59–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–51, Part 1 

GULF COAST HURRICANE HOUSING RECOVERY ACT OF 

2007 

MARCH 16, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, from the Committee on Financial 

Services, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1227] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Financial Services, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1227) to assist in the provision of affordable housing to 

low-income families affected by Hurricane Katrina, having considered the same report favorably thereon with an amendment and 

recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Amendment .............................................................................................................. 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 12 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 12 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 15 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 18 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 18 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 25 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 25 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 25 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 25 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 25 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 32 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 32 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 32 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 32 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 32 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 33 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 38 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
2 

AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 

2007’’. 

TITLE I—COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 

GRANTS 

SEC. 101. FLEXIBILITY OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ROAD HOME PROGRAM. 

(a) FLEXIBILITY OF FUNDS.—Subject to subsection (b) and notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, of the amounts previously made available to the State of Louisiana under the Hazard Mitigation Grants program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, $1,175,000,000 of such unexpended amounts shall be made available as provided in this section. The amount specified in subsection (c) shall be 

available as provided in such subsection and the remainder shall be considered to 

have been made available to such State under the terms of the heading relating to 

‘‘Department of Housing and Urban Development—Community Planning and Development—Community Development Fund’’ in chapter 9 of title II of Public Law 109–

234 (120 Stat. 472) and approved by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for use under the Road Home Program of such State. 

(b) MONTHLY REPORTS ON PROGRAM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The State of Louisiana shall submit reports under this subsection regarding the Road Home Program to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, 

and Urban Affairs of the Senate. Each report under this subsection shall describe and analyze the implementation, status, and effectiveness of the Road 

Home Program and shall include the following information, for the applicable 

reporting period and for the entire period of the program: 

(A) The number of applications submitted for assistance under the program. 

(B) The number of households for which assistance has been provided 

under the program. 

(C) The average amount of assistance provided for each household under 

the program and the total amount of assistance provided under the program. 

(D) The number of personnel involved in executing all aspects of the program. 

(E) Actions taken to improve the program and recommendations for further such improvements. 

(2) REPORTING PERIODS.—The first report under this subsection shall be submitted not later than the expiration of the 30-day period that begins upon the 

date of the enactment of this Act and reports shall be submitted not later than 

the expiration of each successive 30-day period thereafter during the term of the 

program. 

(c) NEW ORLEANS REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PILOT PROGRAM.—

(1) AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS.—Of the unexpended amounts referred to in 

subsection (a), the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall make 

$15,000,000 available to the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority (in this 

subsection referred to as the ‘‘Redevelopment Authority’’), subject to paragraph 

(3), only for use to carry out the pilot program under this subsection. 

(2) PURPOSE.—The pilot program under this subsection shall fund, through 

the combination of amounts provided under this subsection with public and private capital from other sources, the purchase or costs associated with the acquisition of individual parcels of land in New Orleans, Louisiana, by the Redevelopment Authority to be aggregated, assembled, and sold for the purpose of development by private entities only in accordance with, and subject to, the Orleans Parish Recovery Plan, developed and adopted by the City of New Orleans. 

(3) CERTIFICATIONS.—The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may 

make amounts available pursuant to paragraph (1) to the Redevelopment Authority only upon the submission to the Secretary of certifications, sufficient in 

the determination of the Secretary to ensure that the Redevelopment Authority—


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
3 

(A) has the authority to purchase land for resale for the purpose of development in accordance with the pilot program under this subsection; 

(B) has bonding authority (either on its own or through a State bonding 

agency) or has credit enhancements sufficient to support public/private financing to acquire land for the purposes of the pilot program under this 

subsection; 

(C) has the authority and capacity to ensure clean title to land sold under 

the pilot program and to indemnify against environmental and other liabilities; 

(D) will provide a first right to purchase any land acquired by the Redevelopment Authority to the seller who sold the land to the Redevelopment 

Authority; and 

(E) has in place sufficient internal controls to ensure that funds made 

available under this subsection may not be used to fund salaries or other 

administrative costs of the employees of the Redevelopment Authority. 

(4) DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out the pilot program under 

this subsection, the Redevelopment Authority shall—

(A) sell land acquired under the pilot program only as provided in paragraph (2); 

(B) use any proceeds from the sale of such land to replenish funds available for use under the pilot program for the purpose of acquiring new parcels of land or to repay any private financing for such purchases; 

(C) sell land only—

(i) to purchasers who agree to develop such sites for sale to the public; or 

(ii) to purchasers pursuant to paragraph (3)(D); and 

(D) in the case of a purchaser of land pursuant to paragraph (3)(D), ensure that the developer of any adjacent parcels sold by the Redevelopment 

Authority makes an offer to the purchaser to develop such land for a fee. 

(5) INAPPLICABILITY OF STAFFORD ACT LIMITATIONS.—Any requirements or limitations under or pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act relating to use of properties acquired with amounts made 

available under such Act for certain purposes, restricting development of such 

properties, or limiting subsequent alienation of such properties shall not apply 

to amounts provided under this subsection or properties acquired under the 

pilot program with such amounts. 

(6) GAO STUDY AND REPORT.—Upon the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 

United States shall conduct a study of the pilot program carried out under this 

subsection to determine the effectiveness and limitations of, and potential improvements for, such program. Not later than 90 days after the expiration of 

such period, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Committee 

on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate regarding the results of the 

study. 

(d) ONGOING GAO REPORTS ON USE OF AMOUNTS.—

(1) QUARTERLY REPORTS.—During the period that amounts made available 

under subsection (a) are being expended under the Road Home Program of the 

Louisiana Recovery Authority, the Comptroller General of the United States 

shall submit reports on a quarterly basis to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, 

and Urban Affairs of the Senate, and to the Secretary of Housing and Urban 

Development. Such reports shall describe and account for the use of all such 

amounts expended during the applicable quarterly period and identify any 

waste, fraud, or abuse involved in the use of such amounts. 

(2) MONITORING.—The Comptroller General shall monitor the total amount 

made available under subsection (a) that has been expended by such Authority 

and, pursuant to such monitoring—

(A) upon determining that at least two percent of such amount has been 

expended, shall include in the first quarterly report thereafter a written determination of such expenditure; and 

(B) upon determining, at any time after the determination under subparagraph (A), that the portion of such total amount expended at such time 

that was subject to waste, fraud, or abuse exceeds 10 percent, shall include 

in the first quarterly report thereafter a certification to that effect. 

(3) ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE.—If at any time the 

Comptroller General submits a report under paragraph (1) that includes a certification under paragraph (2)(B)—


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
4 

(A) the Committees referred to paragraph (1) shall each hold hearings 

within 60 days to identify the reasons for such waste, fraud, and abuse; and 

(B) the Comptroller General shall submit a report to such Committees 

and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development within 90 days recommending actions to be taken to prevent further waste fraud and abuse 

in expenditure of such amounts. 

SEC. 102. TREATMENT OF BENEFITS FROM OTHER PROGRAMS UNDER ROAD HOME PROGRAM. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent that amounts made 

available under the heading ‘‘Department of Housing and Urban Development-Community Planning and Development—Community Development Fund’’ in chapter 9 

of title I of Division B of Public Law 109–148 (119 Stat. 2779), under such heading 

in chapter 9 of title II of Public Law 109–234 (120 Stat. 472), and under section 

101 of this title, are used by the Louisiana Recovery Authority under the Road 

Home program, the procedures preventing duplication of benefits established pursuant to the penultimate proviso under such heading in Public Law 109–148 (119 Stat. 

2781) and the 15th proviso under such heading in Public Law 109–234 (120 Stat. 

473) shall not apply with respect to any benefits received from hazard insurance, 

flood insurance, or disaster payments from the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, except to the extent that the inapplicability of such procedures would result 

in a windfall gain under the Road Home Program to any person. 

SEC. 103. ELIMINATION OF PROHIBITION OF USE FOR MATCH REQUIREMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any amounts made 

available before the date of the enactment of this Act for activities under the community development block grant program under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) for expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure in the areas impacted or distressed by the consequences of Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or Wilma in 

States for which the President declared a major disaster, or made available before 

such date of enactment for such activities for such expenses in the areas impacted 

or distressed by the consequences of Hurricane Dennis, may be used by a State or 

locality as a matching requirement, share, or contribution for any other Federal program. 

(b) EFFICIENT ENVIRONMENT REVIEW.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, when a State, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe, or Department 

of Hawaiian Home Lands uses amounts referred to in subsection (a), the release of 

which would otherwise be subject to environmental reviews under the procedures 

authorized under section 104(g) of the Housing and Community Development Act 

of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5304(g)), to match or supplement the federal assistance provided 

under sections 402, 403, 406, 407, or 502 of Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act, and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency conducts an environmental review that encompasses all activities assisted 

by such matching funds, the Director’s environmental review shall satisfy all of the 

environmental responsibilities that would otherwise be assumed by the State, unit 

of general local government, Indian tribe, or Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 

under such section 104(g), and the requirements and procedures of such provision, 

including assumption of environmental review responsibilities and submission and 

approval of a request for release of funds and certification, shall be inapplicable, if, 

prior to its commitment of any matching funds for such activities, the State, unit 

of general local government, Indian tribe, or Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 

notifies the Director and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development that it 

elects to defer to the Director’s environmental review responsibilities. If a deferral 

is elected under this subsection, the Director shall be the responsible party for any 

liability under the applicable law if the environmental review as described in the 

preceding sentence is deficient in any manner. 

SEC. 104. REIMBURSEMENT OF CDBG AMOUNTS USED FOR RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE. 

There are authorized to be appropriated, from any amounts made available before 

the date of the enactment of this Act under any provision of law to the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency for disaster relief under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act relating to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or Wilma that remain unobligated, and from any amounts made 

available before such date of enactment under any provision of law to such Agency 

for such disaster relief relating to the consequences of Hurricane Dennis that remain unobligated, such sums as may be necessary for the Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development to provide assistance under title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) to metropolitan cities and 

urban counties that used amounts previously made available under such title to proVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:55 Mar 17, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR051P1.XXX HR051P1

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
5 

vide rental housing assistance for families residing in such city or county pursuant 

to evacuation from their previous residences because of such hurricanes in the 

amount necessary to provide each such city and county with an amount equal to 

the aggregate amount of previous assistance under such title so used. 

TITLE II—PUBLIC HOUSING 

SEC. 201. SURVEY OF PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS. 

(a) SURVEY.—The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall provide for 

the conducting of a survey, using appropriate scientific research methods, by an 

independent entity or organization, to determine, of the households who as of August 28, 2005, resided in public housing (as such term is defined in section 3(b) of 

the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b))) operated or administered by the Housing Authority of New Orleans, in Louisiana—

(1) which and how many such households intend to return to residences in 

dwelling units described in section 202(d) of this Act, when presented with the 

options of—

(A) returning to residence in a repaired public housing or comparable 

dwelling unit in New Orleans; or 

(B) continuing to receive rental housing assistance from the Federal Government; and 

(2) when such households intend to return. 

(b) PARTICIPATION OF RESIDENTS.—The Secretary shall solicit recommendations 

from resident councils and residents of public housing operated or administered by 

such Housing Authority in designing and conducting the survey under subsection 

(a). 

(c) PROPOSED SURVEY DOCUMENT.—The Secretary shall submit the full research 

design of the proposed document to be used in conducting the survey to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate not less than 10 business days 

before the commencement of such survey. 

(d) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit a report the Committees referred to in 

subsection (c) detailing the results of the survey conducted under subsection (a) not 

later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 202. RIGHT OF RETURN FOR PREVIOUS RESIDENTS OF PUBLIC HOUSING. 

(a) REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE DWELLING UNITS.—Not later than August 1, 2007, 

the Housing Authority of New Orleans shall make available for occupancy, subject 

to subsection (b), a number of dwelling units (including those currently occupied) described in subsection (d) that is not less than the greater of—

(1) 3,000; or 

(2) the number of households who have indicated, in the survey conducted 

pursuant to section 201, that they intend to return to residence in public housing operated or administered by such public housing agency. 

(b) RIGHT OF RETURN.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject only to subsection (c), the Housing Authority of New 

Orleans shall make available, upon the request of any household who, as of August 28, 2005, was a tenant of public housing operated or administered by such 

public housing agency, occupancy for such household in a dwelling unit provided 

pursuant to subsection (a). As a condition of exercising a right under this paragraph to occupancy in such a dwelling unit, not later than August 1, 2007, a 

tenant shall provide notice to such Housing Authority of intent to exercise such 

right and shall identify a date that the tenant intends to occupy such a dwelling 

unit, which shall not be later than October 1, 2007. 

(2) PREFERENCES.—In making dwelling units available to households pursuant to paragraph (1), such Housing Authority shall provide preference to each 

such household for occupancy in a dwelling unit in the following locations, in 

the following order: 

(A) A dwelling unit in the same public housing project occupied by the 

household as of August 28, 2005, if available. 

(B) A dwelling unit in the same census tract in which was located the 

public housing dwelling unit occupied by the household as of August 28, 

2005, if available. 

(C) A dwelling unit in a census tract adjacent to the census tract in which 

was located the public housing dwelling unit occupied by the household as 

of August 28, 2005, if available. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
6 

(D) A dwelling unit in the neighborhood in which was located the public 

housing dwelling unit occupied by the household as of August 28, 2005, if 

available. 

(c) PROHIBITION OF EXCLUSION.—The Housing Authority of New Orleans, and any 

other manager of replacement dwelling units set forth in this section shall not, including through the application of any waiting list or eligibility, screening, occupancy, or other policy or practice, prevent any household referred to in subsection 

(b)(1) from occupying a replacement dwelling unit provided pursuant to subsection 

(a), except to the extent that any other provision of Federal law prohibits occupancy 

or tenancy of such household in the type of housing of the replacement dwelling unit 

provided for such household. 

(d) REPLACEMENT DWELLING UNITS.—A dwelling unit described in this subsection 

is—

(1) a dwelling unit in public housing operated or administered by the Housing 

Authority of New Orleans; or 

(2) a dwelling unit in other comparable housing for which the amount required to be contributed by the tenant for rent is comparable to the amount required to be contributed by the tenant for rental of a comparable public housing 

dwelling unit. 

(e) RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.—The Housing Authority of New Orleans shall provide, to each household provided occupancy in a dwelling unit pursuant to subsection (b), assistance under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) for relocation to such dwelling unit. 

