Randy Neugebauer

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Reclaiming my time, I yield again to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Reclaiming my time, I yield to my good friend from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Certainly the distinguished chairman would want to make sure that anybody that got any of the funds from this housing fund would want to make sure that they are United States citizens. We would never want to deprive a United States citizen the ability to get homeownership at the expense of someone who is here in this country illegally. And someone was talking about this as being an immigration bill. Immigration is about a legal process. We are talking about someone who has committed an illegal process. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Reclaiming my time and yielding back to Mr. McHenry.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have no other people to speak on this en bloc, and so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to make a clarifying amendment on this bill. One of the things that this bill does is it clarifies the amendment to ensure that the portfolio standard be based solely on the safety and soundness to the enterprises and not any of the broader systemic concerns. We have the financial housing industry financing model of the world. Because of the model we have in place today, America enjoys one of the highest home ownership rates in the history of this country. More people own a home today than at any time in the history of this country. Primarily a lot of that housing affordability and the ability for Americans has been because of our tremendous secondary market, the ability to provide home mortgages for Americans all over this country. This legislation clarifies that when the regulator looks at regulating this entity, that he looks at the safety and soundness of that entity and not external factors. Just like when we regulate banks, we set certain standards for their capital, for their loan ratios and all of those other factors, and we should not look at this entity any different than we look at other entities. So really this is a clarifying amendment. It just says we are going to look at the safety and soundness of how this company is running their business. We shouldn't put things out there that the regulator is not able to, quite honestly, articulate, because what is a systemic risk? That becomes a point of order that sometimes the regulator cannot explain what exactly the systemic risk is they believe it is. It is a way to limit their portfolios. I want to thank Ms. Bean of Illinois and Mr. Moore of Kansas and Mr. Miller of California for joining me in clarifying the importance of making sure that as we put together a first class world regulator for these very important entities to the American home ownership, that we do not put in place things that would inhibit the ability of these entities to be able to deliver the quality mortgage products that they have delivered to the country over these years. So I think this is a very clear amendment. It clarifies the language and makes sure we don't have any question about what the intent of the regulator is and what the duty of the regulator is. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I congratulate The Institute of Environmental and Human Health on reaching its tenth anniversary. TIEHH was established in 1997 with a mission to stimulate and develop environmental and health sciences research and education at Texas Tech University and the Texas Tech Health Sciences Center. TIEHH focuses on the integration of environmental impact assessment of toxic chemicals with human health consequences, framed in the context of science-based risk assessment to support sound environmental policy and law. Work at TIEHH has resulted in applications for homeland security and defense, including a new fabric that can protect our military and civilians from effects of chemical and biological weapons. TIEHH first opened as the ``anchor tenant'' at the then-closing Reese Air Force Base, now known as Reese Technology Center, and helped make the redevelopment of Reese the most successful BRAC closure of any military base in the United States. TIEHH started with a staff of 45, comprised of faculty, staff and graduate students. TIEHH now has 200 on its daily payroll and has generated close to $50 million in revenue, while the Institute's ripple effect on the local economy is nearly $200 million. Through the past 10 years, TIEHH has developed a program of national and international stature for Texas Tech and Lubbock, being described by external peer-reviews as `world-class' and with its academic program being called ``the best in the country.'' TIEHH draws not only students from Texas but also undergraduate and graduate students from all over the United States and many foreign countries to Texas Tech. In its 10 short years, TIEHH has become one of the top doctoral producing programs at Tech. I have worked hand-in-hand with TIEHH to secure federal funding that supports research to improve the resources available to protect our troops abroad and citizens at home from chemical and biological threats. When it comes to federally funded research, results matter, and TIEHH is quickly establishing a track record of proven results that strengthen our national security. In the next 10 years and beyond, TIEHH will continue to be a research leader in the environmental and human health field. I am proud to join the citizens of Lubbock in extending my appreciation for all the hard work and accomplishments of those at The Institute of Environmental and Human Health.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, it is my honor at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), who is one of the authors of this legislation and someone who has worked tirelessly for Native American issues all across the country and particularly in his home State of Arizona.