Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007

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

This is a reauthorization, and I believe with the initiative of the gentleman from New Mexico, which I hope the House will adopt, will extend the Federal program that responds to the economic needs of the Native Americans. It also has a provision reauthorizing the Native Hawaiian legislation.

The program primarily provides funding, subject, of course, to appropriation, to the recognized tribes for housing. Members will be aware, if they represent areas where the tribes are and if they have visited those areas, that inadequate housing is a serious social problem for many of our Native American residents. And this is a bill that provides money to them to help them meet that need.

Now, the program is changed in three ways: First, as I said, it has not yet been changed but we expect it to be. Our committee has unanimously expressed its support for an amendment that was drafted by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), who will be offering it, which creates an economic development program to go along with the housing program, and we do believe adequate housing and economic development go hand in hand.

Secondly, at the request of the tribes, the Indian Housing Council, we have added in this a provision for a reserve fund and we have also provided funding for a self-determination program. So this bill comes before us strongly supported by the broad range of the tribes and it continues Federal support to help the tribes themselves build housing and will, I hope, also now have a component for economic development.

There is one item of some controversy which I think all of us involved here regret but we cannot ignore. The gentleman from North Carolina will be offering an amendment which says that no funding under this bill, including the housing program and the, I hope to be adopted, economic development program to the one tribe, the Cherokees, who have recently decided that the descendants of the slaves that the tribe had in the 19th century will be excluded from tribal benefits despite a treaty obligation to the contrary, we hope in the end that will never be necessary. In fact, I believe we will see an amendment that will make it clear that the amendment will only apply as long as the tribe maintains that position and there is pending litigation in the tribal court to change it. We hope it is changed. That's, as I see, the only controversy that applies to the program itself. I take it back. I know there will be an amendment to strike the Native Hawaiian program, and we will very vigorously oppose that. We have had that debate before. This is a program that works well, that is overwhelmingly supported in the State of Hawaii, and we believe should be allowed to continue.

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

Mr. Chairman, there are issues in which a number of Members of the House are recognized as leaders. There are sometimes issues where one particular Member, by the force of his commitment, by the intellectual powers he brings to bear, by the length of that commitment, really stands out as a leader. And on this particular issue, the issue of Native Americans in general, that is our colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) dating back from his days in the State legislature in Michigan, when he represented a district with no Native Americans. They named cars in his district after Native Americans, but they're the only ones with those names that lived there. And just out of a concern that America honor its commitment in this area, which we haven't always done, he has been for many years a champion of the cause of Native Americans.

I am delighted to have worked with him on this bill, he is the sponsor of the bill, and I yield him such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I agree that the amendment is a useful one, and I support it. The gentleman from Oklahoma, who is a member of the Financial Services Committee, has been a very able advocate for Native Americans on a variety of issues, as well as on others. I think this is an example of his constructive approach. But I do want to take some exception with the reasons for it. And we can do things for somewhat different reasons. I don't think what the gentleman from North Carolina was doing was rash.

In terms of what is best for the tribes, what we are doing here is trying to enforce a treaty. Frankly, I think the tribes have suffered more from violations of treaties than they have been the violators of treaties. I think that, in fact, it is a national embarrassment that this Federal Government has historically been the one that has initiated breaches of treaties and ignored treaties. So I am glad to say this is a sign here, not simply on the merits of including the Freedmen, but a reaffirmation by this Congress that we will hold everybody to those treaties. I do believe by establishing that principle, we will be doing the Native Americans in the end some good, as well.

Beyond that, in terms of timing, I understand this is in the courts. But let's be clear what is in the courts. The issue here is whether a decision taken by the tribe to exclude the Freedmen, I believe, in violation of the treaty should be upheld or not. At any minute, the tribe could resolve this by saying, okay, we will abide by the treaty. So it is not that they need judicial permission to do that. They don't have to await the outcome.

Given all that, I do agree if the court decision, the tribal court as I understand it, upholds the right of the Freedmen, if the current status of the Freedmen is maintained, then the amendment wouldn't be necessary, and, in fact, if that had been the case, the gentleman from North Carolina wouldn't have offered it.

As all the Members have said, this is a very agonizing issue for many of us. None of us wants to be put to this kind of a test. But the principle of adhering to the treaties, I think, governs. The gentleman from Oklahoma has proposed a useful amendment. As I understand it, he cooperated with the gentleman from North Carolina. They worked together on this. And what this says is if the resolution comes either by a court decision that says the Freedmen must be continued as tribal members or by a decision by the Cherokees, and again, they aren't bound by a decision by the court not to do this. They could always do it. So from the standpoint of cutting off, you know, they say when people are in civil contempt they have the keys in their pockets. The Cherokees have the cash here. It is entirely up to them as to whether or not the benefits continue to flow. Nothing in the gentleman from North Carolina's amendment would in any way impede the flow of funds to the Cherokees unless they are found to be by us, I think very clearly, in violation of the treaty.