SEC. 203. ONE-FOR-ONE REPLACEMENT OF ALL PUBLIC HOUSING DWELLING UNITS. 

(a) CONDITIONS ON DEMOLITION.—After the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

Housing Authority of New Orleans may not demolish or dispose of any dwelling unit 

of public housing operated or administered by such agency (including any uninhabitable unit and any unit previously approved for demolition) except pursuant to a 

plan for replacement of such units in accordance with, and approved by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to, subsection (b). 

(b) PLAN REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary may not approve a plan that provides 

for demolition or disposition of any dwelling unit of public housing referred to in 

subsection (a) unless—

(1) such plan is developed with the active participation of the resident councils of, and residents of public housing operated or administered by, such Housing Authority and with the City of New Orleans, at every phase of the planning 

and approval process, through a process that provides opportunity for comment 

on specific proposals for redevelopment, demolition, or disposition; 

(2) not later than 60 days before the date of the approval of such plan, such 

Housing Authority has convened and conducted a public hearing regarding the 

demolition or disposition proposed in the plan; 

(3) such plan provides that for each such dwelling unit demolished or disposed 

of, such public housing agency will provide an additional dwelling unit 

through—

(A) the acquisition or development of additional public housing dwelling 

units; or 

(B) the acquisition, development, or contracting (including through 

project-based assistance) of additional dwelling units that are subject to requirements regarding eligibility for occupancy, tenant contribution toward 

rent, and long-term affordability restrictions which are comparable to public 

housing units; 

(4) such plan provides for the implementation of a right for households to occupancy housing in accordance with section 202; 

(5) such plan provides priority in making units available under paragraph (3) 

to residents identified in section 201; 

(6) such plan provides that the proposed demolition or disposition and relocation will be carried out in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, as 

described in subsection (e) of section 808 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968; and 

(7) to the extent that such plan provides for the provision of replacement or 

additional dwelling units, or redevelopment, in phases over time, such plan provides that the ratio of dwelling units described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) 

of paragraph (3) that are provided in any such single phase to the total number 

of dwelling units provided in such phase is not less than the ratio of the aggregate number of such dwelling units provided under the plan to the total number 

of dwelling units provided under the plan. 

(c) INAPPLICABLE PROVISIONS.—Subparagraphs (B) and (D) of section 8(o)(13) of 

the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) shall not apply with 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
7 

respect to vouchers used to comply with the requirements of subsection (b)(3) of this 

section. 

(d) MONITORING.—The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall provide for the appropriate field offices of the Department to monitor and supervise enforcement of this section and plans approved under this section and to consult, regarding such monitoring and enforcement, with resident councils of, and residents 

of public housing operated or administered by, the Housing Authority of New Orleans and with the City of New Orleans. 

SEC. 204. PROTECTION FOR PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS IN HURRICANE AREAS. 

(a) CONDITIONS ON TRANSFER.—During the two year period beginning on the date 

of the enactment of this Act, a public housing agency may not transfer ownership 

of any public housing dwelling units described in subsection (h) unless the transferee enters into such binding commitments as the Secretary of Housing and Urban 

Development considers necessary to maintain, for the longest feasible period, the requirements regarding eligibility for occupancy in such dwelling units and tenant 

contribution toward rent for such dwelling units that are applicable to such units 

as public housing dwelling units. 

(b) CONDITIONS ON DEMOLITION.—After the date of the enactment of this Act, a 

public housing agency may not dispose or demolish any dwelling units described in 

subsection (h), except pursuant to a plan for replacement of such units in accordance 

with, and approved by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development pursuant 

to, subsection (c). 

(c) PLAN REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may 

not approve a plan that provides for demolition or disposition of any dwelling unit 

of public housing described in subsection (h) unless such plan complies with the requirements under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (6), and (7) of section 203(b), except that 

such paragraphs shall be applied for purposes this subsection by substituting ‘‘the 

public housing agency’’ and ‘‘applicable unit of general local government’’ for ‘‘such 

Housing Authority’’ and ‘‘City of New Orleans’’, respectively. 

(d) RELOCATION ASSISTANCE.—A public housing agency shall provide, to each 

household relocated pursuant to a plan under this section for demolition or disposition, assistance under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970 for relocation to their new residence. 

(e) RIGHT OF RETURN.—A public housing agency administering or operating public 

housing dwelling units described in subsection (h) has the obligation— (1) to use its best efforts to locate tenants displaced from such public housing 

as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Rita; and 

(2) to provide such residents occupancy in public housing dwelling units of 

such agency that become available for occupancy, and to ensure such residents 

a means to exercise such right of return. 

(f) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROJECT-BASED VOUCHER LIMITATIONS.—Subparagraphs (B) and (D) of section 8(o)(13) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 

(42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) shall not apply with respect to any project-based vouchers 

used to comply with the requirements of a plan under subsection (c). 

(g) PROHIBITION ON DISPLACEMENT FROM HABITABLE UNITS.—A public housing 

agency may not displace a tenant from any public housing dwelling unit described 

in subsection (h) that is administered or operated by such agency and is habitable 

(including during any period of rehabilitation), unless the agency provides a suitable 

and comparable dwelling unit for such tenant in the same local community as such 

public housing dwelling unit. 

(h) COVERED PUBLIC HOUSING DWELLING UNITS.—The public housing dwelling 

units described in this subsection are any such dwelling units located in any area 

for which major disaster or emergency was declared by the President pursuant to 

the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act as a result of 

Hurricane Katrina or Rita of 2005, except that such dwelling units shall not include 

any public housing dwelling units operated or administered by the Housing Authority of New Orleans. 

SEC. 205. REPORTS ON PROPOSED CONVERSIONS OF PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS. 

Not later than the expiration of the 15-day period beginning on the date of the 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall submit to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a detailed report 

identifying all public housing projects located in areas impacted by Hurricane 

Katrina or Rita of 2005, for which plans exist to transfer ownership to other entities 

or agencies. Such report shall include the following information for each such 

project: 

(1) The name and location. 

(2) The number of dwelling units. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
8 

(3) The proposed new owner. 

(4) The existing income eligibility and rent provisions. 

(5) Duration of existing affordability restrictions. 

(6) The proposed date of transfer. 

(7) Any other relevant information regarding the project. 

SEC. 206. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR REPAIR AND REHABILITATION. 

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry 

out activities eligible for funding under the Capital Fund under section 9 of the 

United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g) for the repair, rehabilitation, 

and development of public housing of the Housing Authority of New Orleans, and 

for community and supportive services for the residents of public housing operated 

or administered by the Housing Authority of New Orleans. 

SEC. 207. COMPLIANCE OF EXISTING REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS. 

Each request for qualification or proposal issued before the date of the enactment 

of this Act with respect to any public housing operated or administered by the Housing Authority of New Orleans shall, notwithstanding any existing terms of such requests, be subject to and comply with all provisions of this title and, to the extent 

necessary to so comply, such Housing Authority shall reissue such requests. 

SEC. 208. REPORTS ON COMPLIANCE. 

Not later than the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the 

enactment of this Act and not later than the expiration of each calendar quarter 

thereafter, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall submit a detailed report regarding compliance with the requirements of this title, including the 

resident participation requirement under section 203(b)(1), to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate, the resident councils of, and residents of public housing operated or administered by, the Housing Authority of New Orleans, and 

the City of New Orleans. 

SEC. 209. REQUIREMENTS REGARDING PUBLIC HOUSING CONSTRUCTION WORKERS. 

Any entity that receives any Federal funds made available pursuant to this title 

for construction, development, rehabilitation, or repair of public housing shall verify 

that all workers employed by such entity and engaged in such activities—

(1) have an immigration status that allows them to legally be so employed; 

and 

(2) have a valid form of identification or documentation indicating such immigration status. 

TITLE III—DISASTER VOUCHER PROGRAM 

AND PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE 

SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF DVP PROGRAM. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Disaster Voucher Program of the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, established pursuant to Public 

Law 109–148 (119 Stat. 2779) and the authority of the Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development to waive requirements under section 8 of the United States 

Housing Act of 1937 in administering assistance under such program, shall be extended until January 1, 2008. 

SEC. 302. CLARIFICATION OF VOUCHER ALLOCATION FORMULA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007. 

In carrying out section 21033 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, 

to provide renewal funding for tenant-based rental housing assistance under section 

8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 for each public housing agency, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall make, for any public housing agency impacted by Hurricane Katrina, Rita, or Wilma, such adjustments as are appropriate to provide adequate funding to adjust for reduced voucher leasing rates and 

increased housing costs arising from such hurricanes. 

SEC. 303. PRESERVATION OF PROJECT-BASED HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS CONTRACTS 

FOR DWELLING UNITS DAMAGED OR DESTROYED. 

(a) TOLLING OF CONTRACT TERM.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 

project-based housing assistance payments contract for a covered assisted multifamily housing project shall not expire or be terminated because of the damage or 

destruction of dwelling units in the project by Hurricane Katrina or Rita. The expiration date of the contract shall be deemed to be the later of the date specified in 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
9 

the contract or a date that is not less than three months after the dwelling units 

in the project or in a replacement project are first made habitable. 

(b) OWNER PROPOSALS FOR REUSE OR RE-SITING.—The Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development shall promptly review and shall approve all feasible proposals 

made by owners of covered assisted multifamily housing projects submitted to the 

Secretary, not later than October 1, 2007, that provide for the rehabilitation of the 

project and the resumption of use of the assistance under the contract for the 

project, or, alternatively, for the transfer, pursuant to subsection (c), of the contract 

or, in the case of a project with an interest reduction payments contract, of the remaining budget authority under the contact, to another multifamily housing project. 

(c) TRANSFER OF CONTRACT.—In the case of any covered assisted multifamily 

housing project, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall—

(1) in the case of a project with a project-based rental assistance payments 

contract described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (d)(2), transfer 

the contract to another appropriate and habitable existing project or a project 

to be constructed (having the same or a different owner); and 

(2) in the case of a project with an interest reduction payments contract pursuant to section 236 of the National Housing Act, use the remaining budget authority under the contract for interest reduction payments to reduce financing 

costs with respect to dwelling units in other habitable projects not currently so 

assisted, and such dwelling units shall be subject to the low-income affordability 

restrictions applicable to projects for which such payments are made under section 236 of the National Housing Act. 

A project to which a project-based rental assistance payments contract is transferred 

may have a different number of units or bedroom configuration than the damaged 

or destroyed project if approximately the same number of individuals are expected 

to occupy the subsidized units in the replacement project as occupied the damaged 

or destroyed project. 

(d) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section: 

(1) COVERED ASSISTED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECT.—The term ‘‘assisted 

multifamily housing project’’ means a multifamily housing project that—

(A) as of the date of the enactment of this Act, is subject to a projectbased rental assistance payments contract (including pursuant to subsection (a) of this section); and 

(B) that was damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane 

Rita of 2005. 

(2) PROJECT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS CONTRACT.—The term 

‘‘project-based rental assistance payments contract’’ includes—

(A) a contract entered into pursuant to section 8 of the United States 

Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f); 

(B) a contract for project rental assistance pursuant to section 202(c)(2) 

of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q(c)(2)); 

(C) a contract for project rental assistance pursuant to section 811(d)(2) 

of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 

8013(d)(2)); and 

(D) an interest reduction payments contract pursuant to section 236 of 

the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–1). 

SEC. 304. TENANT REPLACEMENT VOUCHERS FOR ALL LOST UNITS. 

There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2008 such sums as may be 

necessary to provide tenant replacement vouchers under section 8 of the United 

States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) for the number of households that is 

equal to—

(1) the number of assisted dwelling units (whether occupied or unoccupied) 

located in covered assisted multifamily housing projects (as such term is defined 

in section 303(d) of this Act) that are not approved for reuse or re-siting by the 

Secretary; plus 

(2) the number of public housing dwelling units that, as of August 28, 2005, 

were located in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina and were considered for 

purposes of allocating operating and capital assistance under section 9 of the 

United States Housing Act of 1937 (whether occupied or unoccupied), that will 

not be put back into use for occupancy; plus 

(3) the number of public housing dwelling units that, as of September 24, 

2005, were located in areas affected by Hurricane Rita and were considered for 

purposes of allocating operating and capital assistance under section 9 of the 

United States Housing Act of 1937 (whether occupied or unoccupied), that will 

not be put back into use for occupancy; minus 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
10 

(4) the number of previously awarded enhanced vouchers for assisted dwelling 

units and tenant protection vouchers for public housing units covered under this 

section. 

Any amounts made available pursuant to this section shall, upon the request of a 

public housing agency for such voucher assistance, be allocated to the public housing 

agency based the number of dwelling units described in paragraph (1) or (2) that 

are located in the jurisdiction of the public housing agency. 

SEC. 305. VOUCHER ASSISTANCE FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. 

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to provide 4,500 vouchers for project-based rental assistance under section 8(o)(13) of the 

United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) for use for supportive 

housing dwelling units for elderly families, persons with disabilities, or homeless 

persons. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall make available to 

the State of Louisiana or its designee or designees, upon request, 3,000 of such 

vouchers. Subparagraphs (B) and (D) of section 8(o)(13) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(13)) shall not apply with respect to vouchers 

made available under this section. 

SEC. 306. TRANSFER OF DVP VOUCHERS TO VOUCHER PROGRAM. 

(a) TRANSFER TO SECTION 8 VOUCHER PROGRAM.—There are authorized to be appropriated, for tenant-based assistance under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)), such sums as may be necessary to provide 

vouchers for such assistance for each household that, as of the termination date of 

the Disaster Voucher Program referred to in section 301 of this Act, is assisted 

under such program, for the period that such household is eligible for such voucher 

assistance. Such voucher assistance shall be administered by the public housing 

agency having jurisdiction of the area in which such assisted family resides as of 

such termination date. 

(b) TEMPORARY VOUCHERS.—If at any time a household for whom a voucher for 

rental housing assistance is provided pursuant to this section becomes ineligible for 

further such rental assistance—

(1) the public housing agency administering such voucher pursuant to this 

section may not provide rental assistance under such voucher for any other 

household; 

(2) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall recapture from 

such agency any remaining amounts for assistance attributable to such voucher 

and may not reobligate such amounts to any public housing agency; and 

(3) such voucher shall not be taken into consideration for purposes of determining any future allocation of amounts for such tenant-based rental assistance 

for any public housing agency. 

