Supporting home ownership and responsible lending.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 531 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 531 provides for consideration of H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

member of the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for a single amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative McKeon of California or his designee.

Mr. Speaker, educational opportunity is the backbone of what we are about and everything that makes this Nation great. For this reason, I am very pleased to support the rule and the underlying legislation that will give our students a real opportunity to go to college and give them the vital tools necessary to prepare them to enter the workforce and build a positive future.

The College Cost Reduction Act addresses one of the most important and difficult issues facing our Nation. While access to higher education is more critical than ever for our younger generations, the cost is rapidly moving out of reach for many low- and middle-income families. This problem is nothing less than a crisis. How many students have had their dreams shattered because they could not afford their tuition? And how much potential has our Nation lost because of the failure to address this issue?

If students cannot afford to get the education and training necessary for them to make a productive and positive impact in our communities, it hurts us all. Investment in our younger generations not only improves their future, but it helps our economy and our retired workers whom they will help to support. It ensures our national security, continued improvements in health outcomes as well as advances in manufacturing and technology. Improving access to higher education is not only about helping America's middle class and our students and families who are in need. It is about strengthening America.

But instead of helping our students prepare themselves for a better future, recent Congresses and the administration chose to cut funding for student loan programs and have allowed this issue to become the crisis it is today. It is time for priorities to change, and this bill is part of making that happen.

Tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities have risen 41 percent after inflation since 2001. The typical American student now graduates from college with $17,500 worth of debt. If we do not take action immediately, financial barriers will prevent at least 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college over the next decade. This Congress has a responsibility to help our students and our working families.

Mr. Speaker, I have witnessed the heartbreak of parents who work hard day in and day out who have to tell their child that they cannot afford to send them to college. I have listened to these struggling parents and heard the ache in their voices. It is a story that is far too common. It is unacceptable and we must take action. And today we do.

H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, will provide the single largest increase in college aid since the GI bill, and it will put college education back within reach of so many families. H.R. 2669 follows on the College Student Relief Act that passed overwhelmingly, 356-71, in this new Congress earlier this year. That bill cut interest rates in half on subsidized student loans over the next 5 years. For the average student in the State of Ohio at institutions like the University of Akron and Lorain Community College, this means a savings of roughly $4,320 once the cuts are phased in. It is estimated that our proposal will help roughly 175,000 students just in Ohio alone and 5.5 million nationwide. Our bill increases the maximum Pell grant scholarship by at least $500 over the next 5 years while also expanding eligibility to include and serve more students with financial need. In Ohio, roughly 224,000 students will benefit from these changes to the Pell grant program. And nationwide, over 5.7 million students will benefit and another 600,000 will become eligible for the grants, making the possibility of a college education for them a reality.

Additionally, this legislation recognizes the value of our public servants, and it shows how much we respect what they do. Individuals working jobs that make our world turn, teachers and firefighters, nurses, law enforcement officers, librarians, we provide upfront tuition assistance to qualified undergraduate students who commit to teaching in public schools in high-poverty communities or high-need subject areas. And we provide loan forgiveness for first responders, law enforcement officers, firefighters, nurses, public defenders, prosecutors, early childhood educators, librarians and others. We are investing not only in the potential of individual students, Mr. Speaker. We are investing in the strength of our communities and our country. And the return on our investment as a Nation and our students and people will, without question, provide an enormous return.

But our failure to invest likewise will have incredibly harmful consequences. Our bill makes clear we understand the importance of this investment.

And, Mr. Speaker, to make a good bill even better, the College Cost Reduction Act will benefit all of these students and families at no new cost to taxpayers. We make these important investments in education through government spending cuts. With this bill, we take the billions of access taxpayer subsidies that have gone into the profit margins of private lenders and invest it in direct support for our students. Overall, H.R. 2669 will save almost $20 billion in taxpayer money and reinvest that money in the needs of our students. This is about where the priorities of our Nation and this Congress lie.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the lack of access to higher education is a crisis for our Nation, and it is a burden that no family in this great country should have to bear. The College Cost Reduction Act puts us in a position to help these families and assist our students who simply want to learn and be prepared to enter the workforce and contribute to society. This bill does more than just pay lip service to the virtue of a college education. Today we act to help families, students and our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, a member of the Rules Committee from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a leader in education policy.

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

We have heard here today why we must pass this rule and pass the College Cost Reduction Act, and I wanted to commend and thank Chairman Miller for his tremendous leadership in getting this done.