So if the Cherokees, either because of the tribal court or of their own volition, decide to continue what has been the status quo of the Freedmen, then there is no cutoff. So I do not believe it can fairly be said that this will penalize them. It leaves it in their hands.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Oklahoma, we have had the cooperation from Members on the other side, I think we have come to as good a resolution to a difficult situation as possible. I hope both amendments are adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for the amendment and my appreciation and admiration for the gentleman from New Mexico. This is a very important piece of this.

We try to do this in our committee increasingly. We tried to do it with regard to the recovery from the hurricane as well. It is housing and economic development. They are both necessary, and they go together. If you don't have decent housing that is affordable, you are going to have a hard time filling the jobs. But if you don't have economic development, then housing without it is somewhat sterile.

The gentleman from New Mexico has come up with a very thoughtful approach here. It is very logical to make this part of this program. There was some original talk about it being separate, but I think from the standpoint of making sure this survives all the way through the process, it is better to link the two, because the underlying housing program is going to expire and, frankly, putting them together this way gives us more assurance that it will ultimately be signed and not caught up in some unrelated controversy.

So both procedurally and substantively, the gentleman from New Mexico has made the right choices, and I join in hoping the amendment is adopted.

Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I implore Members of the House not to give in to this effort to invoke judicial activism, to cancel the vote of the people's elected Representative.

My friends on the Republican side are very selective in their denunciation of judicial activism. From time to time, they complain, if the courts uphold some fundamental constitutional right, that our ability as elected officials to make public policy has been trifled with. Here the shoe is very much on the other foot, and I think the foot on which the shoe is is in the mouth.

This is an effort to overrule the overwhelming decision of the people of Hawaii through their elected officials to create these programs. There are few things in Hawaii that are as broadly supported as this housing program.

There are controversial aspects of some of what goes on in Hawaii. We are aware of none here. This has been fiercely defended by everyone who is representing Hawaii who has been here since I have been here, and this Congress is voting on it.

What are we told? What is the argument? Well, the Supreme Court doesn't think you should do that. What happened to the objection to judicial activism? What happened to the will of the people?

In fact, as the gentlewoman from Hawaii has pointed out, there is no clear-cut Supreme Court decision here. There is room for us to make choices. But I am struck at the ease with which some of my conservative colleagues invoke this principle of popular rule against judicial activism in such a selective fashion.

This harms no one. This isn't excluding anyone from anything. It is providing housing for people who need it. The gentlewoman from Hawaii has given a very good explanation of the history.

I do not understand, Mr. Chairman. This is a fairly small program affecting a fairly small number of people in Hawaii. It is overwhelmingly supported by the people of Hawaii.

Mr. Chairman, what motivates Members of this house to get up and interfere with the arrangements that the people of Hawaii have arrived at? What drives them? What angers them that the arrangement has been reached that says this to the Native Hawaiians? And no one disputes the history that our friend from Hawaii has given. The United States came in and overthrew the government. That is very well documented.

What drives people at this point to continue to battle against this effort to help these Native Hawaiians and to invoke the courts to say we don't care what the votes were in Hawaii. We don't care about an overwhelming vote in the U.S. House.

This is a very reasonable effort by the polity of Hawaii, the Native Hawaiians and others, to meet a very real need. No one is saying the program is badly run. No one is saying it is corrupt. No one is saying it is unnecessary.

There is some hyper-abstract, ideological objection to people reaching out to their fellow residents in need. And while it is overwhelmingly supported, what we have is an ideological objection, the nature of which I cannot understand. No one has told me what harm is done by this. I don't understand who this hurts. But somehow, people are motivated to attack this program which helps this particular, fairly small minority of people. And then, absent any rational arguments in my judgment, they invoke the principle of judicial supremacy, which they so often scorn in other contexts. I hope this amendment is defeated.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I just want to give a little more information than we got in the last intervention from the gentleman from Georgia.

He disappointed me when he decided to inform us that the bill had been defeated in March. Yes, it was defeated. It was ``defeated'' by a vote of 272 ``yes'' and 150 ``no.'' It lost because it required two- thirds.

But I must say, Mr. Chairman, to refer to a bill having been defeated to refute the notion that it was widely supported and to neglect to mention that in fact it got a 122-vote majority and simply failed by 10 votes to get two-thirds, is a very incomplete reporting of the facts.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand this amendment, it is to make illegal what is already illegal, and since it was offered I

guess to the appropriations bill, it is to make apparently for the second time illegal what is already illegal, but the gentleman from Iowa explains why it is necessary.

It is that as we approach the next to the last year of an 8-year term for President Bush, his administration is still unable and apparently, according to the gentleman, unwilling to enforce that law.

The gentleman says the Federal Government, headed of course by President Bush, is the largest employer of people who are here illegally and not able to work; and he says that they lack conviction.

Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to take on various responsibilities as chairman of the committee. Defending the President against the gentleman from Iowa is not one of the things I'm prepared to do today.