SEC. 307. IDENTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION OF DVP-ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS NOT ASSISTED. 

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall make a good faith effort 

to identify all households who, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, are eligible for assistance under the Disaster Voucher Program referred to in section 301 

but are not assisted under such program. Upon identification of each such household, the Secretary shall—

(1) notify such household of the rights of the household to return a public 

housing or other assisted dwelling unit; and 

(2) to the extent that the family is eligible at such time of identification, offer 

the household assistance under the Disaster Voucher program. 

TITLE IV—DAMAGES ARISING FROM FEMA 

ACTIONS 

SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS TO REIMBURSE LANDLORDS FOR DAMAGES 

DUE TO FEMA MANAGEMENT OF CITY LEASE PROGRAM. 

There are authorized to be appropriated, from amounts made available before the 

date of the enactment of this Act under any provision of law to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for disaster relief under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief Emergency Assistance Act, such sums as may be necessary for the Secretary 

of Housing and Urban Development to provide reimbursement to each landlord who 

participated in the city lease program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency pursuant to section 403 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b) in the amount of actual, documented damages inVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:55 Mar 17, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR051P1.XXX HR051P1

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
11 

curred by such landlord as a result of abrogation by such Agency of commitments 

entered into under such program. 

TITLE V—FHA SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING 

SEC. 501. TREATMENT OF NON-CONVEYABLE PROPERTIES. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of any property consisting 

of 1- to 4-family residence that is subject to a mortgage insured under title II of 

the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.) and was damaged or destroyed 

as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Rita of 2005, if there was no failure on the part 

of the mortgagee or servicer to provide hazard insurance for the property or to provide flood insurance coverage for the property to the extent such coverage is required under Federal law, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development— (1) may not deny conveyance of title to the property to the Secretary and payment of the benefits of such insurance on the basis of the condition of the property or any failure to repair the property; 

(2) may not reduce the amount of such insurance benefits to take into consideration any costs of repairing the property; and 

(3) with respect to a property that is destroyed, condemned, demolished, or 

otherwise not available for conveyance of title, may pay the full benefits of such 

insurance to the mortgagee notwithstanding that such title is not conveyed. 

TITLE VI—FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT 

SEC. 601. FAIR HOUSING INITIATIVES PROGRAM. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be appropriated 

to carry out section 561 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 

(42 U.S.C. 3616a), in each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009, such sums as may be necessary, but not less than $5,000,000, for areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita, of which, in each such fiscal year— (1) 60 percent shall be available only for private enforcement initiatives for 

qualified private enforcement fair housing organizations authorized under subsection (b) of such section, and, of the amount made available in accordance 

with this paragraph, the Secretary shall set aside an amount for multi-year 

grants to qualified fair housing enforcement organizations; 

(2) 20 percent shall be available only for activities authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c) of such section; and 

(3) 20 percent shall be available only for education and outreach programs authorized under subsection (d) of such section. 

(b) LOW FUNDING.—If the total amount appropriated to carry out the Fair Hous- ing Initiatives Program for either fiscal year 2008 or 2009 is less than $50,000,000, 

not less than 5 percent of such total amount appropriated for such fiscal year shall 

be available for the areas described in subsection (a) for the activities described in 

paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of such subsection. 

(c) AVAILABILITY.—Any amounts appropriated under this section shall remain 

available until expended. 

TITLE VII—IMPROVED DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL HURRICANE HOUSING FUNDS FOR 

HURRICANE RELIEF 

SEC. 701. GAO STUDY OF IMPROVED DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL HOUSING FUNDS FOR HURRICANE RELIEF. 

(a) STUDY.—The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study 

to examine methods of improving the distribution of Federal housing funds to assist 

States covered by this Act with recovery from hurricanes, which shall include identifying and analyzing—

(1) the Federal and State agencies used in the past to disburse such funds 

and the strengths and weakness of existing programs; 

(2) the means by and extent to which critical information relating to hurricane recovery, such as property valuations, is shared among various State and 

Federal agencies; 

(3) program requirements that create impediments to the distribution of such 

funds that can be eliminated or streamlined; 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
12 

(4) housing laws and regulations that have caused programs to be developed 

in a manner that complies with statutory requirements but fails to meet the 

housing objectives or needs of the States or the Federal Government; 

(5) laws relating to privacy and impediments raised by housing laws to the 

sharing, between the Federal Government and State governments, and private 

industry, of critical information relating to hurricane recovery; 

(6) methods of streamlining applications for and underwriting of Federal 

housing grant or loan programs; and 

(7) how to establish more equitable Federal housing laws regarding duplication of benefits. 

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

the Comptroller General shall submit to the Congress a report describing the results 

of the study and any recommendations regarding the issues analyzed under the 

study. 

TITLE VIII—COMMENDING AMERICANS FOR 

THEIR REBUILDING EFFORTS 

SEC. 801. COMMENDING AMERICANS. 

(a) CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that— (1) over 500,000 individuals in the United States have volunteered their time 

in helping rebuild the Gulf Coast region in the aftermath of Hurricane’s Katrina 

and Rita; 

(2) over $3,500,000,000 in cash and in-kind donations have been made for 

hurricane victims; 

(3) 40,000,000 pounds of food have been distributed by Catholic Charities’

Food Bank through hurricane relief efforts; 

(4) almost 7,000,000 hot meals have been served by Salvation Army volunteers in hurricane relief efforts; 

(5) over 10,000,000 college students have devoted their spring and fall breaks 

to hurricane relief efforts; 

(6) almost 20,000 families displaced as a result of the hurricanes have been 

supported by Traveler’s Aid volunteers; 

(7) faith-based organizations, such as Jewish Family Services, Lutheran Disaster Response, the United Methodist Committee on Relief, Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, the National Baptist Convention of America, Inc., the Progressive National Baptist Convention, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the African Methodist Episcopal Church have contributed tens of thousands of manhours for hurricane relief; and 

(8) community-based organizations, such as the Boys and Girls Club of America, Junior League, Boy and Girl Scouts of America, and the YMCA, have had 

thousands of members volunteer with the cleanup in the Gulf States. 

(b) COMMENDATION.—The Congress hereby commends the actions and efforts by 

the remarkable individuals and organizations who contributed to the hurricane relief effort and recognizes that the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region rests on the 

selfless dedication of private individuals and community spirit. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1227 includes a number of provisions designed to speed up 

the repair and rebuilding of homes and affordable rental housing 

in areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, to ensure continued rental assistance for both families that have moved 

back to their home areas and for families displaced by such hurricanes, and to provide reimbursements to communities and landlords that were generous in providing assistance to hurricane evacuees in the aftermath of the storms. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit landfall in 2005. In the immediate aftermath of the storms, Congress provided substantial sums 

through the Federal Emergency Management Administration 

(FEMA), to address emergency needs arising from the devastation 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
13 

that the storms created, and to provide a housing safety net for 

families who lost their homes or were otherwise displaced. Later in 

2005 and in the summer of 2006, Congress approved two emergency spending bills providing more than $16 billion in CDBG 

funds for affected states, to provide assistance for home repairs and 

reconstruction and for repair and rebuilding of a depleted stock of 

affordable rental housing. Congress also appropriated $390 million 

for the Disaster Voucher Program, which provides voucher assistance to formerly HUD-assisted families that have been displaced 

by these Hurricanes. 

However, some 18 months after these storms, the pace of recovery of housing repair and reconstruction is not as robust in many 

areas as many had hoped. The pace of home repair, particularly in 

areas within Louisiana, has been slow. The repair or rebuilding of 

many damaged federally subsidized public and assisted housing 

units, affordable to lower income families, has still not taken place. 

And, tens of thousands of federally assisted evacuees from these 

hurricanes face impending deadlines later this year for continued 

eligibility for rental assistance. 

The Financial Services Committee has held a number of hearings 

over the past year and a half, including two in September 2005, 

two in December 2005, two in January 2006, one in February 2006, 

and three in February 2007 to explore the pace of the housing recovery effort in the Gulf Coast. The hearings included representatives of Federal agencies, State and local government officials, 

housing developers, nonprofit organizations, and representatives of 

low income housing. Witnesses testified as to the current state of 

the housing recovery in various communities in the Gulf Coast and 

offered legislative suggestions for addressing housing problems in 

those areas. The bill ultimately reported out of the Financial Services Committees relies extensively on the hearing record and these 

suggestions. 

Flexibility 

H.R. 1227 includes a number of provisions designed to improve 

flexibility with respect to previously appropriated funds for hurricane recovery efforts on the Gulf Coast. The bill would free up for 

use $1.175 billion in funds previously made available for use to the 

State of Louisiana under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, 

but which has been held up by FEMA. Louisiana has proposed 

combining these funds with CDBG funds under its Road Home program for grants to homeowners, but FEMA will not approve use of 

the funds because of Road Home provisions that provide incentives 

for homeowners to commit to returning to the state to live. Under 

the program, homeowners would receive a 40 percent reduction in 

any Road Home grant money if they leave the state. However, this 

provision excepts homeowners over the age of 65. The bill would 

transfer such funds to CDBG, to expedite the availability of such 

funds. 

The bill eliminates an unduly restrictive ‘‘duplication of benefits’’

provision that has resulted in homeowners in Louisiana receiving 

less than the funds they need to rebuild under the Road Home Program, while instating a prohibition against any person receiving a 

‘‘windfall gain’’ from assistance under that program. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
14 

The bill eliminates a provision from a previous CDBG appropriations bill that prohibits CDBG funds from being used as a match 

for other Federal programs, a change that could help cash strapped 

communities without a tax base that are unable to meet these 

other match requirements. The bill provides that $15 million in CDBG funds made available 

to the State of Louisiana shall be transferred to the New Orleans 

Redevelopment Agency, for a pilot program to leverage private capital to assemble, redevelop and resell parcels of land in New Orleans. 

Finally, the bill expedites the handling of loss claims for lenders 

in the case of FHA insured 1- to 4-unit properties where there are 

problems with the conveyance of title. 

Preservation of Affordable Housing 

H.R. 1227 includes a number of provisions designed to preserve 

the supply of rental housing that is affordable for low income families. The bill requires HUD to give timely approval of all feasible 

requests to restore project-based rental assistance or transfer such 

assistance to another site, in the case of damaged or destroyed federally assisted housing developments. The bill authorizes 4,500 

new housing vouchers for the purpose of project based assistance 

for supportive housing units for seniors, disabled persons, and the 

homeless. The bill requires HUD to provide replacement vouchers 

for every public housing and assisted housing unit that is not 

brought back on line. 

Similarly, with respect to public housing, the bill provides resident protections and preserves the availability of public housing 

units in hurricane affected areas by preventing the transfer of such 

units without preserving long term affordability requirements. It 

also conditions demolition of public housing units on providing alternative housing units for residents of the units being demolished 

and on replacing such units either with other public housing or 

with comparable units providing comparable affordability for low 

income residents. 

Specifically, with respect to the Housing Authority of New Orleans, the bill also requires the Authority to survey pre-Katrina residents to identify which residents want to return and when, and to 

provide public housing or comparable units to those residents that 

want to return, but in any case no less than 3,000 units by August 

1st. Funding is also authorized for repair, rehabilitation, and development of HANO public housing units. 

The bill also authorizes $5 million in each of the next two years 

for Fair Housing activities, to ensure that housing activities in 

areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are carried out in 

a manner that furthers fair housing. 

Rental Housing Assistance 

Faced with a looming September deadline for the cutoff of some 

12,000 families currently receiving Disaster Voucher Program 

(DVP) assistance, H.R. 1227 extends this deadline through at least 

the end of the year, and authorizes replacement vouchers to affected families when the program terminates, which will continue 

as long as the family is eligible for voucher assistance. These 

vouchers are attached to each individual and family and will ‘‘disVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:55 Mar 17, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR051P1.XXX HR051P1

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
15 

appear’’ when the individual or family is no longer eligible for the 

assistance. The bill also provides a clarification that HUD should 

make adjustments in the voucher formula funding allocation 

changes made in the Continuing Resolution, so that Gulf Coast 

housing agencies will not be adversely impacted by the Hurricanes. 

The Continuing Resolution provided such authority for HUD to 

make such adjustments, and this bill requires the adjustments be 

made. Finally, the bill requires HUD to make a good faith effort 

to identify families that are eligible for Disaster Voucher Assistance but are not receiving such assistance, and make such assistance available. 

Oversight 

H.R. 1227 includes a number of provisions to ensure that Federal 

funds are used efficiently, effectively, and legally. The bill requires 

the State of Louisiana to submit monthly reports on the progress 

of the Road Home program in making funds available to homeowners. The bill requires the General Accountability Office (GAO) 

to complete quarterly reports identifying any waste, fraud, and 

abuse in connection with the program. And, the bill requires a 

GAO study to examine methods of improving the distribution of 

Federal housing funds to assist states with hurricane recovery efforts. 

Finally, the bill requires that any funds used under Title II with 

respect to public housing construction or repair must have 

verification that all workers have an immigration status that allows them to be legally employed. 

Reimbursement for Communities and Landlords that Assisted Evacuees 

A number of communities and private sector landlords throughout the country played a critical role in providing housing assistance to evacuees in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

This assistance was critical at a time when housing was in short 

supply and hundreds of thousands of families were displaced. It is 

important to encourage such actions in future disasters. 

Therefore, H.R. 1227 authorizes funding for reimbursement of localities that used their own CDBG funds to provide rental housing 

assistance to such evacuees. The bill also authorizes reimbursement to landlords who participated in the FEMA Section 403 program under which local communities co-signed private lease agreements—but who suffered financial losses arising from FEMA subsequently breaking their agreement to provide reimbursements 

under this program. 

HEARINGS

The Committee on Financial Services held a hearing entitled 

‘‘Federal Housing Response to Hurricane Katrina’’ on February 6, 

2007. The following witnesses testified: 

Panel One 

The Honorable Gene Taylor 

The Honorable William J. Jefferson 

The Honorable Charles W. Boustany, Jr. 