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1676, the Native American Home Ownership Opportunity Act of 2007, introduced by Congressman Boren and Congressman Renzi. This important legislation authorizes section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, which established a loan guarantee program for Native American families, Indian Housing Authorities and federally recognized Native American tribes. Under current law this program is authorized through 2007. This bill will reauthorize the program through 2012. Congress established this program to provide access to private mortgage financing for Native American families, Indian Housing Authorities and federally recognized Native American tribes that could not otherwise acquire housing financing because of the unique legal status of Native American lands. This loan guarantee under this program is used to construct, acquire, refinance or rehabilitate single-family housing located on trust land or land located in an Indian or an Alaska native area. Section 184 of the program guarantees single family, one- to four- family units, residential loans for homes located in these Indian and Alaska native areas where land may be tribal trust, allotted individual trust or fee simple. HUD offers 100 percent guarantee on the outstanding principal and interest and payment of necessary and allowable expenses. The flexible underwriting, low down payment, higher loan limits, low guarantee fee and the absence of income limits make this the most affordable loan program available in tribal areas. In 2007, about $6 million was appropriated for the loan guarantee program. Consequently, CBO has estimated that H.R. 1675 will cost about $30 million over the 2008-2012 period if appropriators continue the funding at the level similar to previous years. Enacting this bill does not affect direct spending or revenues. Madam Speaker, this legislation was approved by the Committee on Financial Services by voice vote, and I urge the passage of this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1675, the Preservation Approval Process Improvement Act of 2007, introduced by Representative Melissa Bean, Financial Institution Subcommittee Ranking Member Paul Gillmor, and Full Committee Chairman Barney Frank. 1675 addresses problems with HUD's processing of previous participation certificate or HUD's form 2530 under HUD's automated partners performances system. Specifically, this legislation suspends the electronic filing requirement for the previous participation certificates and the filing requirements of these certificates for certain low-income housing investors. Form 2530 has been used for many years to ascertain the prior record of participants in certain HUD programs. This enabled HUD to refuse to do business with participants who have not previously carried out their obligations. However, passive investor disclosure requirements have created problems for private individuals and groups who wish to participate in the construction and preservation of affordable housing through the low-income housing tax credit program. The 2530 process is designed to review principals, including any limited partner, with a 25 percent or greater interest in property. These rules were developed long before low-income housing tax credit programs were actually created. Low-income housing tax credit deals with the typical investors or institutions, that is, publicly traded and regulated national and multi-national financial institutions, including government sponsored enterprises whose reputation is well established. Under the 2530 process, officers, directors, and stockholders with 10 percent or greater holdings are required to submit their names, Social Security numbers, as well as their individual and prior record with HUD. Industry groups have objected to these disclosure requirements as they are passive investor partners and are not involved in the construction, maintenance, and operation of the property. They claim that these reporting requirements are costly, time intensive, and deter investment in affordable housing. Investors developers, syndicators, and others have contacted HUD to ask that passive investors be exempted from filing with HUD. In December 2005, former Chairman Oxley requested that HUD extend the opportunity for paper filing, and asked HUD to explain why passive investors should be required to file. HUD allowed the paper filing until June 30, 2006. In December 2006, after repeated inquiries from the Financial Services Committee and requests from interested parties to provide relief, HUD sent the committee a proposal that, according to the industry, made filing more burdensome in many respects. On December 21, 2006, noting that HUD's applications for 2530 filing requirements have become broad and overreaching and, in some cases, unnecessarily delayed or even prevented HUD transactions that were beneficial to people in need of housing, Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, Chairman Waters, and Chairman Oxley asked HUD to discuss the matter further with interested parties before taking any action on the proposed rule. Since then, however, HUD has not taken any overt action to amend the proposal. H.R. 1675, the Preservation Approval Process Improvement Act of 2007, requires that HUD take action to alleviate the concerns mentioned above in order to encourage private sector participation in affordable housing programs. HUD's current 2530 previous participation review process is intended as a risk assessment tool, but in many ways has been a barrier with housing preservation because the current regulations in the accompanying electronic system that process 2530 submissions do not reflect the complexity of today's real estate transactions. The reporting requirements are unduly burdensome and offer no additional benefit to HUD. To this end, H.R. 1675 requires that HUD suspend mandatory previous participation filings through the APPS computer program, and that it allow paper filing until HUD submits to Congress a revised draft that would eliminate unnecessary filing burdens. In addition, this legislation eliminates the requirement to file a 2530 form for passive investors who expect to own entities that are allowed or expected to be allowed in low-income housing tax credits. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, this week the House will once again take up an Iraq emergency funding bill which is seriously flawed and should be rejected. Having 535 politicians attempt to micromanage the war on terror from atop Capitol Hill is a recipe for disaster. This Congress should not be telegraphing our war strategy to the enemy and setting arbitrary timetables for withdrawal, nor should we be tying the hands of our Commander in Chief and military leaders on the ground. Iraq has become a central battlefield on the war on terror, not because we say so, but because the terrorists themselves have declared Iraq to be the central front for their global jihad. Therefore, it is vital that we win the war and achieve success in Iraq. To do so, this Congress must reject efforts to micromanage the war and give the Iraqi new strategy opportunity to succeed.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Plainview, Texas' centennial birthday. For it was in 1907 that the city's founders took the pivotal step from frontier community to an incorporated city. One hundred years ago, the Santa Fe Railroad decided to put down tracks through Plainview. This helped spur economic growth and attract new residents to the budding community. Today, Plainview's location along the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor is having the same effect as its population grows and new businesses come to the area. During the past century, Plainview's citizens have witnessed the mode of transportation change from rail to road, and local agriculture evolve from being merely a source of food and fiber to also a source of energy. However, despite these changes, the core values present at Plainview's founding are still alive and well 100 years later. A strong sense of community and a vibrant civic pride continue to make Plainview, Texas a welcome place for businesses and families. It is indeed an honor and a privilege to represent the great people of Plainview in the United States Congress, and I wish the city well as it embarks on its second hundred years.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I hope today, as we take this vote, that people will understand really what is at stake here. I have heard a lot of discussion today, and some Members are going to go back home and say, well, I voted for this bill and against the troops because I brought home some things for the people in my district. But today this vote is not about bringing home bacon for the people in your district. It is about American security. My family was in New York on 9/11, and my daughter-in-law and her mother were supposed to be at the World Trade Center on 9/11. So when I take this vote this afternoon or at noon, whenever we have this, let me tell you the reason why Randy Neugebauer is going to be voting ``no.'' Because I am looking forward, not at what we are doing today and what is going to, who is going to be able to take what projects home, but I am looking forward to the security of America. I am looking into the eyes of my grandsons Nathan and Noah and saying, Nathan and Noah, I didn't leave America safe and secure for you. This is about security. 9/11 is a real event. America was attacked. We have been attacked before. We know this enemy is going to come back and attack us again. This bill, this vote, is about keeping America safe. So when Members go home and brag about their vote on this, I hope that they go home and brag about the fact that they cast a vote that will ensure a safe and secure America because, you see, if you take all of these projects home, and there is no security in America, there is no America. I urge my colleagues not to vote for this bill. I rise today in strong support of our troops and their mission in Iraq. Ten days ago, I returned from my third trip to Iraq. From the generals to the privates, the message I heard from our troops in Iraq was ``let us do our job so we can win.'' And that is precisely what we should be doing here today. Today, we should be working to provide our military with the tools and resources needed to attain victory . . . Today, we should be showing our troops that we are behind them 100 percent . . . And today, we should be showing the world that America has the resolve to stand up to terrorist threats even when the going gets tough. Instead, this ill-advised legislation does just the opposite. By putting restrictions on our military commanders and the President . . . and setting a firm timeline and final date for withdrawal, this bill undermines the war effort, sends the wrong message to our troops, and telegraphs our war strategy to the enemy. Our Constitution is clear in that it places the responsibility for conducting the war in the hands of a single Commander-in-Chief, not Congress. Our Founding Fathers wisely understood that having 535 politicians in Washington attempt to micromanage a war is a recipe for disaster. I am further disappointed that the majority has jeopardized the success of the drought relief package for farmers and ranchers. I strongly support drought relief and have been calling for federal assistance since last summer. However, as much as I know producers in my district support disaster assistance, I cannot in good conscience support this supplemental because of the flawed military strategy that the majority is pursuing in this bill.

Mr. NEUGEBAUER

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

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.