The gentleman from Iowa believes it's important for us for the third time to pass a law that he said the administration wouldn't enforce. I suppose the House could do that. I don't see any reason to think that they're going to enforce it any more this time than the other two times it was binding.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that does not make a great deal of sense, even in its own terms.

First of all, the PAYGO principle applies in the appropriations process. Authorizations are authorizations. The Appropriations Committee balances the various authorizations. Nothing is committed to be spent by this bill.

What it says, however, is really quite striking. It says no authorization or appropriation shall be effective except to the extent that this act or the amendments made by this act provide for offsetting decreases. In other words, if you thought that it was important to provide housing for the Native Americans who live in such desperate straits in so many places and make up for that elsewhere in the Federal budget, you couldn't do that.

This says if you want to help the housing needs of American Indians, then you better reduce housing somewhere else. For the disabled? For the elderly? It does not allow for there to be offsetting decreases elsewhere.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Well, I will take back my time to say the gentleman has just stood up and said, look, I don't understand this language; I just borrowed it from you. Well, don't borrow things if you don't know how to use them. I mean, don't lend your car to someone who can't drive.

The fact is that the gentleman apparently didn't understand the implications of what he borrowed because the way this goes now, PAYGO in general has broader application. In this particular case, what it says is within this act. So if you want to spend more money on Indian housing, you have to in the same act, under this act, find offsets elsewhere. This is an example of how he misunderstands the process.

I would also say by the way there's a selectively to this because we don't get this amendment on every spending bill. Maybe it was offered on some of the other bills, the Ag bill, the space authorization. I don't see it all the time. I didn't see it on the Defense bill. Are we going to get this on the Iraq supplemental? I mean, I don't know how much we're going to spend here, but whatever we spend here, we spend in about, what, a week in the Iraq supplemental. I don't see it coming there. Somehow this becomes particularly important when we are trying to help people in dire straits; but even there, it's not logical.

Nothing in here will break PAYGO. PAYGO applies in an overall basis at the appropriations process.

If the gentleman wants me to yield, I'll be glad to yield.

No, that's not what it says.

I will take back my time to say the gentleman hasn't read his amendment. Here's what it says: to the extent that this act or the amendments made by this act provide for offsetting decreases in spending of the Federal Government.

Now, the rules of the House are such that you could not here offset other programs. You have germaneness rules. So under the terms of this amendment, you would have to make reductions in this same act subject to the same act.

No, because the gentleman keeps repeating his error.

The fact is that PAYGO applies in a broader context. That's the problem. If you want to do PAYGO, you want to be able to say at the appropriations process, we'll shut this down here and we will increase it there.

Again, as I said, it's very selectively applied. The amendment does not have any real effect on PAYGO, except if it were adopted it would apparently require us in this very bill, in which we authorize more money for Indian housing, to reduce, I don't know, Indian housing or something else because it's internal to this.

You couldn't say that a Mars space shot was wrong or that we're spending too much money in the farm bill. It would be internal to this act. That's the problem with taking the general PAYGO principle and trying to microapply it.

The fact is that the Indian housing program is a very important one. To single this out for this kind of restrictive approach beyond the general PAYGO principle would victimize people who are very much in need. So I hope the amendment is defeated.

I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Georgia misunderstands my view.

What I want is fiscal discipline. What I object to is the very selective application of that to people who are in need. The gentleman from Iowa says we are going to restore freedom.

I don't think the freedom of Navajo children that live in inadequate housing is something worth defending. I am especially struck by the fact that we are about to ask the President to spend tens of billions more where we spent hundreds of billions in the war in Iraq.

I offered an amendment a year ago to restrict spending on a manned space shot to Mars. I lost on the floor of this House.

I don't know how every Member voted. I do know a majority of the Republican Party voted against me because the President wanted to send a man to Mars.

I voted against the Agriculture bill. I voted for an amendment that would have cut the spending there. But to be accused of being careless with the taxpayers' money by people who have supported this enormous corruption-ridden expenditure of hundreds of billions in Iraq is like being called silly by the Three Stooges.

Now, back to the gentleman from Georgia. He says well, don't blame me. The gentleman says he just borrowed the amendment from other people. It's germane to its rules. The gentleman could be more creative than that.

Here's the point. This is why you don't do the PAYGO in this restrictive fashion program by program, selectively by program by program.

When you like a program that spends a lot of money, in some areas you don't do it. If you don't like the program, you do it, and you claim it's just the neutral principle of fiscal responsibility. But PAYGO is sensibly applied over the whole budget, over the whole appropriations process. You can say, you know, we need more in the environmental area, we need more in the housing area, we need more in the transportation area. Let's reduce it in the manned space shot to Mars.

The way this is written, the only way you could have this pass and be valid would be if you cut within this program. The gentleman says, well, those are the rules of germaneness. Yes, that's why you do PAYGO on a broader scale.