The Honorable Charlie Melancon 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
16 

Panel Two 

The Honorable Roy A. Bernardi, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Mr. David Garratt, Acting Director of Recovery, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

Mr. Walter Leger, Chairman, Housing and Redevelopment 

Task Force, Louisiana Recovery Authority 

Mr. Gray Swoope, Executive Director, Mississippi Development Authority 

Panel Three 

Ms. Sheila Crowley, President, National Low Income Housing Coalition 

Mr. Kirk H. Tate, Chief Executive Office, Orion Real Estate 

Services, on behalf of National Multi Housing Council 

Mr. Ghebre Selassie Mehreteab, Co-Chairman & CEO, NHP 

Foundation 

Mr. James H. Perry, Executive Director, Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center 

Mr. Edgar Bright, III, President, Standard Mortgage Corporation (New Orleans) on behalf of Mortgage Bankers Association 

Dr. James A. Richardson, John Rhea Professor of Economics, 

E.J. Ourso College of Business, Louisiana State University 

Panel Four 

Ms. Doris Koo, President & CEO, Enterprise Community 

Partners 

Mr. Derrick Johnson, President, Mississippi State Conference NAACP 

Mr. James R. Kelly, Chief Executive Officer, Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New Orleans 

Ms. Margery Austin Turner, Director, Metropolitan Housing 

and Communities, The Urban Institute 

Ms. Judith A. Browne-Dianis, Co-Director, Advancement 

Project 

Ms. Martha J. Kegel, Executive Director, UNITY of Greater 

New Orleans 

Ms. Julie Andrews, Spokesperson for Residents United and 

a Public Housing Resident 

The Subcommittee on Housing and Community held a field hearing entitled ‘‘Solving the Affordable Housing Crisis in the Gulf 

Coast Region Post Katrina: Why no progress and what are the obstacles to success?’’ in New Orleans, Louisiana, on February 22, 

2007. The following witnesses testified: 

Panel One 

The Honorable Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, Governor, State 

of Louisiana 

The Honorable William J. Jefferson, Member of Congress 

Panel Two 

The Honorable C. Ray Nagin, Mayor, City of New Orleans 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
17 

The Honorable Oliver Thomas, President, New Orleans City 

Council 

Panel Three 

Ms. Dominique Blom, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of 

Public Housing Investments, U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 

Mr. Gil Jamieson, Deputy Director for Gulf Coast Recovery, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Mr. Walter J. Leger, Jr., Chairman, Housing and Redevelopment Task Force, Louisiana Recovery Authority 

Dr. Edward Blakely, Director of Recovery, City of New Orleans 

Mr. C. Donald Babers, Board Chairman, Housing Authority 

of New Orleans 

Panel Four 

Mr. James H. Perry, Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, E.D. 

Mr. James R. Kelly, Chief Executive Officer, Catholic Charities 

Mr. Steve Bradberry, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now 

Dr. Sherece West, Executive Director, Louisiana Disaster Recovery Foundation 

Ms. Gloria Williams, Tenant 

Ms. Donna Johnigan, Tenant 

Mr. Ben Dupuy, The Cypress Group 

Ms. Emelda Paul, Tenant 

Panel Five 

Ms. Isabel Reiff, Senior Vice President, ICF International, 

Inc. 

Mr. Mark Rodi, President-elect of the Louisiana Realtors Association 

Ms. Tracie L. Washington, Director, NAACP Gulf Coast Advocacy Center 

Mr. Paul R. Taylor, President, SRP Development 

The Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity held 

a second field hearing on February 23, 2007, in Gulfport, Mississippi. The following witnesses testified: 

Panel One 

The Honorable Gene Taylor, Member of Congress 

Mr. Jeffrey Bonds, Representative of the Mayor of Gulfport, 

Mississippi 

Panel Two 

Mr. Gil Jamieson, Deputy Director for Gulf Coast Recovery, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Ms. Donna Sanford, Director Disaster Recovery Division, 

Mississippi Development Authority 

Mr. Delmar Robinson, Biloxi Housing Authority 

Mr. Chuck Benvenutti, Chairman of the Governors Commission, Hancock County, MS 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
18 

Panel Three 

Mr. Derrick Evans, Executive Director, Turkey Creek Initiative 

Mr. Jason Mackenzie, North Gulfport Community Land 

Trust 

Ms. Lillie Bender, Unity Homes Project 

Mr. H. Rodger Wilder, President, Gulf Coast Community 

Foundation 

Mr. Jon Jopling, Mississippi Center for Justice 

Mr. William J. Bynum, Chief Executive Officer, Enterprise 

Corporation of the Delta 

Ms. Diane Collier, Tenant 

Mr. Brian Sanderson, Gulf Coast Business Council 

Mr. Walter O. Hendrix, President & CEO, DASH Neighborhood Revitalization, Inc. 

Mr. Rodger Clark, Paralyzed Veterans of America 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee on Financial Services met in open session on 

March 6 and 7, 2007, and ordered reported H.R. 1227, the Gulf 

Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act, as amended, favorably reported to the House by a record vote of 50 yeas and 16 nays. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. A motion by Mr. 

Frank to report the bill, as amended, to the House with a favorable 

recommendation was agreed to by a record vote of 50 yeas and 16 

nays (Record vote no. FC–13). The names of Members voting for 

and against follow: 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–13 

Representative Aye Nay Representative Aye Nay 

Mr. Frank ................................................. X ........... Mr. Bachus ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Kanjorski ............................................ X ........... Mr. Baker ................................................ X ...........

Ms. Waters ............................................... X ........... Ms. Pryce (OH) ........................................ X ...........

Mrs. Maloney ............................................ X ........... Mr. Castle ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Gutierrez ............................................ X ........... Mr. King (NY) .......................................... X ...........

Ms. Vela ́zquez .......................................... X ........... Mr. Royce ................................................ ........... X 

Mr. Watt ................................................... X ........... Mr. Lucas ................................................ ........... X 

Mr. Ackerman ........................................... X ........... Mr. Paul .................................................. ........... X 

Ms. Carson ............................................... X ........... Mr. Gillmor .............................................. ........... ...........

Mr. Sherman ............................................ X ........... Mr. LaTourette ......................................... X ...........

Mr. Meeks ................................................ X ........... Mr. Manzullo ........................................... ........... X 

Mr. Moore (KS) ......................................... X ........... Mr. Jones ................................................. X ...........

Mr. Capuano ............................................ ........... ........... Mrs. Biggert ............................................ X ...........

Mr. Hinojosa ............................................. X ........... Mr. Shays ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Clay ................................................... X ........... Mr. Miller (CA) ........................................ ........... X 

Mrs. McCarthy .......................................... X ........... Mrs. Capito ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Baca .................................................. X ........... Mr. Feeney ............................................... ........... X 

Mr. Lynch ................................................. X ........... Mr. Hensarling ........................................ ........... X 

Mr. Miller (NC) ......................................... X ........... Mr. Garrett (NJ) ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Scott .................................................. X ........... Ms. Brown-Waite ..................................... ........... X 

Mr. Green ................................................. X ........... Mr. Barrett (SC) ...................................... ........... X 

Mr. Cleaver .............................................. X ........... Mr. Renzi ................................................. X ...........

Ms. Bean .................................................. X ........... Mr. Gerlach ............................................. X ...........

Ms. Moore (WI) ......................................... X ........... Mr. Pearce ............................................... ........... X 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
19 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–13—Continued 

Representative Aye Nay Representative Aye Nay 

Mr. Davis (TN) ......................................... X ........... Mr. Neugebauer ...................................... ........... X 

Mr. Sires .................................................. X ........... Mr. Price (GA) ......................................... ........... ...........

Mr. Hodes ................................................. X ........... Mr. Davis (KY) ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Ellison ................................................ X ........... Mr. McHenry ............................................ ........... X 

Mr. Klein .................................................. X ........... Mr. Campbell .......................................... ........... X 

Mr. Mahoney (FL) ..................................... X ........... Mr. Putnam ............................................. ........... ...........

Mr. Wilson ................................................ X ........... Mrs. Blackburn ....................................... ........... X 

Mr. Perlmutter .......................................... X ........... Mrs. Bachmann ...................................... ........... X 

Mr. Murphy ............................................... X ........... Mr. Roskam ............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Donnelly ............................................. X 

Mr. Wexler ................................................ X 

Mr. Marshall ............................................ X 

Mr. Boren ................................................. X 

The following amendments were disposed of by record votes. The 

names of Members voting for and against follow: 

An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer, No. 5, striking section 306 

(relating to transfer of DVP vouchers to permanent voucher program), was not agreed to by a record vote of 28 yeas and 35 nays 

(Record vote No. FC–6). 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–6 

Representative Aye Nay Representative Aye Nay 

Mr. Frank ................................................. ........... X Mr. Bachus ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Kanjorski ............................................ ........... X Mr. Baker ................................................ X ...........

Ms. Waters ............................................... ........... X Ms. Pryce (OH) ........................................ ........... ...........

Mrs. Maloney ............................................ ........... X Mr. Castle ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Gutierrez ............................................ ........... X Mr. King (NY) .......................................... X ...........

Ms. Vela ́zquez .......................................... ........... X Mr. Royce ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Watt ................................................... ........... X Mr. Lucas ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Ackerman ........................................... ........... X Mr. Paul .................................................. X ...........

Ms. Carson ............................................... ........... X Mr. Gillmor .............................................. X ...........

Mr. Sherman ............................................ ........... X Mr. LaTourette ......................................... X ...........

Mr. Meeks ................................................ ........... ........... Mr. Manzullo ........................................... X ...........

Mr. Moore (KS) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Jones ................................................. ........... ...........

Mr. Capuano ............................................ ........... X Mrs. Biggert ............................................ X ...........

Mr. Hinojosa ............................................. ........... X Mr. Shays ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Clay ................................................... ........... X Mr. Miller (CA) ........................................ X ...........

Mrs. McCarthy .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Capito ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Baca .................................................. ........... X Mr. Feeney ............................................... ........... ...........

Mr. Lynch ................................................. ........... ........... Mr. Hensarling ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Miller (NC) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Garrett (NJ) ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Scott .................................................. ........... X Ms. Brown-Waite ..................................... X ...........

Mr. Green ................................................. ........... X Mr. Barrett (SC) ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Cleaver .............................................. ........... X Mr. Renzi ................................................. X ...........

Ms. Bean .................................................. ........... X Mr. Gerlach ............................................. ........... ...........

Ms. Moore (WI) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Pearce ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Davis (TN) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Neugebauer ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Sires .................................................. ........... X Mr. Price (GA) ......................................... X ...........

Mr. Hodes ................................................. ........... X Mr. Davis (KY) ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Ellison ................................................ ........... X Mr. McHenry ............................................ X ...........

Mr. Klein .................................................. ........... X Mr. Campbell .......................................... X ...........

Mr. Mahoney (FL) ..................................... ........... X Mr. Putnam ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Wilson ................................................ ........... X Mrs. Blackburn ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Perlmutter .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Bachmann ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Murphy ............................................... ........... X Mr. Roskam ............................................. ........... ...........

Mr. Donnelly ............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Wexler ................................................ ........... X 

Mr. Marshall ............................................ ........... X 

Mr. Boren ................................................. ........... X 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
20 

An amendment by Ms. Brown-Waite, No. 8, changing the use of 

Road Home funds to hazard mitigation, was not agreed to by a 

record vote of 27 yeas and 39 nays (Record vote No. FC–7). 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–7 

Representative Aye Nay Representative Aye Nay 

Mr. Frank ................................................. ........... X Mr. Bachus ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Kanjorski ............................................ ........... X Mr. Baker ................................................ ........... X 

Ms. Waters ............................................... ........... X Ms. Pryce (OH) ........................................ ........... ...........

Mrs. Maloney ............................................ ........... X Mr. Castle ............................................... ........... X 

Mr. Gutierrez ............................................ ........... X Mr. King (NY) .......................................... X ...........

Ms. Vela ́zquez .......................................... ........... X Mr. Royce ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Watt ................................................... ........... X Mr. Lucas ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Ackerman ........................................... ........... X Mr. Paul .................................................. X ...........

Ms. Carson ............................................... ........... X Mr. Gillmor .............................................. X ...........

Mr. Sherman ............................................ ........... X Mr. LaTourette ......................................... X ...........

Mr. Meeks ................................................ ........... ........... Mr. Manzullo ........................................... X ...........

Mr. Moore (KS) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Jones ................................................. X ...........

Mr. Capuano ............................................ ........... X Mrs. Biggert ............................................ ........... X 

Mr. Hinojosa ............................................. ........... X Mr. Shays ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Clay ................................................... ........... X Mr. Miller (CA) ........................................ X ...........

Mrs. McCarthy .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Capito ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Baca .................................................. ........... X Mr. Feeney ............................................... ........... ...........

Mr. Lynch ................................................. ........... X Mr. Hensarling ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Miller (NC) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Garrett (NJ) ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Scott .................................................. ........... X Ms. Brown-Waite ..................................... X ...........

Mr. Green ................................................. ........... X Mr. Barrett (SC) ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Cleaver .............................................. ........... X Mr. Renzi ................................................. X ...........

Ms. Bean .................................................. ........... X Mr. Gerlach ............................................. ........... ...........

Ms. Moore (WI) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Pearce ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Davis (TN) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Neugebauer ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Sires .................................................. ........... X Mr. Price (GA) ......................................... X ...........

Mr. Hodes ................................................. ........... X Mr. Davis (KY) ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Ellison ................................................ ........... X Mr. McHenry ............................................ X ...........

Mr. Klein .................................................. ........... X Mr. Campbell .......................................... X ...........

Mr. Mahoney (FL) ..................................... ........... X Mr. Putnam ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Wilson ................................................ ........... X Mrs. Blackburn ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Perlmutter .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Bachmann ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Murphy ............................................... ........... X Mr. Roskam ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Donnelly ............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Wexler ................................................ ........... X 

Mr. Marshall ............................................ ........... X 

Mr. Boren ................................................. ........... X 

An amendment by Mr. McHenry, No. 16, striking section 304 (relating to tenant replacement vouchers for all lost units), was not 

agreed to by a record vote of 30 yeas and 37 nays (Record vote No. 

FC–8). 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–8 

Representative Aye Nay Representative Aye Nay 

Mr. Frank ................................................. ........... X Mr. Bachus ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Kanjorski ............................................ ........... X Mr. Baker ................................................ X ...........

Ms. Waters ............................................... ........... X Ms. Pryce (OH) ........................................ X ...........

