Conference Report on H.R. 3074, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3074, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - November 14, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Chairman Olver, has already detailed many of the aspects of the fiscal year 2008 conference report. I am pleased to say that I will support the conference report. The conference report has much to commend. I want to thank John Olver; John and Joe I guess is what it amounts to. But we have worked together very hard on this, along with the staffs on both sides, and I commend him for working with us to bring this product forward.

We meet the majority of the transportation funding guarantee as mandated by SAFETEA-LU, plus included some wise legislative provisions such as raising the airline pilot mandatory retirement age to 65 and prohibiting towing on Federal roads in Texas.

We didn't go overboard on funding Amtrak and kept the reforms we put in place 2 years ago in hopes of bringing the railroad into the modern age. One unfortunate point I would like to make is one of the Transit New Starts Project, a project for the Chicago area's commuter rail, Metra, the UP West Line, was inadvertently not included in the bill. It was funded in the House bill, and in the negotiations all sides supported conference funding, and I am very hopeful we can work a little magic to get that included.

In housing, we provided more than $100 million for about 11,000 new incremental vouchers for three of our most vulnerable populations: veterans, including those returning from Iraq who might face homelessness without rental assistance; nonelderly disabled individuals, the so-called Frelinghuysen vouchers; and vouchers to keep families together when facing homelessness rather than forcing the children into foster homes.

Further, the bill insists that these vouchers retain their use and purpose upon turnover when the current individuals and families no longer need them.

The vouchers for veterans are important and will certainly be welcomed throughout Michigan as well as the rest of the country. I want to note the intent here is not just for HUD to administer these vouchers, but for HUD and VA to work together so that the full array of eligible services are coordinated and administered jointly.

[Time: 16:00]

Along that same line, I strongly support a new demonstration in the homeless program to avoid forcing children through the trauma of homeless shelters by rapidly rehousing these families in secure rental units and providing the care and training in that setting, rather than through the shelter plus care process. We need to be sure, however, that in doing so we do not end up subsidizing drug or other illegal activity.

I want to also express my appreciation for the provision in the bill that waives the Medicaid cap on income and allows citizens in Michigan to voluntarily pay more and still receive rental assistance. This has made a tremendous difference in my district, and the new statewide provision will apply to all Michigan residents. Obviously, it is available for consideration in other states, too.

As many of my colleagues know, Michigan has been facing a severe credit crunch due to defaults and foreclosures resulting from the subprime lending boom a few years ago. The resets are around the corner and the problem may well get worse for Michigan before it gets better. But no one wants to see foreclosure, not the homeowner, not the banks, and certainly not the Federal Government which has insured many of these loans.

As a result and through extensive collaboration with my colleague, Chairman Olver, and our Senate counterparts, we included a provision that I am sure will go a long way towards stemming if not reversing the trend in the home mortgage market. We have included $200 million in new funds for intensive and extensive loan foreclosure mitigation guidance plus counseling and targeted funds to those areas which are facing the largest threat of foreclosure.

We have ensured that the funds will be in the hands of the expert counselors and State housing finance agencies before the loan resets dates hit homeowners who will find it difficult to meet the higher payments. We have not placed the funds in HUD, or created a financial handout for mortgage companies or homeowners. Instead, we are using the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which is in itself expert and has a network of expert loan counselors throughout the country. As a federally chartered corporation, they will be able to avoid the many delaying regulatory hurdles that would result if funded through HUD, but still must meet all the requirements to ensure the integrity of the funds provided to expert counseling agencies. I firmly believe that Michigan will benefit greatly from the one-time funding being provided in this bill to help at-risk homeowners get through this difficult period.

Having said that, there are clearly areas in the bill that could and should be reduced in funding or for which funding should be allocated.

All of us have heard about the shortfall that HUD now faces in meeting contracts with longstanding low-income assistance providers under the project-based section 8 program. While better than the Senate bill, let's face it, we did not solve the problem. We only delayed the date at which the crisis will occur. Yet at the same time, the voucher program has $300 million in excess funds based on the new methodology instituted by the majority as part of the 2007 continuing resolution. Apparently the majority does not trust their new methodology that much, yet those funds could have further reduced the shortfall that HUD faces with project owners under the project-based program, or reduced the cost of the bill itself.

Furthermore, the Department continues to receive funds for a long list of small boutique and duplicative programs, all of which could be eliminated as the administration requested without harming any of the program.

Finally, I want to emphasize that there are no new air-dropped earmarks from the House minority.

I want to thank my colleague and chairman, Chairman Olver, for his work on this bill. I have to say he was most fair. This was a very inclusive conference and, because of his cooperation and the highlights of the bill, I will be voting ``yes'' on passage of the conference report.

I reserve the balance of my time

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source