As I said earlier, educational opportunity is the backbone of our Nation, and our students, our families and our country have waited long enough for this to happen.

With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side who seem intent on further delay, 12 years of Republican rule provided ample opportunity to act on this issue and pass a bill, to act on amendments. The American people cannot wait any longer.

This is an issue that many of us here in Congress hear about when we return to our districts because a lot of families are worrying about how they will pay for their children's education, and today, we are going to work with them. Their government is going to work with them and not against them.

I'd like to share today on the floor a letter that I bet mirrors letters that every one of our Members receives. This is a letter that came to me from a constituent, and I will share part of it.

It says: ``Is anything ever going to be done about the exorbitant cost of a college education in this country? How are the middle class supposed to save for retirement and also pay the exorbitant cost of a college education for our children?

``This country seems to be obsessed with debt, because the colleges and the high schools as well, tell you that you should expect to be in a certain amount of debt upon graduation from college. I guess if you're wealthy, it's not an issue. So the middle class are the ones that are left struggling.

``With such an importance put on having a college education to get a decent paying job in this country, how are our children supposed to be able to afford a home and car upon graduation from college when they will be so far in debt with student loans?

``As for the parents, any raises we receive go toward the continually increasing cost of medical insurance, gasoline, utilities, property taxes, et cetera. I know, in my own case, we seem to be going backwards instead of forward, and we by no means live extravagantly or beyond our means.

``I am looking forward to hearing from you.''

Well, today, this constituent hears from me and hears from this Congress, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule.

For my constituent and her daughter, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 531 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the

following:

That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in

order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2669) to

provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the

concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived

except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The

amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the

Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the bill,

modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of

the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be

considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be

considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as

amended, are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of

debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Education and Labor; (2) the amendment in the

nature of a substitute printed in part B of the report on the

Committee on Rules, if offered by the gentleman from

California, Mr. McKeon, or his designee, which shall be in

order without intervention of any point of order except those

arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered

as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent; (3) the further amendment printed in section 3 of

this resolution, if offered by the gentleman from Delaware,

Mr. Castle, or his designee, which shall be in order without

intervention of any point of order except those arising under

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and

shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (4) one

motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2669 pursuant to this

resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as

follows:

At the end of part A of title I of the bill add the

following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Westmoreland to eliminate funding for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program.

The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant is authorized under title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA). The block grant is used to carry out affordable housing activities for Native Hawaiian families who are eligible to reside on Hawaiian

homelands which were established in trust by the United States in 1921 under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA).

Due to a variety of factors, including long-term leases for purposes outside of the HHCA and the lack of funding for infrastructure, only 8,000 individuals currently hold leases, and approximately 19,000 remain on a waiting list, and many of our elderly, our kapuna, have died waiting for the dream of home ownership.

I submit for printing in the Record an article from the Honolulu Star Bulletin that introduces these families to us.

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

Homestead awards end long wait for lucky few--One Hawaiian homestead is

awarded to a woman 57 years after her father applied.

(By Alexandre Da Silva with Leila Fujimori)

The line for a homestead was so long for Aloysius Lincoln

that he never saw the end of it.

But yesterday, 57 years after the former Honolulu Gas Co.

employee applied for a lease, his daughter claimed the lease

awarded for the second phase of a Department of Hawaiian Home

Lands project in Kapolei.

``Unfortunately, he died two years ago. He was 87,'' said

Frances Segundo, 60, who was a baby when her father signed up

for the program. ``However, his legacy goes on, because this

award is for our ohana, our family.''

About 2,000 people showed up yesterday morning at the Neal

S. Blaisdell Center Exhibition Hall, where the Department of

Hawaiian Home Lands awarded 250 lots in Phase 2 and Phase 3

of in their Kaupe'a project in Kapolei.

The 52-acre subdivision has 326 lots, 76 of which were

awarded in November 2005.

Segundo, a clerk at Maui Community College, said her

cousin, Naira Martin, would live in the four-bedroom, three-

bathroom house with her daughter, but there would always be

room for another relative.

``I'm free from the rent, which is going to be over with,''

said Martin, 56. The $2,000 she pays each month for rent will

now go toward her mortgage. ``When the whole family comes

from the mainland, Louisiana, they will stay with me. It's a

very good feeling.''