Mrs. Maloney ............................................ ........... X Mr. Castle ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Gutierrez ............................................ ........... X Mr. King (NY) .......................................... X ...........

Ms. Vela ́zquez .......................................... ........... X Mr. Royce ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Watt ................................................... ........... X Mr. Lucas ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Ackerman ........................................... ........... X Mr. Paul .................................................. X ...........

Ms. Carson ............................................... ........... X Mr. Gillmor .............................................. X ...........

Mr. Sherman ............................................ ........... X Mr. LaTourette ......................................... X ...........

Mr. Meeks ................................................ ........... X Mr. Manzullo ........................................... X ...........

Mr. Moore (KS) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Jones ................................................. X ...........


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
21 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–8—Continued 

Representative Aye Nay Representative Aye Nay 

Mr. Capuano ............................................ ........... ........... Mrs. Biggert ............................................ X ...........

Mr. Hinojosa ............................................. ........... X Mr. Shays ................................................ ........... X 

Mr. Clay ................................................... ........... X Mr. Miller (CA) ........................................ X ...........

Mrs. McCarthy .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Capito ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Baca .................................................. ........... X Mr. Feeney ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Lynch ................................................. ........... X Mr. Hensarling ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Miller (NC) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Garrett (NJ) ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Scott .................................................. ........... X Ms. Brown-Waite ..................................... X ...........

Mr. Green ................................................. ........... X Mr. Barrett (SC) ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Cleaver .............................................. ........... X Mr. Renzi ................................................. X ...........

Ms. Bean .................................................. ........... X Mr. Gerlach ............................................. X ...........

Ms. Moore (WI) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Pearce ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Davis (TN) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Neugebauer ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Sires .................................................. ........... X Mr. Price (GA) ......................................... ........... ...........

Mr. Hodes ................................................. ........... X Mr. Davis (KY) ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Ellison ................................................ ........... X Mr. McHenry ............................................ X ...........

Mr. Klein .................................................. ........... X Mr. Campbell .......................................... X ...........

Mr. Mahoney (FL) ..................................... ........... X Mr. Putnam ............................................. ........... ...........

Mr. Wilson ................................................ ........... X Mrs. Blackburn ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Perlmutter .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Bachmann ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Murphy ............................................... ........... X Mr. Roskam ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Donnelly ............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Wexler ................................................ ........... X 

Mr. Marshall ............................................ ........... X 

Mr. Boren ................................................. ........... X 

An amendment by Mr. Price (GA), No. 27, requiring budget neutrality, was not agreed to by a record vote of 28 yeas and 34 nays 

(Record vote No. FC–9). 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–9 

Representative Aye Nay Representative Aye Nay 

Mr. Frank ................................................. ........... X Mr. Bachus ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Kanjorski ............................................ ........... X Mr. Baker ................................................ X ...........

Ms. Waters ............................................... ........... X Ms. Pryce (OH) ........................................ X ...........

Mrs. Maloney ............................................ ........... X Mr. Castle ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Gutierrez ............................................ ........... X Mr. King (NY) .......................................... X ...........

Ms. Vela ́zquez .......................................... ........... X Mr. Royce ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Watt ................................................... ........... X Mr. Lucas ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Ackerman ........................................... ........... X Mr. Paul .................................................. X ...........

Ms. Carson ............................................... ........... X Mr. Gillmor .............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Sherman ............................................ ........... X Mr. LaTourette ......................................... X ...........

Mr. Meeks ................................................ ........... ........... Mr. Manzullo ........................................... X ...........

Mr. Moore (KS) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Jones ................................................. X ...........

Mr. Capuano ............................................ ........... ........... Mrs. Biggert ............................................ X ...........

Mr. Hinojosa ............................................. ........... X Mr. Shays ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Clay ................................................... ........... X Mr. Miller (CA) ........................................ X ...........

Mrs. McCarthy .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Capito ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Baca .................................................. ........... ........... Mr. Feeney ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Lynch ................................................. ........... X Mr. Hensarling ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Miller (NC) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Garrett (NJ) ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Scott .................................................. ........... X Ms. Brown-Waite ..................................... X ...........

Mr. Green ................................................. ........... X Mr. Barrett (SC) ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Cleaver .............................................. ........... X Mr. Renzi ................................................. X ...........

Ms. Bean .................................................. ........... X Mr. Gerlach ............................................. ........... ...........

Ms. Moore (WI) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Pearce ............................................... ........... ...........

Mr. Davis (TN) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Neugebauer ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Sires .................................................. ........... X Mr. Price (GA) ......................................... ........... ...........

Mr. Hodes ................................................. ........... X Mr. Davis (KY) ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Ellison ................................................ ........... X Mr. McHenry ............................................ X ...........

Mr. Klein .................................................. ........... X Mr. Campbell .......................................... X ...........

Mr. Mahoney (FL) ..................................... ........... X Mr. Putnam ............................................. ........... ...........


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
22 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–9—Continued 

Representative Aye Nay Representative Aye Nay 

Mr. Wilson ................................................ ........... X Mrs. Blackburn ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Perlmutter .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Bachmann ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Murphy ............................................... ........... X Mr. Roskam ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Donnelly ............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Wexler ................................................ ........... X 

Mr. Marshall ............................................ ........... ...........

Mr. Boren ................................................. ........... X 

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling, No. 28, striking such sums 

authorization for repair and rehabilitation, was not agreed to by a 

record vote of 30 yeas and 35 nays (Record vote No. FC–10). 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–10 

Representative Aye Nay Representative Aye Nay 

Mr. Frank ................................................. ........... X Mr. Bachus ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Kanjorski ............................................ ........... X Mr. Baker ................................................ X ...........

Ms. Waters ............................................... ........... X Ms. Pryce (OH) ........................................ X ...........

Mrs. Maloney ............................................ ........... X Mr. Castle ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Gutierrez ............................................ ........... X Mr. King (NY) .......................................... X ...........

Ms. Vela ́zquez .......................................... ........... X Mr. Royce ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Watt ................................................... ........... X Mr. Lucas ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Ackerman ........................................... ........... X Mr. Paul .................................................. X ...........

Ms. Carson ............................................... ........... X Mr. Gillmor .............................................. X ...........

Mr. Sherman ............................................ ........... X Mr. LaTourette ......................................... X ...........

Mr. Meeks ................................................ ........... ........... Mr. Manzullo ........................................... X ...........

Mr. Moore (KS) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Jones ................................................. X ...........

Mr. Capuano ............................................ ........... ........... Mrs. Biggert ............................................ X ...........

Mr. Hinojosa ............................................. ........... X Mr. Shays ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Clay ................................................... ........... X Mr. Miller (CA) ........................................ X ...........

Mrs. McCarthy .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Capito ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Baca .................................................. ........... X Mr. Feeney ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Lynch ................................................. ........... X Mr. Hensarling ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Miller (NC) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Garrett (NJ) ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Scott .................................................. ........... X Ms. Brown-Waite ..................................... X ...........

Mr. Green ................................................. ........... X Mr. Barrett (SC) ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Cleaver .............................................. ........... X Mr. Renzi ................................................. X ...........

Ms. Bean .................................................. ........... X Mr. Gerlach ............................................. ........... ...........

Ms. Moore (WI) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Pearce ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Davis (TN) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Neugebauer ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Sires .................................................. ........... X Mr. Price (GA) ......................................... ........... ...........

Mr. Hodes ................................................. ........... X Mr. Davis (KY) ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Ellison ................................................ ........... X Mr. McHenry ............................................ X ...........

Mr. Klein .................................................. ........... X Mr. Campbell .......................................... X ...........

Mr. Mahoney (FL) ..................................... ........... X Mr. Putnam ............................................. ........... ...........

Mr. Wilson ................................................ ........... X Mrs. Blackburn ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Perlmutter .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Bachmann ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Murphy ............................................... ........... X Mr. Roskam ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Donnelly ............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Wexler ................................................ ........... X 

Mr. Marshall ............................................ ........... X 

Mr. Boren ................................................. ........... X 

An amendment by Mr. Hensarling, No. 29, inserting work requirements for recipients of vouchers, was not agreed to by a 

record vote of 18 yeas and 47 nays (Record vote No. FC–11). 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–11 

Representative Aye Nay Representative Aye Nay 

Mr. Frank ................................................. ........... X Mr. Bachus ............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Kanjorski ............................................ ........... X Mr. Baker ................................................ X ...........


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
23 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–11—Continued 

Representative Aye Nay Representative Aye Nay 

Ms. Waters ............................................... ........... X Ms. Pryce (OH) ........................................ ........... X 

Mrs. Maloney ............................................ ........... X Mr. Castle ............................................... ........... X 

Mr. Gutierrez ............................................ ........... X Mr. King (NY) .......................................... ........... X 

Ms. Vela ́zquez .......................................... ........... X Mr. Royce ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Watt ................................................... ........... X Mr. Lucas ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Ackerman ........................................... ........... X Mr. Paul .................................................. ........... X 

Ms. Carson ............................................... ........... X Mr. Gillmor .............................................. ........... ...........

Mr. Sherman ............................................ ........... X Mr. LaTourette ......................................... ........... X 

Mr. Meeks ................................................ ........... X Mr. Manzullo ........................................... X ...........

Mr. Moore (KS) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Jones ................................................. X ...........

Mr. Capuano ............................................ ........... ........... Mrs. Biggert ............................................ ........... X 

Mr. Hinojosa ............................................. ........... X Mr. Shays ................................................ ........... X 

Mr. Clay ................................................... ........... X Mr. Miller (CA) ........................................ X ...........

Mrs. McCarthy .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Capito ............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Baca .................................................. ........... X Mr. Feeney ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Lynch ................................................. ........... X Mr. Hensarling ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Miller (NC) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Garrett (NJ) ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Scott .................................................. ........... X Ms. Brown-Waite ..................................... ........... X 

Mr. Green ................................................. ........... X Mr. Barrett (SC) ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Cleaver .............................................. ........... X Mr. Renzi ................................................. X ...........

Ms. Bean .................................................. ........... X Mr. Gerlach ............................................. ........... ...........

Ms. Moore (WI) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Pearce ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Davis (TN) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Neugebauer ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Sires .................................................. ........... X Mr. Price (GA) ......................................... ........... ...........

Mr. Hodes ................................................. ........... X Mr. Davis (KY) ........................................ ........... X 

Mr. Ellison ................................................ ........... X Mr. McHenry ............................................ X ...........

Mr. Klein .................................................. ........... X Mr. Campbell .......................................... X ...........

Mr. Mahoney (FL) ..................................... ........... X Mr. Putnam ............................................. ........... ...........

Mr. Wilson ................................................ ........... X Mrs. Blackburn ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Perlmutter .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Bachmann ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Murphy ............................................... ........... X Mr. Roskam ............................................. X ...........

Mr. Donnelly ............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Wexler ................................................ ........... X 

Mr. Marshall ............................................ ........... X 

Mr. Boren ................................................. ........... X 

An amendment by Mr. Price (GA), No. 30, striking section 102 

(relating to elimination of prohibition of use for match requirement) 

was not agreed to by a record vote of 16 yeas and 50 nays (Record 

vote No. FC–12). 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–12 

Representative Aye Nay Representative Aye Nay 

Mr. Frank ................................................. ........... X Mr. Bachus ............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Kanjorski ............................................ ........... X Mr. Baker ................................................ ........... X 

Ms. Waters ............................................... ........... X Ms. Pryce (OH) ........................................ ........... X 

Mrs. Maloney ............................................ ........... X Mr. Castle ............................................... ........... X 

Mr. Gutierrez ............................................ ........... X Mr. King (NY) .......................................... ........... X 

Ms. Vela ́zquez .......................................... ........... X Mr. Royce ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Watt ................................................... ........... X Mr. Lucas ................................................ X ...........

Mr. Ackerman ........................................... ........... X Mr. Paul .................................................. X ...........

Ms. Carson ............................................... ........... X Mr. Gillmor .............................................. ........... ...........

Mr. Sherman ............................................ ........... X Mr. LaTourette ......................................... ........... X 

Mr. Meeks ................................................ ........... X Mr. Manzullo ........................................... X ...........

Mr. Moore (KS) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Jones ................................................. ........... X 

Mr. Capuano ............................................ ........... ........... Mrs. Biggert ............................................ ........... X 

Mr. Hinojosa ............................................. ........... X Mr. Shays ................................................ ........... X 

Mr. Clay ................................................... ........... X Mr. Miller (CA) ........................................ X ...........

Mrs. McCarthy .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Capito ............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Baca .................................................. ........... X Mr. Feeney ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Lynch ................................................. ........... X Mr. Hensarling ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Miller (NC) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Garrett (NJ) ....................................... X ...........


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
24 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–12—Continued 

Representative Aye Nay Representative Aye Nay 

Mr. Scott .................................................. ........... X Ms. Brown-Waite ..................................... X ...........

Mr. Green ................................................. ........... X Mr. Barrett (SC) ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Cleaver .............................................. ........... X Mr. Renzi ................................................. ........... X 

Ms. Bean .................................................. ........... X Mr. Gerlach ............................................. ........... X 

Ms. Moore (WI) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Pearce ............................................... X ...........

Mr. Davis (TN) ......................................... ........... X Mr. Neugebauer ...................................... ........... X 

Mr. Sires .................................................. ........... X Mr. Price (GA) ......................................... ........... ...........

Mr. Hodes ................................................. ........... X Mr. Davis (KY) ........................................ X ...........

Mr. Ellison ................................................ ........... X Mr. McHenry ............................................ X ...........

Mr. Klein .................................................. ........... X Mr. Campbell .......................................... X ...........

Mr. Mahoney (FL) ..................................... ........... X Mr. Putnam ............................................. ........... ...........

Mr. Wilson ................................................ ........... X Mrs. Blackburn ....................................... X ...........

Mr. Perlmutter .......................................... ........... X Mrs. Bachmann ...................................... X ...........