To say you can only do Indian housing if you cut other things that are germane to this bill is precisely to shield the manned space shot to Mars, it's to shield expensive military spending, it's to shield cotton subsidies beyond what ought to be, and then say, you know what, if you're going to interfere with the freedom of these Navajo children to live in squalor, then we're going to have to make you cut back on money elsewhere.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I noted in the list of amendments submitted there was a second amendment that the gentleman from Georgia had on the question of illegal immigrants being in the program.

I was wondering whether that was going to be offered.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I appreciate that. I was struck by the gentleman offering it. I thought it was dangerous for the gentleman to offer this amendment to a Native American housing program which cracked down on illegal immigrants, because I think the Native Americans' response would have been, why didn't we think of that? So it was probably good for all of us that he decided prudence overruled his decision to offer it.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment brought by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Perhaps I will work backwards through this from what I have heard during this debate. One of them would be the decision that was made in Rice v. Cayetano in the year 2000 that Native Hawaiians are an ethnic group and that it is unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act to provide special protected status and privileges to people based upon their ethnicity. To raise that issue as an argument here on the floor isn't railing against judicial activism. To bring an amendment here to the floor of the United States Congress and ask the people's House to provide a majority vote on whether or not to authorize funds to go to Native Hawaiians, it isn't a conflict with judicial activism; to the contrary, it calls upon the people through their elected representative to make that decision. I think it is very consistent with our Constitution. It isn't railing against judicial activism; it simply recognizes the case and recognizes the Constitution.

With regard to Chief Justice Roberts making the argument in favor of the Hawaiian side of this argument, if my recollection is correct, and I believe it is, that was then private sector attorney John Roberts who made that decision who was under the employment of people who had hired him to make the best argument he could make. But I don't remember him saying he had won the argument. So we know that when attorneys are in private practice, they take on clients and they do the best job they can of making that argument. The attorneys that argued in Rice v. Cayetano, the prevailing side was the side of the Constitution and the side of the people.

I have represented two reservations now for 11 years in either the Iowa Senate or the United States Congress. I have had good relations with the people there on the reservations in my district, and it echoes across the Missouri River into Nebraska. I am not without some sense of experience and sensitivity when it comes to these issues that have to do with tribes, reservations and ethnicity.

But I am concerned about a consistent and constant effort to balkanize America, to encourage Americans to divide themselves into groups and identify themselves based upon their ethnicity and the national origin of their ancestors.

I listen and I hear there are 2,100 Native Hawaiians living in Georgia. Why can't we just call them Georgians? Why can't we call them Americans? Why can't we, as the voice of the people, encourage each other to remember our history and remember the legacy and remember the cultures that come, but focus on being Americans and erase the lines between us rather than drawing continually brighter and brighter lines, further balkanizing America, encouraging people to gather together as ethnicities in enclaves.

And I am going to be one who will be, if the day comes that this Hawaiian legislation, the big bill comes to this floor, I will be opposing it as well, Mr. Chairman, because that divides Americans and it sets a new standard that has not been set and that is recognizing ethnicities as tribes. If that happens, any ethnicity that can gain the political leverage to gain a majority vote here on the floor of Congress, here in the House and in the Senate, can then be raised to the same level that we have set aside for Native Americans that we are dealing with here in this bill.

So this slipped in. This authorization slipped in in the year 2000 without a lot of opposition. I agree with the gentlelady's position there. It should have been opposed. I think it was a mistake by Congress, and it brought about a $9 million appropriation in 2007. It is probably a $25 million appropriation obligation through about the year 2012.

This is where we draw the line. This is where we have to take the stand on what is really the Constitution and what is right. Ethnicities can't be granted special status.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one that everybody in this body has seen before. It is an amendment that I brought to a number of the appropriations bills, and at least three times has been adopted by a bipartisan effort. In fact, I don't believe it has come to a recorded vote at any time.

What it does is it limits the use of the funds that might be authorized by this bill. It says no amounts made available pursuant to any authorization of appropriations under this act or under the amendments made by this act may be used to employ workers described in section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

What this amendment does is it ensures that as funds are appropriated under this authorization, that they will not be used to hire people that cannot lawfully work in the United States. That would include those who are here illegally and those who are here legally without work authorization.

I would point out that our Federal Government, by the statistics that have been produced by the inspector general of the Social Security Administration is likely, and I say ``likely,'' I don't think they say ``likely,'' the largest employer of nonauthorized workers in the United States.

We issued millions of Social Security numbers over the years going back into the 1990s to people who were not authorized to work but they needed a Social Security number for one reason or another, a list of benefits which I also don't agree with nor comprehend. We slowed that down dramatically, and I don't know that that practice continues to exist.

But those Social Security numbers have been used to gain employment and to gain employment with the Federal agencies. They monitored seven Federal agencies, seven State agencies and three local governments; and out of that came a number that about 44 percent of those non-work Social Security numbers had been used to gain employment. Even though those cards will say on them non-work, and even if you run the numbers through the Social Security Administration database, they all come back and say not authorized to work, we still have those people working for government at all levels and especially the Federal Government.