Gov. Linda Lingle, who was present for yesterday's

selection meeting, said the latest awards would help the

state's shortage of affordable rentals as new homeowners are

able to free up rental homes and apartments.

``Those units now become available for the general

public,'' Lingle said. ``It is better for the entire

community.''

Yesterday's crowd was a fraction of the nearly 20,000

native Hawaiians currently on the homestead waiting list,

about half of which are on Oahu, said Lloyd Yonenaka, a

spokesman for the Hawaiian Home Lands Department.

Even though more than 1,200 leases have been given out

since 2003, the department's waiting list keeps growing, at a

pace of about 100 people a month, Yonenaka said.

To qualify, applicants must have at least 50 percent

Hawaiian blood and be pre-approved to afford one of the five

Kaupe'a models, which range between $238,600 and $296,100 in

lots averaging 5,000 square feet. The lease rent for the land

under their homes is $1 per year.

The first phase of the Kaupe'a project is expected to be

completed by the end of the year, while Phase 2 and Phase 3

should be done in the first and second quarters of 2007,

according to the department.

As she signed documents for her new lease yesterday, Vivian

Perreira, 71, said she would vacate her Maili home in

Waianae--where she lives with husband, Alfred, her son and

his two children--sometime next year. Perreira said her

youngest son, 47-year-old Prince, a refuse truck driver for

Rolloffs Hawaii Inc., had to co-sign her application because

her Social Security earnings weren't enough for a loan.

After waiting 48 years for her name to be called, Perreira,

now in a wheelchair, will lease a four-bedroom home on a

corner lot in Kapolei.

``I signed up when I was 23,'' she said. ``I almost gave

up, but I left my name on for so long.''

The federal government set up the Hawaiian Homes Commission

Act in 1921, eventually reserving 200,000 acres statewide to

benefit native Hawaiians. But development of land to provide

homes has been slow, and many families have been on the

waiting list for decades.

Last month the state Supreme Court ruled that 2,700 native

Hawaiians can seek monetary damages in a lawsuit against the

state for its alleged mismanagement of the Hawaiian Home

Lands program.

Not everyone who came yesterday had a happy story to share.

Homes went to 250 families, but 750 people qualified for

lots, which are awarded on the basis of seniority. People who

have qualified and waited the longest are the next in line

for a home.

Lee Kogler, 54, who has been researching her genealogy for

more than 20 years, had to leave without a lease after

arriving at 7 a.m. with her husband, daughter, grandson and

two sons.

Kogler turned in her paperwork in 1991. But after marrying

and moving to New York, Kogler's application was returned,

with the department saying she needed to show the Hawaiian

lineage on her father's side. Finally, in 1994, Kogler combed

through the bound volumes of records at the state Archives,

where she found a Census Bureau report listing her

grandmother, Hannah Kaulia, at age 19, living in the house of

her father, Samuel, a master carpenter.

Kogler, who is number 7,954 on the wait list for Oahu, said

she would never quit trying for a lease.

``It's not a sad day,'' Kogler said, citing plans by the

department to award another 300 lots in Kapolei in October.

``I'm still with hope. I've waited a long time for this, and

I'm not going to give up.''

Aloysius Lincoln first applied for Hawaiian Home Lands in 1949. In 2006, a wait of 57 years, his daughter, Frances Segundo, claimed the lease awarded for the second phase of a Department of Hawaiian Home Lands project on the Island of Oahu. Frances claimed the lease because her father had, unfortunately, passed away 2 years before. Frances herself, now 60 years old, was a baby when her father first signed up for the program. Frances stated that ``[her father's] legacy goes on because this award is for our ohana, our family.''

That is something I would like this body to remember: That this is not just money we are talking about today. We are talking about the opportunity for families to live the American dream of home ownership, and Native Hawaiian families are among those with the greatest need. A study conducted in 1996 by the Urban Institute, the National Commission on the American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing, and the State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, found that nearly half of Hawaiian households and 67 percent of those on waiting lists for Hawaiian Homes Lands experienced housing problems related to affordability, overcrowding, or structural inadequacy. That compares with 44 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives living on tribal lands, and 27 percent of all U.S. households.

In 1992, 49 percent of Hawaiian Home Lands applicants lived in overcrowded conditions compared with 37 percent of all Hawaiian households, and 21 percent of non-Hawaiian households. Twenty-eight percent of Hawaiian households put more than 30 percent of income toward housing compared with 22 percent for non-Hawaiians. The rate of homelessness among Hawaiians at 12.2 households per 1,000 is double that of non-Hawaiians.