Mr. Murphy ............................................... ........... X Mr. Roskam ............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Donnelly ............................................. ........... X 

Mr. Wexler ................................................ ........... X 

Mr. Marshall ............................................ ........... X 

Mr. Boren ................................................. ........... X 

The following other amendments were also considered by the 

Committee: 

An amendment by Mr. Frank, No. 1, manager’s technical amendments, was agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Baker, No. 2, regarding treatment of benefits from other programs under Road Home program, was agreed 

to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Baker, No. 3, providing for the New Orleans redevelopment Pilot Program, was agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Scott (GA), No. 4, regarding treatment of 

non-conveyable properties, was agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Al Green (TX), No. 6, authorizing the Fair 

Housing Initiative Program, was agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Ms. Brown-Waite, No. 7, relating to Hurricane 

Dennis, was agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Cleaver, No. 9, providing protection for 

public housing residents in hurricane areas, was agreed to by voice 

vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Gary Miller (CA), No. 10, regarding research design, was agreed to, as modified, by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Marshall, No. 11, requiring a GAO study 

to improve distribution of Federal disaster funds, was agreed to by 

voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Gary Miller (CA), No. 12, regarding environmental streamlining, was agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Al Green (TX), No. 13, regarding project 

based rental assistance, was offered and withdrawn. 

An amendment by Mrs. Biggert, No. 14, tenant based rental assistance, was not agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Al Green (TX), No. 15, authorizing vouchers for project based rental assistance, was agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mrs. Biggert, No. 17, establishing replacement 

plan requirements, was offered and withdrawn. 

An amendment by Mr. Pearce, No. 18, regarding fraud in contracting, had a point of order sustained against its consideration. 

An amendment by Mr. Frank, No. 19, regarding ‘‘disappearing 

vouchers’’, was agreed to by voice vote. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
25 

An amendment by Mr. Garrett, No. 20, commending private contributions for rebuilding efforts, was agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Frank, No. 21, technical amendment regarding the State of Louisiana, was agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Garrett, No. 22, requiring ongoing GAO 

reports on use of amounts, was agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Bachus (on behalf of Mr. Feeney), No. 23, 

availability of amounts for such vouchers as provided in appropriations acts, was agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Garrett, No. 24, regarding HUD public 

housing units, was not agreed to by voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Garrett, No. 25, prevention of waste, 

fraud and abuse, was agreed to as amended by the Frank amendment No. 25(a), striking portions of the Garrett amendment, by 

voice vote. 

An amendment by Mr. Garrett, No. 26, requirements regarding 

public housing construction workers, was agreed to by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has held hearings and made 

findings that are reflected in this report. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee establishes the following performance related goals and objectives for this legislation: 

H.R. 1227 includes a number of provisions designed to speed up 

the repair and rebuilding of homes and affordable rental housing 

in areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, to ensure continued rental assistance for both families that have moved 

back to their home areas and for families displaced by such hurricanes, and to provide reimbursements to communities and landlords that were generous in providing assistance to hurricane evacuees in the aftermath of the storms. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
26 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, March 15, 2007. 

Honorable BARNEY FRANK, 

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Chad Chirico, who can 

be reached at 226–2820. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD B. MARRON

(For Peter R. Orszag, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1227—Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007 

Summary: H.R. 1227 would authorize various forms of housing 

assistance for the areas of the Gulf Coast affected by hurricanes in 

2005. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct 

spending by $224 million in 2007, by $469 million over the 2007–

2012 period, and by $269 million over the 2007–2017 period. H.R. 

1227 would increase direct spending in 2007 by requiring the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to pay some additional mortgage insurance claims associated with certain properties either 

damaged or destroyed by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita. Through a 

reappropriation of funds, the bill would increase spending for the 

Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Disaster Voucher Program (DVP) by a total of $45 million in 2008 and 2009. Finally, the 

bill would accelerate expenditures for some funds that have been 

previously appropriated, increasing direct spending by $200 million 

over the 2008–2012 period; however, this acceleration would have 

no net effect on direct spending over the 2008–2017 period. 

H.R. 1227 also would authorize funding for the repair, rehabilitation and development of public housing operated by the Housing 

Authority of New Orleans (HANO) and authorize new tenant replacement and project-based housing vouchers. CBO estimates that 

the bill would authorize the appropriation of about $1.3 billion over 

the 2008–2012 period. Assuming the appropriation of the estimated 

amounts, implementing H.R. 1227 would result in additional outlays of nearly $1.3 billion over the same period. 

H.R. 1227 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates, however, that the mandate would not impose additional costs, and 

therefore the annual threshold established in UMRA ($66 million 

in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation) would not be exceeded. 

The bill contains no new private-sector mandates as defined by 

UMRA. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
27 

ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF H.R. 1227 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Eliminate Prohibition on Duplicate Benefits:a

Estimated Budget Authority .................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 450 550 450 ¥750 ¥500 

New Orleans Recovery Authority Pilot Program: 

Estimated Budget Authority .................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 9 6 6 3 ¥15 0 

Extension of Disaster Voucher Program: 

Estimated Budget Authority .................................... 0 80 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 41 4 0 0 0 

Treatment of Non-Conveyable Properties: 

Estimated Budget Authority .................................... 224 0 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 224 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Changes: a

Estimated Budget Authority .................. 224 80 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................. 224 497 560 453 ¥765 ¥500 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Repair and Rehabilitation: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 0 664 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 113 199 199 133 20 

Tenant Replacement Vouchers for All Lost Units: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 0 42 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 25 17 0 0 0 

Voucher Assistance for Supportive Housing: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 0 37 38 39 40 41 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 11 37 38 39 40 

Transfer of DVP Vouchers to Voucher Program: 

Estimated Budget Authorization Level .................... 0 97 92 86 82 77 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 58 94 89 84 79 

Fair Housing Initiatives Program: 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 0 5 5 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 2 4 3 1 0 

Total Changes: a

Estimated Authorization Level ............... 0 845 134 125 121 118 

Estimated Outlays ................................. 0 209 351 329 256 139 

a In addition to the effects shown through 2012, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1227 would reduce direct spending by $200 million in 2013. There is no estimated impact on direct spending after 2013. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1227 is shown in the above table. The costs 

of this legislation would fall within budget functions 370 (commerce 

and housing credit), 450 (community and regional development), 

and 600 (income security). 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 

1227 will be enacted by the end of fiscal year 2007, and that the 

amounts necessary to implement the bill will be appropriated for 

each year. Components of the estimated costs are described below. 

Direct Spending 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1227 would increase direct 

spending by $224 million in 2007, $469 million through 2012, and 

$269 million through 2017. 

Elimination of Prohibition on Duplication of Benefits: In 2005 

and 2006, the Congress provided about $16.7 billion to HUD’s Community Development Fund to aid the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, and Florida following the 2005 Gulf 

Coast hurricanes (see Public laws 109–148 and 109–234). From 

these amounts, HUD allocated about $10.4 billion to Louisiana for 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
28 

various projects including the rebuilding of public infrastructure, 

business recovery loans, and homeowner and rental assistance. For 

such project, HUD and the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) developed procedures to prevent the duplication of benefits to individuals from other sources, such as claims payments from private hazard insurers or the National Flood Insurance Program, as required 

by current law. H.R. 1227 would allow the state of Louisiana to 

forgo requirement with respect to benefits obtained from hazard insurance, flood insurance, and Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) disaster payments. 

For this estimate, CBO assumes that LRA would eliminate this 

requirement and would no longer benefits provided through its 

homeowner grant program by amounts received from other sources. 

Based on information from HUD and the state, CBO estimates that 

the average benefit provided through this program would thereby 

increase by about $20,000 and that this increase would apply retroactively to grants already made. As of March 2007, LRA has received over 115,000 applications for its homeowner grant program. 

Benefits have been calculated for over 48,000 of these applicants, 

of which almost 3,000 have already been paid. CBO expects that 

increasing the average benefit for homeowner grants would cause 

expenditures to occur faster than anticipated under current law. 

Because this legislation would not appropriate any new funds for 

this activity, such an acceleration of expenditures would result in 

an equivalent decline in spending in later years. As such, CBO estimates that this provision would cost $450 million in 2008, but 

would have no net effect over the 2008–2017 period. (We expect the 

acceleration of spending would increase outlays in 2008, 2009, and 

2010; but that it would lower outlays—relative to current law—in 

2011, 2012, and 2013.) 

Both HUD and the state of Louisiana indicate that implementing 

this provision of H.R. 1227 could lead to a need for additional appropriations to provide benefits to all eligible homeowners. This 

cost estimate does not include an estimate of any such additional 

costs, however, because CBO has no basis for assessing the total 

needs for such funds relative to the amounts the Congress has already provided. Furthermore, H.R. 1227 does not authorize the appropriation of additional funds to HUD. However, it does authorize 

Louisiana’s Road Home program to use $1.175 billion provided for 

FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation program. 

New Orleans Redevelopment Authority Pilot Program. H.R. 1227 

would allocate $15 million from funds provided to HUD for the 

state of Louisiana to establish the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority Pilot Program. Such funds would be used to purchase individual parcels of land that, in turn, would be sold to private entities for development. CBO expects that expenditures for such a 

program would be slightly faster than would occur under current 

law. Because this legislation would not appropriate any new funds, 

such an acceleration of expenditures would result in an equivalent 

decline in expected outlays in later years. Thus, CBO estimates 

that this provision would cost $6 million in 2008, but would have 

no net effect over the 2008–2017 period. 

Extension of Disaster Voucher Program. Section 301 would increase direct spending by a total of $45 million over the 2008–2009 

period by extending for three months the authority to obligate 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
29 

funds previously appropriated for the Disaster Voucher Program. 

Such an action would constitute a reappropriation of the affected 

funds. Based on information provided by HUD, CBO estimates that 

about $80 million in budget authority will remain unobligated 

when the current period of obligation expires on September 20, 

2007. CBO expects that the obligation rate for the three additional 

months ending January 1, 2008, will be similar to the projected fiscal year 2007 monthly average of $15 million. Because each 

month’s new obligations would be spent over a l2-month period, the provision would increase outlays by an estimated $41 million in 

2008 and $4 million in 2009. 

Treatment of Non-Conveyable Properties. Enacting section 501 would increase direct spending by $224 million in 2007 by requiring FHA to pay the full claims for and accept conveyance of properties that were either damaged or destroyed by Hurricanes 

Katrina or Rita, as long as there was no failure on the part of the 

lender to provide hazard insurance or flood insurance, to the extent 

such insurance is required under federal law. 

Under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance program, FHA provides 

mortgage insurance to protect lenders against the risk of default on 

mortgages made for single-family housing. If a borrower defaults 

on the mortgage, the lender then files a claim with FHA, who then 

compensates the lender based on the outstanding unpaid balance 

of the mortgage. Upon payment of the claim, FHA takes possession 

of the property and then eventually sells the property to recover 

some of the costs of such claims. Currently, FHA will only pay the 

claim and accept conveyance of the property if the property is in 

marketable condition to be sold. Where exceptions are made by 

FHA, repair costs are deducted from the mortgage insurance payment. 

According to FHA, about 2,630 properties (with an average un- paid balance of $73,000 per property) would be eligible for full 

claims payments under the bill. Currently, the mortgage payments 

for these properties are over five months delinquent, and no apparent corrective measures are being taken by the respective lenders. 

Thus, these properties are presumed to be in unmarketable condition. Furthermore, in the absence of this legislation, CBO expects 

those lenders would write off the outstanding debt associated with 

these properties in lieu of filing a claim with FHA, given that the 

cost of repairs to bring the properties back to marketable condition 

would most likely exceed the FHA claims payments. 

Based on information from FHA, CBO estimates that the subsidy 

rate for the underlying loans on those 2,630 properties includes an 

estimated 10 percent default rate with a claims cost, net of recoveries, of about 14 percent of the unpaid balance on the mortgage. 

However, under this legislation, CBO estimates that nearly all 

2,630 properties would default and FHA would be required to cover 

100 percent of the loans’ unpaid balances. Because these 2,630 

properties would not be in marketable condition upon conveyance 

to FHA, most would eventually be sold for $1 to local governments, 

resulting in no significant net recoveries for FHA. CBO estimates 

that total net claims would cost $190 million. 

In addition to the estimated $190 million in net claims cost, CBO 

estimates that FHA would pay some holding costs, including accrued interest on the properties and other transactional costs. AcVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:55 Mar 17, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR051P1.XXX HR051P1

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
30 

cording to FHA, such costs would increase the net claims payment 

by about 18 percent. Thus, CBO estimates that enacting this provision would cost a total of $224 million. 

Because enacting this provision would change the expected cash 

flows associated with the FHA single-family loan guarantee program, paying additional claims and holding costs is considered to 

be a modification of existing federal loan guarantees. Under credit 

reform procedures, the costs of a loan modification are estimated 

on a net-present-value basis and recorded in the year in which the 

legislation is enacted. Assuming that the bill is enacted late in fiscal year 2007, CBO estimates direct spending of $224 million this 

year. (Such estimated costs would be recorded in 2008 if the bill 

is enacted after September 30, 2007.) 

Spending Subject to Appropriation 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1227 would incur new discretionary costs of about $1.3 billion over the 2008–2012 period. 

Authorization of Appropriations for Repair and Rehabilitation. 

Section 206 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as may 

be necessary for the repair, rehabilitation, and development of 

HANO’s public housing units and for community and supportive 

services for the residents of those units. According to HUD, approximately 2,000 of HANO’s 7,000 units of public housing have 

been repaired and are habitable. Using HUD’s estimated development costs for the city of New Orleans, CBO estimates that repairing and rehabilitating the remaining 5,000 units of public housing 

would cost, on average, about $135,000 per unit (for a total of $676 

million). According to HUD, HANO currently has $62 million available to spend on these costs. Community and supportive services 

provided through HUD’s HOPE VI program cost about $7,200 per 

unit. Assuming a similar cost per unit, CBO estimates that about 

$51 million would be required to provide such services. Together, 

the provisions of section 206 would increase authorization levels by 

$664 million in 2008, and, assuming appropriation of that amount, 

would result in additional outlays of $664 million over the 2008–

2012 period. 

Tenant Replacement Vouchers for All Lost Units. Section 304 

would authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2008 to provide tenant replacement vouchers 

under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. Specifically, the provision would authorize tenant-based vouchers for all 

subsidized units that will not be put back into use for occupancy, 

less the number of previously awarded replacement vouchers for 

these units. Based on information provided by HUD, CBO estimates that approximately 5,000 vouchers would be authorized by 

this provision, at an average cost of about $8,800. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that providing 

such vouchers would cost $25 million in 2008 and $42 million over 

the 2008–2012 period. 