And so if we are ever to clean up our act, if we're ever to compel private employers to no longer hire those who are illegally present in the United States, the least we can do is ensure that the employees of government are lawful employees.

And so this amendment says that none of these funds that are authorized may be used to hire those people who are not legal to work in the United States. This would include illegal aliens. It would include non-work Social Security numbers, and to give a broader definition of this, those that are here on student visas without authorization to work, those who are here on visitors visas, those kind of lawfully present as well as unlawfully present people are not authorized to work in the United States. These funds would be prohibited from being utilized for that purpose.

This is a step down the path, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we need to continue to take. We have a consensus that we need to turn up the pressure on employers. Well, government's the largest employer, and in fact, all of government in the United States has over 21 million employees. Out of 300 million people, over 21 million employees, and of those 21 million employees, a significant number are those that are not authorized to work in the United States. That means that whatever they might be doing, under this act they should be lawful employees.

They can use the basic pilot program which now we call e-verify and run those Social Security numbers through there. I've sat and run it myself. It's pretty easy. The longest delay I could create by giving it a confusing message was 6 seconds. It's instantaneous analysis.

We also need the Social Security Administration to run their database against the Department of Homeland Security's database. They would flush out most of these non-work Social Security numbers. The administration has to have conviction on this issue. This is a way to bring them towards more conviction on this issue. They've been reluctant.

I would urge adoption of this amendment. This is something that, again, three times has passed this floor, and it's something I believe that's common sense that the American people strongly support, and I would urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Price amendment.

One of the things I wanted to speak to was the list that was read to us earlier about Native American issues that show growing numbers of Republicans that voted ``no'' on appropriations or authorizations for Native American issues, the 50-some that went to 70-some that was presented by the gentleman from Hawaii, whose judgment and opinion and spirit and personality certainly I appreciate here. I make nothing but complimentary comments with regard to that.

But I would submit that voting ``no'' on a bill that increases spending or expands authorization and considering that to be somehow a vote against a Native American tribe or against an ethnicity, protecting the American taxpayers and protecting the Constitution is a vote for Americans. That's what we have to be first. That was a point I made earlier.

I just wanted to have that opportunity to speak to that issue, that voting ``no'' on appropriations and authorizations because they have something in their title that sounds good that has to do with our collective national history or heritage doesn't mean that it's against the descendents of the ones that earned that reputation.

What it does mean is that we defend the Constitution, we defend the appropriations process, the taxpayer, fiscal responsibility and PAYGO. That's what I am standing here now and endorsing, promoting and asking adoption of the Price amendment because it defends PAYGO.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Again, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Price amendment and PAYGO.

PAYGO often, in this Congress, includes finding new ways to collect revenue from people that didn't owe it before. That was never my idea of PAYGO. My idea of PAYGO was we would limit our spending to stay within the constraints of the revenue stream that's coming in.

So the day is going to come when the American taxpayers rise up. They understand what's going on here. They are seeing that a lot of the effort to ignore PAYGO is resulting in increased taxes and increasing the revenue stream of the United States at the expense of our businesses.

We know that businesses don't pay taxes. It's the consumers that pay taxes, businesses tack the tax onto the retail prices.

We need to slow down this appetite for spending. We need to slow down this appetite for expanding authorizations and appropriations and the services of the Federal Government. You can go with one of two equations, and one of those equations is government can be all and do all and become the complete nanny state, or you can ask for more personal responsibility. That means less government, it also means less taxes, and the bottom line is, more freedom.

The Price amendment endorses PAYGO, holds us to those guidelines that we have agreed to here, and, in the end, it yields more freedom, more personal responsibility and less tax burden.

I urge adoption of the Price amendment.

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

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

I rise to offer support for H.R. 2786, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act.

Chairman Frank has described it very well. Basically, we are trying to see that the plight of Native Americans in their housing can be improved. It is basically fairly simple.

As home to many Native American tribes, New Mexico sees this problem up close. The lack of standard housing, the availability of substandard housing, the lack of economic development opportunities, the lack of infrastructure such as water and wastewater treatment facilities all continue to plague people who are trying to make the tribal grounds their home and their place of habitation.

So I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the bill and appreciate the hard work of Representative Kildee, Chairman Frank, and Chairwoman Waters in drafting a bill that begins to address these problems.

One of the things that I think is most important is the flexibility and self-determination that begins to work its way into the legislation. Washington has never been the right place to make decisions for either local, State, or tribal governments, and in this bill we begin to send more of that autonomy, to send more of the decision-making power back to the tribes, which I think is an excellent opportunity for them to begin to find their way to self-sufficiency.

We have had one of my good friends come and testify on the bill. That was the president of the Mescalero Apaches, Mark Chino, who came here during the Financial Services Committee's consideration of the bill and gave his insights on why the program is needed. And, again, I would just like to commend each one of the tribal leaders throughout not only New Mexico but throughout this country for really doing their job to begin to see that tribes deal with the problems that face them, not waiting for the Federal Government to come around and not waiting for BIA, not waiting for any of the agencies. And this bill, in its block grant program, begins to do that.