In 1982, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of the State of Hawaii established a Federal-State task force to renew HHCA and the programs carried under that act. The Federal-State task force issued a report in 1983 with specific recommendations, including one that the State and Federal Government should each make contributions of $29 million per year to accelerate the program.

For the first time in 2000, Federal funding was made available when housing assistance for Native Hawaiians was added to NAHASDA through the Native Hawaiian Block Grant. This amendment follows what I sense is a developing pattern of challenges to programs benefiting Native American, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian people.

The earlier failed challenge to the previously uncontroversial Native Hawaiian Housing Act earlier this year was the first apparent salvo against Native American programs. The attempt to strike funds in the Labor and Education appropriations bill for the Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and the Higher Education Act raises the concerns that all programs benefiting Native Americans will be subjected to attack by certain groups.

The same arguments of constitutionality of these programs benefiting Native Americans have been raised and rejected by this body time and again. This is not race-based discrimination. The relationship between the United States and Native Americans is based on a political relationship, as Supreme Court decisions have consistently held.

Like other indigenous peoples, such as Native Americans and Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians have a special trust relationship with the United States. It has been well settled that Congress has clear plenary power to fulfill its obligations to indigenous people who once had sovereign governing entities before the establishment of the United States, and whose lands are currently within the borders of the United States. Like Native

Americans and Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians suffered the loss of their sovereignty and lands to the United States.

I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but for these and many other reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

I want to thank my colleague from Florida for bringing this issue to light.

Mr. Chairman, all of our public housing and section 8 residents deserve to live in a safe environment. We have done our best to ensure that PHAs have adequate resources to address the security issues.

The gentleman from Florida is correct, that there were public housing Drug Elimination Grants, a separate item in the budgets up until the fiscal year 2001 budget. The last time we had that separate program for Drug Elimination Grants, the appropriation for that was around $300 million on a nationwide basis for securing, for employing security personnel and employing local police and other additional security services that were necessary.

At that time, in the fiscal year 2001 budget, the Drug Elimination Grants were combined with the operating fund. Since that time, the housing authorities, the public housing authorities have had the authority to use monies that were in the operating fund for the purposes that had been previously done with the direct Drug Elimination Grants.

So we, as my colleague from Florida has pointed out, we no longer have the direct Drug Elimination Grants, but all of the functions of those grants may be funded at the discretion of the individual public housing authorities under the operating funds or under the capital funds. I support the use of either of those funds for the important functions of safety and security for our public housing residents.

I am happy to work with the gentleman in the future on this issue. I thank the gentleman for bringing the issue to the discussion today and thereby highlighting the problem, which is severe in some cases, but the resources, as we have indicated, as he has indicated, and we have already done, have been added.

We have added $200 million this year above the President's request for the operating fund of the public housing authorities, and that should give them the necessary money to do, where it is needed, as they deem appropriate, as the public housing authorities deem appropriate, the drug elimination activities. I am very pleased that the gentleman has brought the issue to the discussion today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program is a small program, a small account that makes a big difference in the lives of Native Hawaiians who happen to reside on Hawaiian homeland.

From 2002 through 2005, when the gentleman's party was in the majority, Congress funded in each of those years an average of $9.4 million for this program. We held it to $8.7 million in the 2007 budget, and have frozen it at the same level as the 2007 budget in the recommendation in this budget for the 2008 fiscal year.

So this is not an increase. We are, in fact, holding it steady for a program that has been funded at higher levels earlier when the gentleman's party was in the majority and in substantial majority control of this process.

With the funding in the bill, more than 100 Native Hawaiian families will be provided with the opportunity for home ownership, including counseling, construction, and rental assistance during that process. This is one of the HUD programs. We have programs for Native Alaskans, we have programs for American Indians and so forth that are helpful in providing the hope for home ownership on the part of some of our small minorities in our population. I think it is a goal that we should support, and I strongly support the program and urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

I would be very pleased if you would withdraw this, and then I will work with you as best we can to try to resolve this problem in an expeditious and favorable way, if it is at all possible to do as we go forward in this process.

Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that the gentleman will withdraw his amendment here, and I would be happy to work with him because in substantial measure I support the intent of the amendment, but I have concerns about the offset, even though it is a relatively small offset. But I do want to use this time to point out what has happened here on the brownfields program.