Voucher Assistance for Supportive Housing. Section 305 would 

authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for 

4,500 project-based housing vouchers to be used to house elderly 

families, persons with disabilities, or homeless persons. The state 

of Louisiana or its designee would receive 3,000 such vouchers. 

Based on cost data provided by HUD, CBO estimates that such 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
31 

vouchers would cost about $8,000 each in 2008. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $11 million in 2008 and $165 

million over the 2008–2012 period. 

Transfer of Disaster Voucher Program Vouchers to Voucher Program. Section 306 would authorize the appropriation of such sums 

as necessary to provide tenant-based vouchers to households that 

are assisted through the Disaster Voucher Program at the program’s expiration date. The authorization for such assistance would 

continue so long as the households are eligible for voucher assistance. Based on data provided by HUD, CBO estimates that approximately 12,300 families are currently assisted by the DVP at 

an average cost of $11,900 per year. Assuming that appropriations 

are increased accordingly, an annual voucher turnover rate of 8 

percent, and that voucher recipients will begin paying about $3,700 

per year in tenant contributions at the expiration of the DVP. CBO 

estimates that implementing this provision would cost $58 million 

in 2008 and $403 million over the 2008–2010 period. 

Fair Housing Initiatives Program. Section 601 would authorize the appropriation of $5 million for each of fiscal years 2008 and 

2009 for HUD to make grants to states, localities, and nonprofit organizations for programs to prevent discriminatory housing practices in areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Assuming 

appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $10 million over the 2008– 2012 period. 

Other Provisions 

In addition, H.R. 1227 also would: authorize the use of $1.175 

billion provided to Louisiana from FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation 

Grant Program for activities approved by HUD under the terms of 

Louisiana’s Road Home program; authorize the use of about $5.2 

billion appropriated to the Community Development Fund (see 

Public Law 109–234) as a matching requirement for other federal 

programs; authorize the use of previously appropriated funds to reimburse communities that used Community Development Block 

Grant funding to provide rental housing assistance for hurricane 

evacuees; and Authorize the use of previously appropriated funds 

to reimburse landlords for losses resulting from participation in 

FEMA’s city lease program. 

The Road Home program is the proposed plan for the $10.4 billion that was allocated to Louisiana through HUD’s Community 

Development Fund for the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. CBO anticipates similar expenditure patterns for both FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Road Home, and thus does not expect that 

reallocating funds between the programs would result in a significant acceleration of spending. As such, CBO estimates that enactment of this provision will have no significant net impact on the 

budget. 

CBO expects that authorizing the use of Community Development Fund appropriations as a matching requirement for other federal programs would have no significant effect on overall program 

expenditures. Such use is typical of regular appropriations to this 

account and is also permissible for funds appropriated to the fund 

in Public Law 109–148 for the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes. Based 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
32 

on information from the agencies and from state and local governments, CBO expects that such new authorizations for previously 

appropriated funds would not have a significant effect on the pace 

of program expenditures. As such, CBO estimates that implementation of these provisions would have no net impact on the federal 

budget. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal Governments: H.R. 

1227 would preempt state and local laws by prohibiting the Housing Authority of New Orleans, and any other manager of public 

housing units defined as replacement units, from excluding any 

households that request to be placed in replacement units. That 

preemption would be considered an intergovernmental mandate as 

defined in UMRA; CBO estimates, however, that the mandate 

would not impose additional costs on state or local governments 

and therefore the threshold established in the act would not be exceeded. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill contains no new 

private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Chad Chirico, Daniel 

Hoople, Susanne S. Mehlman, and Mark Grabowicz; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum; Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Shevlin. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the Constitutional 

Authority of Congress to enact this legislation is provided by 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). 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 1227 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
33 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act 

SHORT TITLE. GULF COAST HURRICANE HOUSING RECOVERY ACT OF

2007

TITLE I. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS 

Section 101. Flexibility of Federal Funds for Road Home Program. (a) Provides that $1.175 billion in FEMA Hazard Mitigation 

Grant Program (HMGP) funds previously made available to the 

State of Louisiana shall be made available under terms of the 

CDBG funds made available to the State and shall be deemed approved by HUD for such use. Currently Louisiana’s Road Home 

program proposes to combine CDBG and HMGP funds for grants 

to homeowners to rehabilitate their homes and for purchase of 

homes for open space. HUD approved use of CDBG funds for this, 

but FEMA will not approve funds, based on the feature of the Road 

Home Program that provides incentives for homeowners to stay in 

the state, and based on the feature that such incentives shall not 

apply to elderly persons. This provision would free up HMGP funds 

for State use. 

(b) Also requires State to submit monthly reports on use of 

CDBG funds for its ‘‘Road Home’’ program. The monthly reports 

would include number of applications, number of households assisted, and total and average per household amounts of assistance 

provided. 

(c) Transfers $15 million of CDBG amounts previously made 

available to the State of Louisiana to the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority, for a pilot program to leverage private capital to 

assemble, redevelop, and re-sell parcels of land in New Orleans. 

(d) Requires GAO to complete quarterly reports on the use of the 

$1.175 billion in transferred Road Home funds, to identify any 

waste, fraud, or abuse involved in such funds, and certify anytime 

such waste, fraud and abuse exceeds 10 percent of funds expended. 

Section 102. Treatment of Benefits from Other Programs Under 

Road Home Program. Eliminates prohibition in previous CDBG 

supplemental spending bills which prevent ‘‘duplication of benefits,’’ except that such elimination shall not result in a ‘‘windfall 

gain’’ to any person. This change leaves states free to continue to 

design housing grant programs based on the level of their overall 

resources, including implementing grant limits and adjustments. 

Section 103. Elimination of Prohibition of Use for Match Requirement. (a) Permits all CDBG supplemental funds made available for 

Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Wilma to be used as a match for other 

federal programs (including FEMA). 

(b) Permits localities that use CDBG funds for such purpose to 

rely on FEMA environmental reviews in lieu of completing a separate environmental review for HUD purposes. 

Section 104. Reimbursement of CDBG Amounts Used for Rental 

Housing Assistance. Authorizes appropriations, from previously appropriated FEMA supplemental Hurricane funds, for reimbursement of regular CDBG funds that cities or counties used to provide 

rental assistance for Katrina, Rita, or Wilma evacuees. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
34 

TITLE II. PUBLIC HOUSING 

Section 201. Survey of Public Housing Residents. Requires HUD 

to provide for the conducting of a survey by an independent entity 

or organization of public housing residents residing in the Housing 

Authority of New Orleans (HANO) public housing units at the time 

Hurricane Katrina hit land, to determine whether they want to return to HANO public housing, and if so, when. The survey is to be 

done with the participation of HANO residents and resident councils, with a report detailing survey results to be submitted to Congress within 60 days of the bill’s enactment. 

Section 202. Right of Return for Previous Residents of Public 

Housing. Requires HANO to make available by August 1st the 

greater of 3,000 public housing units (or comparable units with 

comparable rent burden) or a sufficient number of units to accommodate residents that responded that they want to return. PreKatrina HANO public housing residents shall have a right to return to a HANO public housing unit (or comparable unit). To exercise this right, residents must give notice by August 1st and agree 

to return no later than October 1st. HANO shall also provide relocation assistance for residents, and provide a preference for 

projects where the resident previously lived, or if not possible, a 

preference for units in the same or adjoining census tract, or neighborhood. 

Section 203. One-for-One Replacement of all Public Housing 

Units. Prohibits HANO from demolishing or disposing of any public 

housing unit unless a plan is in place to provide a public housing 

or comparable replacement unit with comparable affordability provisions to public housing units for each lost unit, and to implement 

right of return provisions. Plans shall involve the active participation of residents, resident councils, and City of New Orleans at 

every phase of the process, with opportunity for comment. 

Section 204. Protection for Public Housing Residents in Hurricane Areas. Prohibits any public housing authority (PHA) in areas 

affected by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita from transferring any public housing units for a period of two years unless the buyer agrees 

to maintain existing affordability provisions for ‘‘the longest feasible period.’’ Prohibits any such PHA from demolishing any units 

except pursuant to a plan to replace such units with public housing 

or comparable units, and prohibits demolition of habitable units 

unless the PHA provides a suitable, comparable unit to all displaced tenants. Provides a right of return for dislocated residents 

from such public housing agencies, and requires relocation assistance for returning residents. 

Section 205. Reports on Proposed Conversions of Public Housing 

Units. Requires HUD to send a report to Congress within 15 days 

of bill enactment identifying all public housing units located in 

areas impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which have plans 

to transfer ownership to other entities or organizations. Relevant 

information is to be included for each proposal, including project 

name, number of units, new owner, income and rent provisions, affordability restrictions, and proposed date of transfer. 

Section 206. Authorization of Appropriations for Repair and Rehabilitation. Authorizes such sums as are necessary to carry out repair, rehabilitation, and development of HANO public housing 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
35 

units, and for community and supportive services for HANO residents. 

Section 207. Compliance of Existing Requests for Proposals. Subjects any existing request for qualification or proposal related to 

HANO public housing units to the provisions of this Title. 

Section 208. Reports on Compliance. Requires HUD to submit to 

Congress within 30 days and thereafter quarterly a report on compliance with the provisions of this Title. 

Section 209. Requirements Regarding Public Housing Construction Workers. Requires any recovery funds used under this Title for 

construction, development, rehabilitation, or repair of public housing units verify that all workers have an immigration status that 

allows them to legally be employed, and have a valid ID or documentation indicating such immigration status. 

TITLE III. DISASTER VOUCHER PROGRAM AND PROJECTBASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE 

Section 301. Extension of DVP Program. Extends HUD Disaster 

Voucher Program (DVP) from September, 2007 through January 1, 

2008. The DVP program, using funds previously appropriated from 

Hurricane supplemental bills, provides rental assistance to families 

living in areas impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita who were 

voucher holders, public housing residents, families assisted under 

the Section 8 project-based program, and/or homeless persons at 

the time of the hurricane. This extension will give time to work 

through DVP transition issues through the FY 2008 appropriations 

bill process. 

Section 302. Clarification of Voucher Allocation Formula for Fiscal Year 2007. Provides further clarification that the Secretary 

shall make appropriate adjustments under the FY 2007 Continuing 

Resolution to provide adequate voucher funding for public housing 

agencies impacted by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The 

CR changed the voucher funding formula to base FY 2007 PHA 

funding on prior year’s voucher leasing and cost data. It included 

language that provides HUD with authority to make adjustments 

for Gulf state PHAs that had lower voucher expenditures last year, 

to ensure full voucher funding for those agencies. However, after 

enactment of the CR, HUD started raising concerns about whether 

it would use such authority. This provision would clarify that HUD 

should make such appropriate adjustments. 

Section 303. Preservation of Project-Based Housing Assistance 

Payments Contracts for Dwelling Units Damaged or Destroyed. Requires HUD to promptly review and approve all feasible proposals 

to restore Section 8 project-based assistance to projects damaged by 

Hurricanes Katrina or Rita, including proposals to transfer the contract to another site or owner. Proposals are to be submitted no 

later than October 1st. 

Section 304. Tenant Replacement Vouchers for All Lost Units. 

Requires HUD to provide, upon request of a public housing agency, 

tenant replacement vouchers for all public housing units and assisted housing units that are not brought back on line. 

Section 305. Voucher Assistance for Supportive Housing. Authorizes such sums as may be necessary for 4,500 new housing vouchers for project-based rental assistance for supportive housing units 

for seniors, disabled persons, and homeless persons. 3,000 of such 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
36 

vouchers shall be made available to the State of Louisiana or its 

designee or designees, up their request. Also waives for such vouchers the statutory limits on the percentage of project-based vouchers 

a PHA may use overall and in a particular project. 

Section 306. Transfer of DVP Vouchers to Permanent Voucher 

Program. Provides that upon the termination of the Disaster 

Voucher Program (DVP), vouchers be made available for families in 

the DVP program, to be administered by the local housing agency 

in which each family is living at such time. Such vouchers are temporary, i.e., will disappear when the existing family is no longer eligible for voucher assistance. 

Section 307. Identification and Notification of DVP-Eligible 

Households Not Assisted. Requires HUD to make a good faith effort to identify all households eligible for DVP assistance not currently receiving assistance and notify them or their rights for DVP 

assistance or their right, if available, to return to their previous assisted unit. 

TITLE IV. DAMAGES ARISING FROM FEMA ACTIONS 

Section 401. Authorization of Appropriations To Reimburse 

Landlords for Damages Due to FEMA Management of City Lease 

Program. Authorizes appropriations for HUD to reimburse landlords from actual, documented damages incurred by such landlord 

as a result of FEMA’s abrogation of commitments to reimburse 

communities for leases entered into under the Section 403 program. 

TITLE V. FHA SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING 

Section 501. Treatment of Non-Conveyable Properties. Prohibits 

HUD from denying conveyance of title and full payment of insurance benefits under FHA insured 1- to 4-unit properties on the 

basis of the condition of the property or on a failure to repair the 

property, as long as the mortgagee or servicer did not fail to provide hazard or flood insurance as required. This requirement addresses problems in HUD payment claims for properties for which 

title may not be conveyable. 

TITLE VI. FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT 

Section 601. Fair Housing Initiatives Program. Authorizes such 

sums as may be necessary, and no less than $5 million a year in 

FY 2008 and 2009 for fair housing activities in areas affected by 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

TITLE VII. IMPROVED DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL 

HURRICANE HOUSING FUNDS FOR HURRICANE RELIEF 

Section 701. GAO Study of Improved Distribution of Federal 

Housing Funds for Hurricane Relief. Requires a GAO study and report, within 6 months of bill enactment, to examine methods of improving the distribution of Federal housing funds to assist states 

covered by this Act with recovery from hurricanes. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
37 

TITLE VIII. COMMENDING AMERICANS FOR THEIR 

REBUILDING EFFORTS 

Section 801. Commending Americans. Congressional Finding 

commending the actions and efforts by individuals and organizations that contributed to the hurricane recovery effort, and recognizing that the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region rests on private 

individuals and community spirit. Identifies a number of such efforts and organizations. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
(38) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

By all accounts, the 2005 Hurricane season included arguably 

the most destructive and costly natural disasters in United States 

history. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused $67 billion in damage 

to housing in the Gulf region, including major or severe damage to 

265,000 homes and apartments in Louisiana and Mississippi. Families with very low incomes occupied 44 percent of the damaged 

housing, and many of these families are still waiting to rebuild or 

return to permanent housing. 