Another one of the significant things of this bill is that it allows tribes to take loans out, to incur indebtedness, to issue bonds in order to get infrastructure on the tribal grounds. I know that the Mescaleros do not have their own wastewater treatment facility. They instead work with the local communities of Ruidoso and Ruidoso Downs to deal with the wastewater treatment. But as tribes across the country are allowed to incur indebtedness for these solutions, then I think that is going to be extraordinarily important.

Some of the tribes have used their housing money, for instance, to go to FEMA where many of the trailers that were bought and put there for Hurricane Katrina victims ended up not being needed or used, and different tribes, which the Mescaleros were, I think, the first in the Nation to go take advantage of some of those trailers, move them into their native grounds. And it represents a significant improvement over what some of the families already had. So we are beginning to see those roots and those seeds of self-determination already make a difference in the lives of Native Americans. And with this reauthorization, we will be able to continue to see those seeds of local progress, local input becoming the way that we do business.

I support the bill and look forward to the discussion.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would compliment the gentleman from Michigan for his work on this legislation. He has been tireless in his support of and the working of the legislation to get it to this point on the floor.

In my district we have several tribes, including Laguna, Acoma, Zuni, Mescalero, Isleta, the Ramah Navajo chapter, Tohajiilee Navajo chapter and the Alamo Navajo chapter, and each are faced with different difficulties. That's the reason that the flexibility is so important that is offered in this legislation.

Flexibility and autonomy are the beginning points, and accountability then is kind of the finishing point. Given the opportunity to solve their own problems, given the resources to solve their problems holds the tribes accountable. And I have not found one that finds this distressing in any way.

Too often I think that the Federal Government has been looked at as the caretaker of entire cultures, and literally that's not possible that the caretaker of the culture has to be the cultural members themselves. We see significant advances and capabilities in these areas. And, again, I am happy to be a part of this particular effort in this particular extension of flexibility and accountability.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would claim time in opposition, though I may not speak in opposition to the amendment.

I thank the chairman and I thank the gentleman for his amendment.

This is the same amendment that was offered to a freestanding piece of legislation that was offered in the Financial Services Committee. At that point, I commended the gentleman, Mr. Watt, for his work on justice, equality and fairness, and recognize that. I also favor loud and extremely clear messages, and this language is that.

My concern on the day that we accepted this amendment as a part of our freestanding bill was that the underlying bill addresses some of the most needy, most impoverished rural areas in our Nation, and I would just hate for some of those areas to be disadvantaged simply because they are caught in this particular fight.

There is pending litigation on the subject. And I wonder if it would not be better for us to let that litigation run its course. There is always opportunity for us, as a freestanding body, to come back and address this issue with legislation if it does not clear up in the court case.

So, again, I compliment the gentleman for the clear and concise message that he is delivering. I am not opposed to the message. In fact, I support the message of justice and fairness and equality, but would continue to wonder out loud if this is the proper vehicle.

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Boren to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Watt

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to H.R. 2786, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007. While NAHASDA continues the great practice of giving tribes more flexibility to develop housing, I believe that we can do more.

We all know that economic development and infrastructure needs are acute in Indian Country. My amendment allows Native Americans to receive the same opportunity for economic development that States, cities and other units of local government across the United States enjoy without an increase in direct appropriations.

Representative Renzi from Arizona, a good friend, has similar stand- alone legislation, the Tribal Economic Development and Infrastructure Support Act of 2007. I appreciate his hard work on this important issue.

Currently, communities that receive direct funding from the Community Development Block Grant program may borrow or issue bonded debt for up to five times their actual CDBG allocation. This is the section 108 loan guarantee program and it encourages economic development, housing rehabilitation, public facilities, and large-scale physical development projects.

Title 6 of NAHASDA is similar to the section 108 statute and allows tribes to borrow or issue bonded debt up to five times their annual NAHASDA allocation for housing purposes only. The title VI program has been underutilized in part because the eligible projects are limited to low-income activities that do not generate sufficient income to pay back these loans.

My amendment gives to tribes the same access to vital economic and infrastructure resources that non-tribal communities currently use.

Specifically, my amendment authorizes a demonstration program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide for guarantees to loans for housing-related economic infrastructure and development on tribal lands. The demonstration project embodied in this bill will build not only better neighborhoods, but also build the economic infrastructure to support those communities, especially in our most rural and impoverished sections of America. The demonstration program is limited, so that at least half of the title VI program authority will remain exclusively for housing.

Also, in order to be approved by the Secretary, an applicant must demonstrate that 70 percent of the benefit of the proposed projects will go to the low-income Indian families on Indian reservations and other tribal areas.

This is similar to the CDBG program which requires that 70 percent of a project's benefit be for low- and moderate-income families. Nothing in this amendment changes the use of appropriated funds, but it will encourage private money from banks or bond investors to be used for economic development purposes.

