Hawaiian Homeownership Opporunity Act of 2007 (Part I)

Floor Speech

HAWAIIAN HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2007

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to H.R. 835, I would first like to thank very much Chairman Barney Frank and Ranking Member Spencer Bachus for their consideration of H.R. 835.

It is imperative, from the point of view of Representative Hirono and myself, that we regard this bill as nonpartisan in nature. And it was considered that way in committee, and I am grateful for it.

The bill was passed overwhelmingly last week 262-162. It was under the Suspension Calendar and did not receive a sufficient number of votes for the two-thirds required margin, so we find the bill before us this evening.

Of those 162 Republicans who voted ``no'' last week, 39 of them cosponsored the bill to create the Native Hawaiian Housing Title in the 106th Congress, including our good friend, Mr. Bachus, and minority leader John Boehner.

This reauthorization and improvements were requested by Hawaii's Republican Governor, Linda Lingle. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is chaired by the former head of the State's Republican Party.

This bill was introduced last year by Congressman Ney and was reported out of the Financial Services Committee by voice vote without amendment. And last year's Republican chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mike Oxley, was also a cosponsor of the bill.

I bring these things up, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize that never have we ever considered this bill to be a partisan bill, a Republican or Democratic bill. This is a bill that affects constituents, regardless of their political affiliation, and is not ideological in nature. It is really administrative in nature.

There have been some discussions and some arguments concerning some of the constitutional issues that have been raised in other contexts about native people. This is not the venue to have that kind of a discussion or argument. We do not want to harm those who come before us for legislative redress and expect to have it and not expect to have an argument in which they will become grist for an ideological mill, grist for a disputation of an academic nature or of a philosophical nature, having nothing to do with the question at hand, in this instance, most particularly dealing with homeownership, mortgages, and refinancing.

I understand, and will defer to Mr. Bachus on this point, that Mr. Renzi has made a statement of support in addition, and I expect to hear about that when we yield to Mr. Bachus for his participation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize again that this is not a partisan bill. It is not really anything that should be considered other than on the merits of the subject matter at hand.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I am also very grateful to Mr. Bachus for his commentary and his observations and will indicate that, at least as far as this Member is concerned, there will be time enough, I believe, tomorrow to deal with the question should there be a recommittal offered on the issues that were raised by either the Campbell amendment or any of the other points that were raised as a basis or foundation for possible opposition to the bill. I believe they can be answered.

I believe that this is fundamentally a very conservative approach that merits the support of Members across the various ideological spectrums that exist here in the House of Representatives; and I hope, with the opportunity to speak about them at some length, perhaps tomorrow, that we will be able to satisfy one and all here on the floor that this is a bill worthy of support.

The principal thing I would say, just simply in quick response, is that the Rice versus Cayetano decision which was mentioned does not affect these programs, has literally nothing to do with the issue at hand in this H.R. 835. The decision invalidated an election system for a State agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a State agency. The decision did not affect the agency itself. It did not even question the validity of the agency. It had to do with the question of who could vote for the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs still exists today. It exists for the benefit of Native Hawaiians and is voted on by the entire voting population of the State of Hawaii. So it had to do with an election issue and absolutely nothing to do with this, and the Court declined to address the question of Native Hawaiian programs authorized by Congress. So we are dealing with an entirely separate set of issues here, and I hope to make that clear tomorrow.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to Representative Hirono.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source