Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007
NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - September 06, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 9. REQUIREMENT OF OFFSETS.
(a) In General.--No authorization of appropriations made by this Act, or by the amendments made by this Act, or any other provision of this Act that results in costs to the Federal Government, shall be effective except to the extent that this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, provide for offsetting decreases in spending of the Federal Government, such that the net effect of this Act and such amendments does not either increase the Federal deficit or reduce the Federal surplus.
(b) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms ``deficit'' and ``surplus'' have the meanings given such terms in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this commonsense amendment to H.R. 2786.
This bill, as you know, would reauthorize the Native American and Native Hawaiian Block Grant programs, and the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that appropriation of the amounts necessary to implement this bill will cost approximately $2.2 billion over the 2008-2012 period of this reauthorization.
This bill originally was authorized, or passed, in 1996 and then reauthorized in 2002, and the reorganization of the system of Federal housing assistance to Native Americans was accomplished by eliminating several separate programs of assistance and replacing them with a single block grant program.
In addition to simplifying the process of providing housing assistance, the purpose of this is to provide Federal assistance for Indian tribes in a manner that recognizes the right of Indian self-determination and tribal self-governance.
Now, Mr. Chairman, equally as important I would suggest is fiscal responsibility. We've all come back from a month in our districts, working and listening to our constituents, and I heard repeatedly from my constituents that they continue to appeal to us to be more fiscally responsible. Many of my colleagues on our side of the aisle have attempted to offer amendments and bring about that kind of fiscal responsibility. This is another one of those amendments.
This amendment will not prohibit funds from being spent on this program, but it will protect taxpayers by applying the principle of pay-as-you-go to the spending that's authorized by this legislation by requiring that any new spending as a result of this legislation must have a specific offset before the legislation can take effect.
Now, if there is to be a taxpayer subsidy, as good stewards of the American hard-earned taxpayer money, we should provide a specific spending decrease to offset any new spending that would be required by this legislation.
To be sure, this is important legislation, and I want to commend Congressman Pearce for his hard work on the legislation, ensuring its consideration on the floor. It's a testament to his hard work that he does every day for his constituents back home.
But fiscal responsibility isn't something that we ought to just trump out during campaigns. We heard a lot about it during the last campaign; but I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is way past time that we act in this responsible manner.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment for PAYGO for authorization of the appropriations that will come as a result of this bill, and I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
This language was taken directly from your side's PAYGO language in the rule. So what I'm attempting to do is to try to provide individuals with something which they hopefully have seen before. This is the PAYGO language from the PAYGO rules.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, I will take back my time to say the gentleman has just stood up and said, look, I don't understand this language; I just borrowed it from you. Well, don't borrow things if you don't know how to use them. I mean, don't lend your car to someone who can't drive.
The fact is that the gentleman apparently didn't understand the implications of what he borrowed because the way this goes now, PAYGO in general has broader application. In this particular case, what it says is within this act. So if you want to spend more money on Indian housing, you have to in the same act, under this act, find offsets elsewhere. This is an example of how he misunderstands the process.
I would also say by the way there's a selectively to this because we don't get this amendment on every spending bill. Maybe it was offered on some of the other bills, the Ag bill, the space authorization. I don't see it all the time. I didn't see it on the Defense bill. Are we going to get this on the Iraq supplemental? I mean, I don't know how much we're going to spend here, but whatever we spend here, we spend in about, what, a week in the Iraq supplemental. I don't see it coming there. Somehow this becomes particularly important when we are trying to help people in dire straits; but even there, it's not logical.
Nothing in here will break PAYGO. PAYGO applies in an overall basis at the appropriations process.
If the gentleman wants me to yield, I'll be glad to yield.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding again.
The amendment's pretty simple. It says that if we're going to spend more money out of this Congress for this appropriation that we ought to find money elsewhere to make certain that we're not taking more hard-earned taxpayer money----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, that's not what it says.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. That's exactly what it says, precisely what it says.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will take back my time to say the gentleman hasn't read his amendment. Here's what it says: to the extent that this act or the amendments made by this act provide for offsetting decreases in spending of the Federal Government.
Now, the rules of the House are such that you could not here offset other programs. You have germaneness rules. So under the terms of this amendment, you would have to make reductions in this same act subject to the same act.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, because the gentleman keeps repeating his error.
The fact is that PAYGO applies in a broader context. That's the problem. If you want to do PAYGO, you want to be able to say at the appropriations process, we'll shut this down here and we will increase it there.
Again, as I said, it's very selectively applied. The amendment does not have any real effect on PAYGO, except if it were adopted it would apparently require us in this very bill, in which we authorize more money for Indian housing, to reduce, I don't know, Indian housing or something else because it's internal to this.
You couldn't say that a Mars space shot was wrong or that we're spending too much money in the farm bill. It would be internal to this act. That's the problem with taking the general PAYGO principle and trying to microapply it.
The fact is that the Indian housing program is a very important one. To single this out for this kind of restrictive approach beyond the general PAYGO principle would victimize people who are very much in need. So I hope the amendment is defeated.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source