The devastation caused by these catastrophic events has presented the nation and those directly affected with unique challenges. Hurricane Katrina devastated 90,000 square miles, left 

770,000 people homeless, and caused a death toll of 1,464 in Louisiana alone. The recovery process has seemed slow and uneven to 

many of those affected. Rebuilding has been hindered by the severity of the damage, the need to limit future flood damage, and the 

need to coordinate the recovery among many levels of government 

and the private sector. Lawmakers, former residents, and others 

are looking forward to a long-term solution for sustainable rebuilding. 

In response to the disasters, the Federal Government has committed more than $110 billion to help the Gulf Coast, including 

$16.7 billion for the CDBG program. When it passed the supplemental appropriations including the CDBG funds, Congress included provisions dictating that the Federal Government would 

prescribe how local communities were to use the money in their recovery efforts. Furthermore, the states were asked to submit to the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) detailed 

state plans outlining how they intended to use the funds. To date, 

HUD has received and approved $10.5 billion worth of recovery 

plans from the affected States. 

Rebuilding New Orleans Public Housing 

Many discussions in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina have 

centered on the appropriate plan for rebuilding, the reconstruction 

of affordable housing, and the issue of one-for-one replacement of 

public housing. There is general consensus that those who wish to 

return to New Orleans who lived there when Katrina hit should be 

allowed to do so. In fact, in August of 2006, Secretary Jackson said 

when he visited New Orleans, ‘‘every family who wants to come 

home should have the opportunity to come back....’’ With that 

goal in mind, last summer, HUD, the Housing Authority of New 

Orleans (HANO), the Enterprise Foundation, and Catholic Charities announced plans to create a mixed-use development on the 

site of the Lafitte public housing project. Not only could this project 

serve as a model for the future of rebuilding in New Orleans, if 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
39 

successful, it could also prove to be a useful example for new Hope 

VI mixed-use projects in other cities. 

In testimony before the Committee on February 6, 2007, Assistant Secretary Bernardi stated the following: 

HUD is working with the local community to redevelop New 

Orleans public housing so families will have the opportunity to 

return to better, safer neighborhoods. The C.J. Peete, B.W. 

Cooper, Lafitte, and St. Bernard public housing developments 

are being redeveloped to make way for a mixture of public 

housing, affordable rental housing and single-family homes. 

HUD has also announced plans for mixed-income affordable 

housing, homeownership opportunities and services for the 

former families of Lafitte. Of the approximately 5,100 units of 

public housing that were occupied and affected by the disaster, 

nearly 2,000 units have been repaired and are habitable. Over 

1,200 families have already come back to New Orleans or will 

be coming back within the next 90 days to occupy these units. 

Yet, progress on the rebuilding of decent, affordable housing for 

public housing residents has been delayed for a variety of reasons. 

A long-standing feeling of mistrust of HUD and HANO among public housing tenants in New Orleans has helped to significantly 

hamper the progress on rebuilding public housing. In the past, 

mixed-use development in New Orleans has been badly managed 

and has in some cases taken years to complete resulting in only a 

handful of former residents returning to their neighborhood. 

An advocacy group, arguing that it would be more cost-effective 

to rehabilitate the existing public housing units and that the 

project would displace public housing tenants who could not afford 

the mixed-use rents, has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the 

redevelopment plan. Interestingly, the cost to the Federal government is nearly the same to implement phased-in, mixed-use redevelopment as to repair existing units, because the redevelopment 

plan would benefit from leveraged outside funding. The hope is, 

however, that a redeveloped property would have more to offer residents, such as, green spaces, larger units, a better quality of life, 

and a more seamless integration into the community. In an effort 

to address the fears of public housing residents who are concerned 

that mixed development will mean fewer units available for previous residents, HUD has committed to a one-for-one replacement 

for those residents wishing to return. 

Ability of Homeowners to Rebuild 

While much of the Committee’s focus has rested on the state of 

New Orleans’ public housing and other government-subsidized multifamily housing, it is crucial to also look at the difficulties homeowners in the Gulf Region face while trying to rebuild. Such hurdles standing in the way of rebuilding include a lack of information 

about how to rebuild, an inability to obtain homeowners insurance, 

gaps between insurance funds and the cost of rebuilding, and the 

lack of services and commerce that round out the community. 

These are the problems many middle-class families in Mississippi 

and Louisiana are grappling with, as they struggle to rebuild modest homes in a region that no longer seems fertile for affordable 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
40 

housing. Both Louisiana and Mississippi have formed corporations 

to monetarily assist homeowners during the rebuilding process. 

According to the Democratic Majority, ‘‘some 18 months after 

these storms, the pace of recovery of housing repair and reconstruction is not as robust in many areas as many had hoped. The pace 

of home repair, particularly in areas within Louisiana, has been 

slow.’’ While the Republican Minority agrees with this sentiment, 

it also believes that inherent differences in the rebuilding plans 

that Louisiana and Mississippi have adopted contribute to this uneven recovery. Through the testimony of several witnesses, the 

Committee has repeatedly been told that the Mississippi plan generally results in homeowners receiving rebuilding funds more 

quickly than their Louisiana counterparts. 

KATRINA FIELD HEARINGS (FEBRUARY 22 AND 23, 2007)

On February 22 and 23, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity held two days of field hearings in New Orleans 

and Mississippi. In the hearings’ discussion of public housing in the 

Gulf Region, the Committee examined complicated questions surrounding the fate of public housing in New Orleans, the ability of 

former residents to return, if they choose, and barriers at the local 

and Federal levels of government to rebuilding. Additionally, the 

Subcommittee discussed the benefits and importance of rebuilding 

neighborhoods conducive to homeownership, as well as affordable 

housing for low-income renters. The general consensus is that such 

a result can be accomplished by mixed-use redevelopment that supports affordable housing as part of a broader community, as opposed to traditional public housing that often isolates residents in 

severe economic distress. While recognizing that former public 

housing residents are eager to return home, any plan focused on 

these tenants should acknowledge that safer, more sustainable 

housing must be the ultimate goal. 

CONCERNS REGARDING H.R. 1227

On March 6, 2007, the Committee on Financial Services approved H.R. 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act 

of 2007, legislation that would make changes to several Federal 

housing programs, including temporary programs created to assist 

the housing needs of families affected by Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita. While Committee Republicans share the goal of supplying displaced families with stability and ensuring their access to safe, affordable housing, a number of provisions in H.R. 1227 are troubling. Generally, we are concerned that the legislation addresses 

issues far beyond the scope of the bill’s stated intent. For example, 

the legislation turns what is currently a temporary disaster voucher into a permanent voucher which disappears when the recipient 

no longer meets the eligibility requirements. In addition, the bill 

requires HUD to provide tenant replacement vouchers for all public 

housing units not brought back on line, including those slated for 

demolition prior to the storms. Further, in the 109th Congress, the 

Republican Majority committed more than $110 billion to assist the 

hurricane-devastated Gulf Coast; yet to date; only a small portion 

has been committed and or distributed to those in need. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
41 

To help ameliorate these concerns, the Committee Republicans 

offered a total of 21 amendments to H.R. 1227 at markup. Ten of 

these amendments were accepted by the Committee by voice vote, 

resulting in an improved bill. A summary of the accepted amendments follows: • Eliminate duplication of benefits restriction for Louisiana 

Road Home program. This amendment, offered by Mr. Baker 

(LA), would remove the duplication of benefits restriction for 

homeowners in Louisiana, so that homeowners who have been 

proactive and have maintained adequate homeowners and 

flood insurance are still allowed to collect up to $150,000 for 

rebuilding, under the Road Home program. • Require that Section 306, which transfers the Disaster 

Voucher Program (DVP) to a permanent voucher program, be 

subject to appropriations. This amendment, offered by Ranking 

Member Bachus (AL) on behalf of Mr. Feeney (FL), will give 

Congress a chance to further assess the need of such a permanent extension, instead of treating this as a mandatory spending entitlement. • Establish a New Orleans Redevelopment Authority pilot 

program. This amendment, offered by Mr. Baker (LA), will direct $15 million out of the $1.2 billion in FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding available (but not yet distributed) for Louisiana, towards a pilot program that would acquire and redevelop distressed properties throughout New Orleans. • Remove the CDBG match prohibition for Hurricane Dennis. This amendment, offered by Mrs. Brown-Waite (FL), equitably amends Section 102 of H.R. 1227 by allowing the use of 

CDBG funds for matching purposes for activities in areas affected by Hurricane Dennis, which struck Florida in July 2005. • Add a ‘‘sense of the Congress’’ applauding private rebuilding efforts. This amendment, offered by Mr. Garrett (NJ), inserts a Sense of the Congress Resolution into the bill, commending the actions of private individuals and organizations 

that have assisted in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast. 

• Require the GAO to report on CDBG funds made available 

through H.R. 1227. Two amendments offered by Mr. Garrett 

(NJ), require the Government Accountability Office to provide 

an audit/report each quarter on the amount of CDBG funds 

dispersed and whether these funds contribute to Waste, Fraud, 

and Abuse. The GAO will also be required to certify when the 

amount of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse represents at least 10 percent or more of the expended funds. These amendments are designed to provide oversight of taxpayer dollars and to ensure 

the money is going towards the intended recipients. 

• Require public housing construction workers to be documented and legally able to work in the U.S., offered by Mr. 

Garrett (NJ). 

• Require scientifically-sound research methods for survey. 

This amendment, offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller (CA), would require the survey under Section 201 to be completed using ‘‘appropriate scientific research methods.’’ It would also afford 

Congress a 10-day review of the survey. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
42 

• Efficient environmental review in disaster areas. This 

amendment, offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller (CA), would streamline pre-building review by terminating the current practice of 

having two sets of environmental reviews performed—one by 

FEMA and one by the local government. Instead, only one Federal environmental compliance review will be performed. 

In addition to the preceding amendments that were agreed to, 

the Republican Minority offered several other amendments that 

would have substantially improved the legislation’s ability to meet 

its stated remedial purposes and ensure stronger taxpayer protection. Amendments offered, but not accepted, include the following: 

• Strike provision making the Disaster Voucher Program 

permanent. This amendment, offered by Mr. Neugebauer (TX), 

would strike Section 306, which turns the DVP, at its termination, into a permanent voucher program. The Minority views 

Section 306 as problematic because it takes a program which 

is designed to be temporary and makes it permanent, thereby 

increasing the pool of section 8 vouchers without any legislative hearings or oversight. Further, Section 306 of the bill does 

not take into account the number of residents, currently using 

a voucher, who will return to New Orleans public housing. 

While the Minority sought to strike section 306 in its entirety, the Committee agreed to an amendment to limit the 

voucher pool created by mandating the vouchers ‘‘disappear’’

when the individual currently holding the voucher is no longer 

eligible to receive this assistance. 

• Require $1.2 billion in funding for Louisiana, ‘‘unlocked’’

by Section 101, to be used for hazard mitigation, the original, 

intended purpose. This amendment, offered by Mrs. BrownWaite (FL), Mr. Hensarling, (TX), and Mr. Pearce (NM), would 

restrict the $1.2 billion to its previously authorized use—open 

space and hazard mitigation—even if moved from FEMA to the 

CDBG program. This would ‘‘unlock’’ the funding and enable it 

to be utilized by Road Home, while keeping the money’s original purpose intact: to reduce the loss of life and property due 

to future natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures 

to be implemented. 

• Limit the number of HANO units to be repaired based on 

the survey required by Section 201. This amendment, offered 

by Mr. Garrett (NJ), would amend Section 202 by setting a 

ceiling on the number of units that must be repaired by August 

1, 2007. This ceiling would depend on the survey required by 

Section 201. Under this amendment, HUD would have to make 

available the lesser of 3,000 units or the number of units needed to house families who wish to return. According to HUD, 

the cost of repairing units to pre-Katrina conditions is projected to cost on average $34,000. The Minority believes we 

should repair only the number of units needed to accommodate 

those wishing to return home rather than some arbitrary number. Instead of spending money to repair dysfunctional, dilapidated, aging public housing units, the money would be better 

spent on efforts to rebuild safe, decent, affordable neighborhoods. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT
43 

• Strike provision requiring tenant replacement vouchers for 

all lost units, regardless of whether the unit was occupied preKatrina. This amendment, offered by Mr. McHenry (NC), 

would eliminate Section 304 of the bill, which requires HUD to 

provide tenant replacement vouchers for all units not brought 

back on line. Section 304 is overly broad; it goes beyond addressing the needs of people who were living in public housing 

pre-Katrina and aims to create an unnecessary, expensive 

voucher program in the name of ‘‘tenant’’ protection. • Fix the Section 8 funding formula for all regions affected 

by the Continuing Resolution passed by the House on January 

31, 2007. The CR changed the voucher funding formula to base 

FY 2007 PHA funding on prior year’s voucher leasing and cost 

data which resulted in several PHAs losing significant 

amounts of funding. The Gulf Coast PHAs were among those 

slated to lose under the CR. H.R. 1227 includes language that 

provides HUD with authority to make adjustments for Gulf 

state PHAs to ensure full voucher funding for those agencies. 

The amendment offered by Mrs. Biggert (IL) would readjust 

the Section 8 funding formula back to its pre-CR levels for all 

areas, not just the Gulf Coast. This change was made midstream in the CR and many PHAs were taken off-guard by the 

sudden reduction in funding. This amendment would restore 

the funding for FY 2007. • Require ‘‘PAYGO’’ to apply to any new spending authorized by H.R. 1227. This fiscally responsible amendment, offered 

by Mr. Price (GA), would require the application of ‘‘Pay As 

You Go’’ for any new spending authorized by this bill, necessitating a specific offset for this spending. • Substitute ‘‘such sums’’ with a fixed dollar amount for repair and rehabilitation of public housing units. This amendment, offered by Mr. Hensarling (TX), would fix Section 205 by 

striking ‘‘such sums’’ and inserting ‘‘$755 million’’ so that a 

specific dollar amount is provided, instead of an open-ended 

authorization. 

JUDY BIGGERT. RANDY NEUGEBAUER. SPENCER BACHUS III. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMRPT