Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (House of Representatives - June 13, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Knollenberg, as well as Ranking Member JOHN OLVER for their hard work on this bill, H.R. 5576.
The purpose of my amendment is to restore funding of $2.97 million to the section 108 loan guarantee program offset from the Salaries and Expenses Account for the Department.
The program is designed to leverage economic and community development project activities. While the administration supports this consolidation of this program, consolidation is a shortcut to eliminate the section 108 loan guarantee program.
Mr. Chairman and Members, many districts have benefited from the section 108 loan guarantee program. I discovered this program in law some 12 years ago. At that time, it was scored and it was basically guaranteed by CDBG funds. Section 108 loan guarantee funds evolved to the point where many cities were using them for economic development projects that created jobs and converted old town projects into real vibrant, vital economic engines for those cities.
This is an important program. With this program we are able not only to create jobs and to spur economic development, this is what you call a real investment in our cities and our towns, both in the urban communities and in the rural communities. This is the kind of investment that will help to get people off welfare, get people working, create new business opportunities, and help to grow these areas in these cities and these communities.
It is beyond my understanding why an investment program that is designed to create jobs, designed to help cities grow and develop would be consolidated or would be placed at risk.
If you talk with many of the Members of this Congress, you will find that they do not know that the section 108 program is in jeopardy. I was just looking at a program in the western part of L.A. County, a gateway retail project that got $8 million in section 108 loan guarantees and a $2 million BEDI grant. These funds were used to convert an old car wash into a retail center that created 750 jobs in that community.
Many communities have relied on the section 108 loan guarantee program, not only to spur economic development, but they know they could never otherwise undertake this kind of activity. Section 108 is a complement to many of the other economic development tools that are available to distressed communities around the country. As such, I would urge you to support this amendment as one tool that will be made available to communities like mine, as well as yours, to facilitate their economic development strategies.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Knollenberg, as well as Ranking Member JOHN OLVER for their hard work on this bill, H.R. 5576.
The purpose of my amendment is to restore funding of $2.97 million to the section 108 loan guarantee program offset from the Salaries and Expenses Account for the Department.
The program is designed to leverage economic and community development project activities. While the administration supports this consolidation of this program, consolidation is a shortcut to eliminate the section 108 loan guarantee program.
Mr. Chairman and Members, many districts have benefited from the section 108 loan guarantee program. I discovered this program in law some 12 years ago. At that time, it was scored and it was basically guaranteed by CDBG funds. Section 108 loan guarantee funds evolved to the point where many cities were using them for economic development projects that created jobs and converted old town projects into real vibrant, vital economic engines for those cities.
This is an important program. With this program we are able not only to create jobs and to spur economic development, this is what you call a real investment in our cities and our towns, both in the urban communities and in the rural communities. This is the kind of investment that will help to get people off welfare, get people working, create new business opportunities, and help to grow these areas in these cities and these communities.
It is beyond my understanding why an investment program that is designed to create jobs, designed to help cities grow and develop would be consolidated or would be placed at risk.
If you talk with many of the Members of this Congress, you will find that they do not know that the section 108 program is in jeopardy. I was just looking at a program in the western part of L.A. County, a gateway retail project that got $8 million in section 108 loan guarantees and a $2 million BEDI grant. These funds were used to convert an old car wash into a retail center that created 750 jobs in that community.
Many communities have relied on the section 108 loan guarantee program, not only to spur economic development, but they know they could never otherwise undertake this kind of activity. Section 108 is a complement to many of the other economic development tools that are available to distressed communities around the country. As such, I would urge you to support this amendment as one tool that will be made available to communities like mine, as well as yours, to facilitate their economic development strategies.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I have stated, this is an economic development program that has served our country well. As I just took a look at the number of cities that have benefited from this program, I have hundreds of cities that have benefited from this program all over the country. This will be traumatic to all of a sudden pull the rug out from under a program that creates investment in cities and towns all over America, that is helping them not only to create jobs but to create opportunities for small businesses, to redo dilapidated areas, to create new possibilities with these old towns that are being developed, to take these old dilapidated buildings and turn them into productive centers.
I do not think that perhaps my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle realizes the damage he may be causing even to his own area. And just as perhaps he thought it was not authorized when it really is, I would ask him to take a second look and not object to this program.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Source