In June, I visited the Pueblo of Zuni, where it rained and snowed, leaving standing, muddy water throughout the community. Most of the streets in the historic plaza do not have gutters to control water runoff, nor do the roofs of most houses have the gutters. The water began to flow and residents were literally surrounding their homes with bath towels to absorb the melting snow and to prevent their homes from being flooded. This is an example where NAHASDA dollars should be eligible for infrastructure to help these low-income families build gutters in their neighborhoods and protect their homes.

My amendment will help Native Americans build stronger, better communities all across America by encouraging economic development. I believe this is the right step to help Indian Country build and improve their communities.

I hope that you will join me in supporting this important amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, once again I find myself on the floor wishing that I had an opportunity to perhaps discuss the issue that is raised in the amendment. I wish really honestly that the courtesies would be extended on this to one another, not just on this issue but on any issue where it affects individuals.

Let me explain for a moment if I can to you and some others who may be listening in, Mr. Chairman. Here is a list of votes on Native issues. There are 52 Members, 52 Members who have tribes in their districts, some multiple. Some of them are Republican Members who are sponsors of this bill. Each of them has unique questions and problems that have to be dealt with. It goes to Republicans, it goes to Democratic districts.

I find it distressing that this is becoming more and more a partisan issue for some folks in the Republican Conference. I can't comprehend it exactly.

As I say, here is 52. Here are some of the votes that were taken, Minority-Serving Institutions, Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act, 59 votes against it all from Members of the Republican Conference.

Motion to amend the Small Business Act to expand and improve assistance provided by small business development centers to Indian tribe members, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians, 73 members of the Republican Conference. I am not quite sure why this is happening.

I don't understand why Native issues and issues having to do with indigenous people and minorities find now an increasing number in the Republican Conference who are voting ``no'' on it. I wish we could get a dialogue established in some way to try and understand why Native people are being attacked.

In this particular instance, Mr. Chairman, I bring to your attention and the Members' attention the Admission Act that brought Hawaii into the Union. The Admission Act requires that we address questions such as those in the present bill that is before us.

Now if someone wants to attack the Admission Act, I suggest they go to court and do that. All we are doing here and all that is being requested in this bill that is before us is that which is required of us by law in order to accomplish the task at hand. If someone is opposed, and I invite once again the Members here who have this amendment, why attack us? Why attack our people for trying to implement the law? Attack the law. Change the law if that is what you want to do, if that is what you think is necessary.

We have 200,000 acres set aside for the betterment of Native Hawaiians. That is what the law says we are supposed to do. That is what the Admission Act which brought us into the United States says is required of us.

I can quote: Any such lands income, therefore, shall be held by the said State as a public trust for the support of the public schools and other public educational institutions and for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians for the development of farm and home ownership, as widespread a basis as possible, and for making public improvements and provisions of lands for public use.

That is what the Admission Act says we are supposed to do, for the betterment of Native Hawaiians. That is what this is about.

If one is opposed to that for everybody, for all of the tribes and so on, I guess we can take it up with the other Members and so on. I don't know. But I don't think here on the floor in any bill that is a consequence of trying to fulfill our obligations constitutionally is the way to go about it. Take it to court. Put in a bill to do that, but don't hurt us today.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I have a New Yorker cartoon that I have pasted to the wall of my office to try to remind me of my position in life and sometimes the irony of history.

It pictures some Native Americans in tribal garb standing on a promontory gazing out on a bay in which a ship, strangely akin to the Mayflower, appears to be sitting. And some people in a boat wearing kind of quaint hats and cloaks with breeches seem to be rowing into shore. And the one Native American says to the other, Doesn't look like they have their documentation in order to me.

Now, I don't know if that is anything other than perhaps mildly amusing, but perhaps it does make a point. I'm not sure that we're in any position to say to Native American tribes in this country that everybody ought to have their documentation in order. I wonder if those of us who are proposing that have our documentation in order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Just a couple of notes. My good friend from Iowa was complimentary to me, and I am appreciative of that. I want to indicate to him, perhaps he misunderstood my intention in citing just a couple of instances where the vote was taken by himself and others with regard to minorities, with regard to Native Alaskans and tribal members and Native Hawaiians.

The reason that I cited it was not because I was trying to look for something for them that they did not deserve or would not prove useful to them, but let me explain why I cited them, because I thought it was undermining the principles that were cited by our friend from Georgia and our friend from Iowa, initiative, working yourself up the economic and social ladder of success.

Take the two bills. First, the Minority Serving Institutional Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act. If you go into the bill itself, what it is is to try to assist in the areas where minorities are at issue, with trying to increase their capacity to do business, to increase their abilities to deal with wireless technology, digital technology today, as the keystone to economic opportunity and economic success. It's to give people the opportunity to increase their ability to pay their taxes to participate in the American foundation of American economic opportunity so that they could actually increase their capacity to succeed economically.