The President, in the 2007 budget process, ended up recommending that we zero out this program in the 2007 budget, and he actually recommended rescinding the 2006 moneys, which were exactly the same amount of money that has been put in the 2007 finally and had been put in the 2006 budget. And under those circumstances, when they are making recommendations to rescind, their approach is not to give out any grants under the program until after the budget process for the following year is complete, and, therefore, those moneys just don't get put out until very late. There is a real big gap in it. That is what has happened previously.

This year the President did not propose to rescind the 2007 budget moneys for the simple reason that the 2007 budget moneys were not settled in this until the CR was adopted after the budget was submitted. If that had been done prior to when the budget was submitted, my guess is that the President would have proposed rescinding the 2007 moneys as well as zeroing out the 2008 moneys, which is what has happened in his recommendations for this year's bill.

So we are in this game, in a situation where the people over at OMB believe, I believe wrongly, but they seem to insist that there is someplace else in the budget, namely under EPA, where brownfields redevelopment is going to get done. That doesn't happen. The moneys that are in for brownfields under EPA are for assessments, and we have been doing assessments, and I believe that this should be funded. So in the face of what I have described, we have for the last couple of years continued to appropriate, but at the constant value of $9.9 million for this program, to keep it there until such time as we have someone who understands that that kind of program isn't being done anywhere else and is willing to move the moneys along, which the administration, as I have described, simply is not willing to do. So that is the situation that we are in.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

I have yielded.

I am saying that they finally put the grant proposals out for award, but a year late essentially, and each time only after it is clear, for instance, the 2007 moneys will finally be sent out for grant announcements at the very end of this fiscal year when it is clear that we have not rescinded the 2007 moneys.

Yes.

Repeat it, please.

It will not be spent probably until the very end of the 2008 fiscal year, is when finally the RFPs will go out for possible granting.

No, there is none. There is none. But the offset that the gentleman has used is salaries and expenses, salaries and expenses is an account which, in the tightness of this budget, in trying to do for section 8 and CDBG and the other places, we have already cut a bit, not a great deal, but a bit, and I oppose, as I said before, in good conscience, the movement of salaries and expense moneys into this where we know that it is not going to be spent with any alacrity and any expedition.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if he would withdraw his amendment, and I would be happy to work with him, as I am sure the ranking member would as well, though I would lead him to comment, to work with him in conference to address this issue.

Otherwise, I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I believe the need, as he has indicated, for housing counseling is strong. But what his offset does in this instance is to take the funding for the Inspector General for HUD back to the level of the budget request for the year 2007, where we had increased in the supplemental budget the appropriation for the IG to $88.2 million, in the supplemental budget had been added to the IG to do its work, and have recommended in this bill a less than 2 percent increase. So that, compared with the 2007 appropriation for the IG, the amendment would represent a 5 or 6 percent decrease in the amount of funding available for the IG.

We simply are not in a position to be able to increase this account because of the deep holes that the President handed to us in the HUD budget. We froze the account at the FY07 level, with the supplemental amount there, which is the best that we could do without harming other HUD programs.

Now, taking the funding from the Inspector General to increase this account is counterproductive to the gentleman's amendment. Should we reduce the oversight in order to increase the housing counseling? They're both vital programs. We feel that we have struck the correct balance here for this pair of needs.

I commend the gentleman's passion on the issue, and I would be happy to work with him in the future on the issue related to housing counseling. And I do recognize that we are likely to have some, in the secondary lending market, problems later this year, continuing problems, as we have been having, but I would urge the gentleman to withdraw the amendment at this time and we would try to work it out in conference.

I would be happy to yield.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

I rise to support House Resolution 526, recognizing homeownership and responsible lending. As the ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, Representative Cummings, and Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Maloney for working in a cooperative fashion to ensure that the language protects borrowers while preserving access to homeownership opportunities.

Over the past several years, the housing market has helped to drive the national economy as Americans bought and refinanced homes in record numbers. The benefits of homeownership are undeniable. For this reason, there has been a significant focus on improving homeownership opportunities for everyone, including the low-income borrower. At the same time, the subprime market has flourished and provided credit to many families that may not have qualified under conventional standards.

Today, this country enjoys record-high homeownership rates. More than 68 million Americans own a home. Of this 68 million, 50 million homeowners have a mortgage, and 13 million of them have a subprime loan. According to a recent Chicago Tribune article, ``Subprime loans, often with adjustable rates, made homeownership possible for millions of Americans whose credit ratings or income levels made them ineligible for cheaper prime loans.''

However, of the 13 million subprime loans, roughly 5 percent of them are entering foreclosure. According to the data released by the Mortgage Bankers Association, these numbers are on the rise. These mortgage foreclosure rates raise eyebrows and call into question what actions are to be taken to help homeowners keep their homes, and I would like to emphasize the word ``action.'' While I believe that this resolution under consideration outlines many important facts, most of which Americans have seen printed in the news for months, it does not take action. The resolution tells the House something that we already have authority to do, and that is to take action.

Americans are waiting for the leadership of this House to exercise that authority. We can talk about the increase in foreclosure rates until we are blue in the face, and why is the leadership in this House waiting. The fact of the matter is, this body needs to join forces with the folks in the public and private sectors to take action immediately.

What it is we should be doing right now is to ensure that the 650,000 homeowners and others who may follow can keep their homes. First we can and should pass a Federal Housing Administration modernization bill. I introduced H.R. 1752, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, a bill

identical to the one that passed the House last July by a strong bipartisan vote of 415-7.

However, on the same day, two of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle introduced another FHA reform bill that includes a new and controversial housing trust fund provision. This trust fund provision has stalled the bill. So while the other side of the aisle is holding out for a brand-new trust fund, millions of Americans may lose their homes in 2007 because they did not have the refinancing option that a modernized FHA could have offered them.

In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Assistant Secretary for Housing Brian D. Montgomery urged Congress to pass an FHA reform bill and said FHA could help hundreds of thousands of additional borrowers to secure a safe and affordable mortgage. He said that the best thing to help subprime borrowers is to reform FHA, and he added that HUD is prepared to immediately implement FHA reforms.

Second, this resolution mentions we can immediately increase opportunities for housing counseling. It also says that we should raise public awareness. I think that first by advertising available resources we can both raise public awareness and increase opportunities for housing counseling. It is crucial to promote financial literacy and educate our youth and adults. This is the most direct way of ensuring that consumers understand the terms of their loan so that they may avoid predatory loans and foreclosure altogether.

I am pleased that on June 25, Neighborhood Works America and the Ad Council launched a national ad campaign aimed at preventing home foreclosures. Homeowners in trouble can try to save their homes by calling a hotline, 888-995-HOPE, a number provided by the Homeowner Preservation Foundation.

In addition, we have about 2,300 HUD-certified housing counseling agencies across the country. Americans should know they can visit HUD's Web site or call 800-569-4287 to find a HUD-certified counselor in their neighborhood. HUD-certified counselors can give straightforward and free or low-cost advice to potential or existing homeowners about buying a home, refinancing a mortgage, or preventing foreclosure.

Third, we need to address the root problems resulting from predatory or bad subprime loans. The Federal regulators have recently stepped up to the plate and tried to address the increasing number of foreclosures through interagency guidance on subprime loans. The guidance to mortgage lenders focuses on loans in the subprime market, particularly adjustable rate mortgage products. It specifies that a lender's assessment or a consumer's ability to repay should be based on the fully indexed rate, assuming a fully amortized repayment schedule. The guidance also focuses on the need for clear and balanced communication to the borrower with regard to mortgage loan benefits.

I support these efforts, but there is much more to do. I know that the issue of mortgage fraud is hot in the Chicago area. We need to ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools and resources to crack down on fraudulent activities.

Finally, I support this resolution because I agree with my colleagues on the importance of shedding some light on actions that Congress or Federal regulators can take to help homeowners enter into realistic and affordable loans in the future. As we consider our options to take action at the Federal level to help Americans keep and own their homes, I would urge my colleagues to carefully weigh the potential consequences of such actions.

We should allow secondary mortgage markets to adjust to the rise in foreclosures accordingly and to continue to supply liquidity to the primary mortgage market. Simultaneously, we should take immediate action. We need to pass FHA modernization now, and we need to ensure that people continue to have immediate access to financial education and counseling, credit, and viable mortgage options so that people in future generations can realize the American Dream of homeownership.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for his hard work on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time but would just ask one question of the chairman.

