this amendment. They are an eloquent testament to the fact that HOPE VI revitalizes neighborhoods.

The National Home Builders, a strong bipartisan group, has given its endorsement to this amendment. They have a statement it meets important private sector and public sector goals.

We don't have to look very far other than the quotes of some of our own colleagues. Charlie Dent from Pennsylvania, a Republican the last time I checked, this ``project will be a catalyst for the revitalization of the entire community and it will serve as a model of what public housing can and should be, a path to homeownership for its residents.''

Fred Upton, a Republican from Saint Joseph, Michigan: ``This is tremendous news for the Benton Harbor community. It is another example of folks from the local State and Federal levels coming together for the betterment of Benton Harbor.''

Anne Northup, our colleague from Louisville, a Republican: ``A HOPE VI grant, great news for Louisville, a major investment in the downtown neighborhood.''

My good friend and our colleague, Chip Pickering from Mississippi, a Republican the last time I checked: ``The full range of this project will not only improve the lives of the residents in

my district, but also their children for years to come. The HOPE VI grant represents a significant investment to the overall economic development and renewal of the East Mississippi region.''

Our colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a Republican the last time I checked, talks about the wonderful collaboration of the Stamford Housing Authority, the Fairfield Resident Council and the City of Stamford to make this project a reality.

There is an overwhelming statement from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle about the utility of HOPE VI. So for this body to fail to pass this Davis-Harris amendment will not only be in contradiction of what we say in our press releases, it would be in contradiction of what the U.S. Senate seeks to do and would be in contradiction of what we do with our own votes.

While the administration fails to get the message, I think that our colleagues in this body tonight will get the message. I urge passage of this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. She has been a consistent leader in helping cities' economic development. I want to point out this seems to me a particularly odd thing to do. Cities which use this are not getting additional funding. They pay it back.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding.

I was hoping to be able to offer an amendment, but we ran into a CBO scoring problem and I was told that therefore it would not be supported. I deeply regret this.

There is in this bill a very good set of provisions in general, expanding the ability of the FHA to be responsive. It came from work we did in the authorizing committee. Frankly, I was surprised to see it plucked in part from the authorizing version and stuck into this bill. It is authorizing language. On the whole it is a good thing. The Appropriations Committee took from the authorizing committee much of what we did, but they did not take everything. Now, they are entitled, obviously, to pick and choose, but there is one grave omission here. One of the things this bill will do will be to give the FHA the authority the ability to extend loans to people who might be of lower credit risk. That is, it will try to help get to people who might not have been able to get loans by stricter standards. That is a good thing. And it says that those people will have to pay a higher upfront fee. It could be as much as double, from 1.5 percent to 3 percent of the loan, and they will also be forced to pay a higher fee going forward. With people who are just starting out, I will accept the need to do that.

What my amendment would have accomplished, and it was something we were ready to do in the authorizing process and we lost the ability to do that, it was to say that a low income borrower, a borrower with some credit

risk, who was meeting his or her obligations after a period of 5 years would be eligible to get back the extra money. In other words, without that provision the Federal Government is going to be something of a predatory lender. It will lend money to the lower income people with the higher credit risk and charge them more for that loan. Now, as a starting point that might be a reasonable idea. But once a borrower in that category, having borrowed the money, has demonstrated over 5 years a capacity and willingness to make the payments, why does the Federal Government continue to penalize that person?

People have said, well, there might be some losses here. If there are losses, why should the responsible low income borrower be forced to bear all that cost? Why should that not be shared among all the borrowers? Why should the cost of paying for those loans that may default, a small percentage but there will still be some, why should that not go for everybody?

So right now if you are getting the maximum FHA loan, it is irrelevant to you if these people default. We are making the poor pay for the poor. You are making in this a predatory lender of the Federal Government. Without the amendment that I was told would not be accepted, so I will not push it here, low income people who borrow money from the FHA will be charged more upfront, they will be charged more going forward, and no matter how well they meet their obligations, no matter how responsible they are, they will continue to pay more for the loan. The poor pay more under this bill. And what the CBO said as well, there is a certain element of subsidy here for the low income borrowers, and this would increase the subsidy. That is right, for the low income borrowers.

I do think it is worth to trying to reach out to the lower income people, and I understand this means that some will default, but I do not understand why one low income individual or 10 or 20 low income individuals who meet their obligation ought to be the ones who bear the burden for those who do not. Now, as I said, I understand, because CBO said it was going to score it negatively, I was not going to be able to get it adopted. But I hope, to the committee, that this will not be the end of it.

Please, we are talking, Mr. Chairman, about ending predatory lending. Without the language I was talking about, we, the Federal Government, become an entity that charges you more if you are poor than if you are wealthy, that charges you more if you are in the low income bracket because you are asked to shoulder the burden of people in the same bracket who will default. That is unworthy of us. It also, of course, retards the very purpose of the bill because you say you want to expand home ownership by reaching out to people and then you charge them more because they have to pay not only the price of their own home but they are going to be saddled with the price of other people in their income level and their credit rating level who default.

That is an inappropriate thing for the Federal Government to do. And while I accept the fact that I cannot get this accepted now, I hope we can talk about this.

By the way, the overall bill will raise money for the Federal Government. This would simply reduce it by a small amount. That is the least we can do for low income people.

Mr. Chairman, like my colleague from New York, I am glad we are getting something additional. This is symptomatic of this bill. It will provide too little money for a lot of very important programs.

And we will be told, yes, it is a good program, but we do not have the money. I believe the members of the subcommittee did the best possible job. I commend them for doing the best possible job in the circumstances.

The problem is that the majority created the circumstances. This is the consequence of too many tax cuts with wars at the same time, and a budget that then leaves too little money. So in case after case after case, we will be told, you are right, that is a very important function, we do not have enough money.

This particularly troubles me because I would like to build the consensus in the country for the kind of vigorous law enforcement that we need to protect ourselves in the face of this new threat.

When the oversight board on civil liberties and privacy that the 9/11 Commission recommended is starved for money, you lose the opportunity to achieve that balance that would increase support for law enforcement.

And while no one says it is a bad idea, except maybe the Vice President, but he did not say that openly, I just guessed, no one says that it is doing a bad job. There is too little money left because the priorities are tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and then everything else gets stiffed.

And this is an example of a very good program. The committee did the best it could, and the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut makes a bad situation somewhat better. I am glad that it is here, but we are in this situation because this is an example of the price the country is paying for a very distorted set of priorities.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, who has been a leader in this fight.