The same with the other bill, which is why I cited it. I thought that these were the kinds of things that we could all get behind, improve and expand the small business development centers. I know, out in Hawaii, for a fact the small business development centers have been crucial to getting small businesses under way to aiding and assist people who need not just a handout but a hand up, and to give them the technical skills not ordinarily available to them, to give them some of the institutional references that they need to make in order to be able to apply for loans to succeed in achieving, getting the loans to get started, particularly microloans and so on.

I can't speak for you, but I am sure you, as well, are familiar with small business development centers. What we are trying to do here, in the area of Indian tribe members, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians is to extend that helping hand so they can participate even further and achieve the very goals my good friend from Iowa and my good friend from Georgia have cited as being worthy of pursuit, not just by way of legislation, but by way of the everyday activities of constituents as they try to partake in the American Dream.

That's all this is about. We want to give people the opportunity legislatively to take advantage of the small business development centers, to take advantage of the new wireless technology in a way that might not have been available to them otherwise.

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

I rise today in opposition to this closed rule and the potentially unconstitutional measure that the Democrat

majority is presently bringing before the House.

I also rise in opposition to the majority's gaming of the system by bringing this legislation up under a closed rule with no input from the minority, even after this measure failed to win the support of two- thirds of the House when it was considered under the suspension of the rules just last week.

I believe that the 162 ``no'' votes that were cast last Wednesday prove that this measure carries with it some measure of controversy. I have heard the gentleman from Florida explain very clearly and carefully in addressing this issue his desire for us to understand that in fact nothing more other than the words that are on the paper are intended and implied in this bill. However, I would say there is also room to make sure that is not only correct, but also to improve this legislation.

I am also confident that an overwhelming number of Members would likely support the final measure if they were given a chance to improve it through the amendment that perhaps we are hearing that the majority intended perhaps in the first place or at least did not unintend to make it happen.

Unfortunately, in what is becoming a standard practice for the Rules Committee, last night the Democrat majority rejected along party line the only amendment offered to this legislation that would have offered the solution on behalf of the 162 ``no'' votes. This amendment was offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) who simply would have made it clear that there is nothing in this legislation that should be constructed to confer a special relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people for the purpose of establishing a government-to-government relationship.

This amendment is necessary because in 2000 the Supreme Court decided in Rice v. Cayetano that the current configuration of Justices would likely strike down most Federal benefits flowing to Native Hawaiians as an unconstitutional racial set-aside if, given a chance, by accepting Mr. Neugebauer's amendment, or at least allowing its merits to be debated and voted on, Congress would have had the opportunity to make it crystal clear to any future court that this legislation should not be construed as Congress' abuse of its power under the Indian commerce clause to indirectly confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian people.

I will take the words that have been given to me by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) as well as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) from the Rules Committee that they do not intend this legislation in any way, and it should not be construed as told to the minority, that they would intend to pass power under the Indian commerce clause to indirectly confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian people. I will take them at their word as the understanding and the basis and the intent of this legislation.

But by shutting out this amendment, the Democrat majority has done nothing to address the concerns of the 162 Members of this body who do believe that this legislation under consideration is vague at best and unconstitutional at worst.

Nor have they done anything to clarify the intent of this legislation to the courts. While, Mr. Speaker, you and I recognize that courts in their deliberations would look at congressional intent, we would like for it to be so stated. While the majority has indicated they do not intend this, we wish it had also been in the form of an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that, once again, the majority has silenced the minority in this effort. I am disappointed also that, by failing to include this amendment, Congress may very well be opening up this legislation to be overturned by the courts. In doing so, Congress would be depriving Native Hawaiians access to the loan guarantee programs provided for in this bill simply for the sake of speed at the cost of accuracy and good legislation.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule so that this legislation can be passed in a clear, constitutional way that makes it transparent to the courts that this is not a back-door attempt to lay the groundwork for other legislation to confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian people. Native Hawaiians are just as much a part of America, this great land, as any of us. Their history is covered by the Constitution, and they are part of this country. I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

I would notify the gentleman from Florida I have no additional speakers. If he would engage with me in a quick colloquy, we can figure out where we are in terms of moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman from Florida, his conduct on the Rules Committee, him working with the minority on a number of bills. We wish we could have been successful on this amendment, just the one amendment to add into this piece of legislation.

We will take them at their word that they do not intend for this to be any sort of a back-door attempt to form a government-to-government relationship with the tribal Native Hawaiians.

I will tell you that we do believe that public housing and housing for Hawaiians, who are many times faced with increasing not only land costs but prices that escalate in the beautiful, beautiful State of Hawaii, that this is a good idea. We should be helping these people out. We simply wish that the amendment had been made in order for the proper clarification.

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

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.

I appreciate the gentleman's inquiry.

At this time, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is intended to represent the minority on the Rules Committee. He is not here at

this time. So until further notice or until his arrival, it would be my intent to have the gentleman accept me in his stead.