![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.489583333333333in" height="1.15625in"}

**Legislative Bulletin...........................................March
27, 2007**

> **Contents:**
>
> **H.R. 835** - Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007

H.R. 835 - Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007

(*Abercrombie, D-HI*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, March 27, 2007, subject to a closed rule
([H.Res.
269](http://www.rules.house.gov/SpecialRules_details.aspx?NewsID=2572))

**Note**: The House considered H.R. 835 on Wednesday, March 21, 2007,
under a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. H.R. 835 failed
by a vote of [262-162](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll173.xml),
because although a majority of Members voted in favor, the bill did not
garner the 2/3 necessary to pass on the suspension calendar. As such,
the Majority has brought the bill up for consideration under regular
order, but subject to a closed rule. Such consideration requires a
simply majority for passage.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 835 would reauthorize the Native
Hawaiian Housing Block Grant (NHHBG) for "such sums as may be necessary"
for the FY 2008 through FY 2012 period. In FY 2007, NHHBG will receive
\$9 million in federal funding. In addition, the bill reauthorizes at
such sums as necessary for the FY 2008 through FY 2012 period, a loan
guarantee program to benefit Native Hawaiians.

Finally, the bill would make the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
(DHHL) of the state of Hawaii eligible for Title VI loan guarantees; and
would reauthorize at such sums as necessary, ,for the FY 2008 to FY 2012
period, the credit subsidy that covers the costs of federal guarantees
for financing for tribal housing activities. According to CBO, extending
this program to include the DHHL would "allow Native American Block
Grant recipients to leverage their funding by pledging future grants as
security for the repayment of a loan." CBO also points out that although
"there have been few losses to date in the Title VI program, repayment
of these loans have been funded by federal grants. As a result, the
actual cost to the government is borne by the grant program. It is
uncertain what the cost of these loans would be in the absence of the
grant program but it likely would be higher, perhaps substantially."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
[110-050](../In%20Committee%20Report%20110-050,%20the%20Financial%20Services%20Committee%20cites%20constitutional%20authority%20in%20Article%201,%20section%208,%20clau),
the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of
1996 "provides funds directly to tribes for housing services as
determined by the tribes themselves. In 2000, NAHASDA was amended to
include Title VIII so that Native Hawaiians could receive block grant
funding as well through a separate grant---the Native Hawaiian Housing
Block Grant (NHHBG)."

The Committee Report also outlines its intent that Native Hawaiians
would now have their own credit subsidy, "The use of Title VI funding by
American Indians and Alaska Natives has expanded greatly. By allowing
Native Hawaiian's access to Title VI loans, the Committee does not
intend to create competition for funding resources. Therefore, the
Committee expects, at the discretion of the Appropriations Committee,
that a separate credit subsidy will be established and funded as
necessary to provide funding for loans to Native Hawaiian's under Title
VI."

During Committee consideration, Congressman Campbell (R-CA), offered an
amendment that would have ensured that no future court could construe
our reauthorizing federal funding for Native Hawaiian housing as
Congress using its power under the Indian Commerce Clause to indirectly
confer tribal status on the Native Hawaiian people. The amendment failed
by a vote of 27 -- 40. In his dissenting view, Congressman Campbell
stated the following, which outlines many **possible conservative
concerns** with this legislation:

> "The underlying Native Hawaiian housing program that we are set to
> reauthorize is one of many benefits that currently flow from the
> federal government to Native Hawaiians\--there are roughly 160 current
> statutes that confer such benefits. However, in 2000, the Supreme
> Court put many of these benefits in jeopardy with its decision in
> *Rice* v. *Cayetano.*
>
> The Court's decision in *Rice* has led many to conclude that the
> current configuration of justices would likely strike down most
> federal benefits flowing to Native Hawaiians as a racial set-aside, if
> given a chance. As a result, the Hawaiian Congressional delegation has
> championed separate legislation to provide a process for the United
> States to recognize Native Hawaiians as a governing entity, i.e., a
> tribe that is political in nature. Instead of recognizing a
> currently-existing political entity that has authority over its
> members, the legislation (H.R. 505) would create one from scratch.
>
> While the Financial Services Committee is not considering the
> sovereignty bill (H.R. 505), the Native Hawaiian housing bill (H.R.
> 835) should nonetheless give us pause before we reauthorize funding
> programs that are more than likely unconstitutional. This bill, H.R.
> 835, which reauthorizes federal funding for Native Hawaiian housing,
> should not be construed by any future court as Congress using its
> power under the Indian Commerce Clause to indirectly confer tribal
> status on the Native Hawaiian people.
>
> America is a melting pot of cultures from around the world. Justice
> Kennedy noted as much in his opinion in *Rice* v. *Cayetano.* 'As the
> State of Hawaii attempts to address these realities, it must, as
> always, seek the political consensus that begins with a shared
> purpose. One of the necessary beginning points is this principle: The
> Constitution of the United States, too, has become the heritage of all
> the citizens of Hawaii."

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}: In addition to those
outlined above by Congressman Campbell, some conservatives may be
concerned that Native Hawaiians are a racial group, not a tribe, and
dispensing benefits to them would likely be subject to strict scrutiny
in federal courts. Providing additional financial assistance to this
group is not only duplicative of numerous current federal education
programs, but may also be unconstitutional.**

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 835 was introduced on February
7, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Financial Services, which
considered it, and reported it to the full House by voice vote on March
15, 2007.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** According to CBO, enacting H.R. 835
would authorize \$12 million in FY 2008, and \$63 million over the FY
2008 to FY 2012 period.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}:** Yes. The bill would extend federal programs
to provide an additional subsidy for Native Hawaiians.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}:** No.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: In Committee Report
[110-050](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr050)),
the Financial Services Committee cites constitutional authority in
Article 1, section 8, clause 1 (relating to the general welfare of the
United States) and clause 3 (relating to the power to regulate
interstate commerce).

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}:** Joelle Cannon,
<joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov>, 202.226.0718