Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 29, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Waters:
Page 77, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $6,944,000)''.
Page 157, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by $6,944,000)''.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment that is basically known as the section 108 loan guarantee amendment. This is an amendment that is offered to the Community Development Grant Fund for cities and counties that would allow them to continue to have a section 108 loan guarantee program for the purpose of big-scale developments in the cities that would be guaranteed by the CDBG funds.
These are very important economic development funds. In the past, we have had a substantial amount of money in this fund, and it has been used by the cities to create jobs and to rebuild downtowns, to rehabilitate old towns, to basically not only create jobs, but revitalize cities.
So we are simply asking that we take a small amount of money from the advertising section of the drug policy section of the budget so that we not only not transfer, but we keep some money in this fund by which to keep section 108 a viable program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Michigan has described something other than section 108 loan guarantee programs. Section 108 loan guarantee programs are considered one of the most potent and important public investment tools that HUD offers to local governments. It allows agencies to transform a small portion of their CDBG funds into federally guaranteed loans large enough to pursue physical and economic revitalization projects that can renew entire neighborhoods. It is a very effective public investment.
The small amount of money that I am asking to be taken from the drug program is from the advertising budget. I do not want to spend a lot of time talking about the ineffectiveness of that program; I simply can say that that program has not reduced drug use in this country, despite the millions of dollars that we have spent.
Again, $120 million is a lot of money for an advertising program that does very little to deter anybody from using drugs. I would hope that some day there will be some restructuring of that program to try and make it more effective, because I really do think it is a waste, practically, of the taxpayers' money.
Having said that, I would advise my colleagues that many of you have section 108 loan programs in your districts that are providing funds for great revitalization; and should these funds not be available or we not continue this program or show some support for this program, in addition to whatever dollars are remaining, I think you will find that your cities will be very disappointed, because this is the only money that they have been able to count on that is not scored against the budget to do this kind of revitalization and job creation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov
Source