I think this is so important, and you mentioned that the FHA bill will be coming up. I was curious as to when we would be considering a subprime bill?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for bringing this resolution forward and outlining the important facts that will enable and make certain that people can keep their homes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the Democrat majority approved what I consider an irresponsible budget plan that calls for more spending now followed by massive tax increases in the future. Their budget plan only called for one committee, the Education and Labor Committee, to find cost savings, and that turned out, Mr. Speaker, to be a mere $750 million over 5 years.

In comparison, when Republicans were in control, the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution called on eight House and Senate committees to find a total of $35 billion in savings over 5 years. As a result, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the Deficit Reduction Act, which saved American taxpayers $38 billion.

House Resolution 531 provides for the consideration of the Democrat majority's attempt to rein in spending, the College Cost Reduction Act. However, Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than an illusion. While the bill does find savings, it immediately spends most of it, $18 billion, to create nine new entitlement programs. These entitlement programs, which grow automatically every year without congressional review, pose the largest threat to our long-term economic health. Essentially, these programs run on auto pilot with no accountability to the taxpayers writing the check.

Entitlement programs currently today make up well over half of the Federal budget and in the next decade will consume nearly two-thirds of our budget. History has proven that once an entitlement program is created, it lives forever, and even improving these programs has proven to be a very difficult task.

Taxpayers will be paying for the new entitlement programs created under this proposal for at least 5 years and likely for many years to come, thus wiping out any savings that may be achieved with this bill in the short term.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I share the goal of increasing access to higher education. Education in general

is very important to the future of our country. But there are many approaches the Democrat majority has chosen to take in this bill that shifts the responsibility for personal decisions made by students to the taxpayers. For instance, this bill guarantees that borrowers, no matter how much they borrow, will not have to pay more than 15 percent of their income in loan payments and allows the borrowers to have the balance of their loans disappear, disappear, Mr. Speaker, after 20 years and thus be paid for by the American taxpayer. This bill also requires those same taxpayers to pick up the outstanding student loan tab for public sector employees after just 10 years. Now, Mr. Speaker, while I agree we should encourage people to enter the public sector, I feel this approach places too heavy a fiscal burden on American taxpayers.

I believe that we must do all that we can do to make education more affordable for those who wish to pursue their education so that more Americans can achieve the dream of graduating from college. With tuition costs on the rise, students and their families are facing the inevitable question of how to pay for college education. The cost of attaining a college degree has increased over the years, and students are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for college without financial assistance.

So I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must take a balanced approach that increases the transparency of higher education costs and targets aid to the neediest students while controlling spending and lowering the deficit.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will support the McKeon substitute amendment, which increases the maximum Pell Grant award by $350 next year and $100 thereafter and provides a plan for improved accountability with regard to tuition costs.

If the McKeon amendment is not adopted, I will oppose the College Cost Reduction Act, which increases a maze of Federal regulations and bureaucracy for students and parents to navigate, directs more resources to institutions of higher education rather than students, and creates new entitlement spending at the long-term expense of the American taxpayer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just point out to my friend from Massachusetts that, since Republicans have been in control, that Pell Grants, individually, have nearly doubled in that length of time. I think the students are being well served, and they are responsible. And I think that is a very, very good policy.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Minnesota, a member of the Education and Workforce Committee (Mr. Kline).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. McKeon of California.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), another member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who spent a long career in education and also a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, 19 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee. Sadly, the Democrats only allowed one single amendment to be considered, as the ranking member pointed out. Even more concerning is that this rule provides that the Miller manager's amendment shall be considered as adopted once this resolution is adopted, if in fact it is adopted.

They have carefully chosen to self-execute this amendment which does

not allow for a separate debate or clarification on the amendment, and the maneuver prohibits Members from voting specifically on the Miller manager's amendment. Members should be aware that the Miller manager's amendment reduces the amount of short-term savings to taxpayers.

In addition, if this rule is adopted, the misdirected College Cost Reduction Act can be fast-tracked through the Senate and therefore protected from filibuster.

So I am asking my colleagues to not only vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule, but also to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can amend the rule to allow the House to consider the amendment offered by Mr. Castle of Delaware and provide the appropriate waivers.

As the ranking member pointed out, the Castle amendment would simply end the entitlements in this bill. I think that is a very important policy statement. Further, the savings from these entitlements would go to increase the Pell Grants by $100 in the next 2 years and $50 through 2018. So by defeating the previous question, we will give Members the ability to vote on the merits of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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