[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 165 (Tuesday, October 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10648-H10661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING SAFETY AND ECONOMIC RELIEF ACT OF 1995

  The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 117) to amend the United States 
Housing Act of 1937 to prevent persons having drug or alcohol use 
problems from occupying dwelling units in public housing projects 
designated for occupancy by elderly families, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                                H.R. 117

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Senior Citizens Housing 
     Safety Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON OCCUPANCY IN PUBLIC HOUSING DESIGNATED 
                   FOR ELDERLY FAMILIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 7(a) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437e(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law'' and inserting ``Subject only to the 
     provisions of this subsection'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, except as provided 
     in paragraph (5)'' before the period at the end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Limitation on occupancy in projects for elderly 
     families.--
       ``(A) Occupancy limitation.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a dwelling unit in a project (or portion of 
     a project) that is designated under paragraph (1) for 
     occupancy by only elderly families or by only elderly and 
     disabled families shall not be occupied by--
       ``(i) any person with disabilities who is not an elderly 
     person and whose history of use of alcohol or drugs 
     constitutes a disability; or
       ``(ii) any person who is not an elderly person and whose 
     history of use of alcohol or drugs provides reasonable cause 
     for the agency to believe that the occupancy by such person 
     may interfere with the health, safety, or right to peaceful 
     enjoyment of the premises by other tenants.
       ``(B) Required statement.--A public housing agency may not 
     make a dwelling unit in such a project available for 
     occupancy to any person or family who is not an elderly 
     family, unless the agency acquires from the person or family 
     a signed statement that no person who will be occupying the 
     unit--
       ``(i) uses (or has a history of use of) alcohol, or
       ``(ii) uses (or has a history of use of) drugs,

     that would interfere with the health, safety, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants.''.
       (b) Lease Provisions.--Section 6(l) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(l)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) provide that any occupancy in violation of the 
     provisions of section 7(a)(5)(A) or the furnishing of any 
     false or misleading information pursuant to section 
     7(a)(5)(B) shall be cause for termination of tenancy; and''.

     SEC. 3. EVICTION OF NONELDERLY TENANTS HAVING DRUG OR ALCOHOL 
                   USE PROBLEMS FROM PUBLIC HOUSING DESIGNATED FOR 
                   ELDERLY FAMILIES.

       Section 7(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Standards Regarding Evictions.--
       ``(1) Limitation.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any 
     tenant who is lawfully residing in a dwelling unit in a 
     public housing project may not be evicted or otherwise 
     required to vacate such unit because of the designation of 
     the project (or a portion of the project) pursuant to this 
     section or because of any action taken by the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development or any public housing agency 
     pursuant to this section.
       ``(2) Requirement to evict nonelderly tenants having drug 
     or alcohol use problems in housing designated for elderly 
     families.--The public housing agency administering a project 
     (or portion of a project) described in subsection (a)(5)(A) 
     shall evict any person whose occupancy in the project (or 
     portion of the project) violates subsection (a)(5)(A).
       ``(3) Requirement to evict nonelderly tenants for 3 
     instances of prohibited activity involving drugs or 
     alcohol.--With respect to a project (or portion of a project) 
     described in subsection (a)(5)(A), the public housing agency 
     administering the project shall evict any person who is not 
     an elderly person and who, during occupancy in the project 
     (or portion thereof), engages on 3 separate occasions 
     (occurring after the date of the enactment of the Senior 
     Citizens Housing Safety Act) in any activity that threatens 
     the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the 
     premises by other tenants and involves the use of alcohol or 
     drugs.
       ``(4) Rule of construction.--The provisions of paragraphs 
     (2) and (3) requiring eviction of a person may not be 
     construed to require a public housing agency to evict any 
     other persons who occupy the same dwelling unit as the person 
     required to be evicted.''.

     SEC. 4. STANDARDS FOR LEASE TERMINATION AND EXPEDITED 
                   GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.

       Section 6 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (k), in the first sentence of the matter 
     following paragraph (6), by striking ``criminal'' in the 
     first place it appears; and
       (2) in subsection (l)(5), by striking ``criminal'' the 
     first place it appears.


           committee amendment in the nature of a substitute

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The Clerk will report the 
Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: Strike 
     out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof 
     the following:
     
[[Page H 10649]]


     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as ``Senior Citizens Housing Safety 
     and Economic Relief Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCIES TO PROHIBIT 
                   ADMISSION OF DRUG OR ALCOHOL ABUSES TO ASSISTED 
                   HOUSING.

       Section 16 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437n) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by striking ``income''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Authority To Limit Admission of Drug or Alcohol 
     Abusers.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a public housing agency may establish standards for 
     occupancy in public housing dwelling units and assistance 
     under section 8, that prohibit admission to such units and 
     assistance under such section by any individual--
       ``(A) who currently illegally uses a controlled substance; 
     or
       ``(B) whose history of illegal use of a controlled 
     substance or use of alcohol, or current use of alcohol, 
     provides reasonable cause for the agency to believe that the 
     occupancy by such individual may interfere with the health, 
     safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by 
     other residents.
       ``(2) Consideration of rehabilitation.--In determining 
     whether, pursuant to paragraph (1), to deny admission or 
     assistance to any elderly person based on a history of use of 
     a controlled substance or alcohol, a public housing agency 
     may consider whether such elderly person--
       ``(A) has successfully completed a supervised drug or 
     alcohol rehabilitation program (as applicable) and is no 
     longer engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance 
     or use of alcohol (as applicable);
       ``(B) has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully and is 
     no longer engaging in the illegal use of a controlled 
     substance or use of alcohol (as applicable); or
       ``(C) is participating in a supervised drug or alcohol 
     rehabilitation program (as applicable) and is no longer 
     engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance or use 
     of alcohol (as applicable).''.

     SEC. 3. DESIGNATED HOUSING FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED FAMILIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 7 of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437e) is amended to read as follows:


         ``designated housing for elderly and disabled families

       ``Sec. 7. (a) Authority To Provide Designated housing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject only to provisions of this 
     section and notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     public housing agency for which a plan under subsection (d) 
     is in effect may provide public housing projects (or portions 
     of projects) designated for occupancy by (A) only elderly 
     families, (B) only disabled families, or (C) elderly and 
     disabled families.
       ``(2) Priority for occupancy.--In determining priority for 
     admission to public housing projects (or portions of 
     projects) that are designated for occupancy as provided in 
     paragraph (1), the public housing agency may make units in 
     such projects (or portions) available only to the types of 
     families for whom the project is designated.
       ``(3) Eligibility of near-elderly families.--If a public 
     housing agency determines that there are insufficient numbers 
     of elderly families to fill all the units in a project (or 
     portion of a project) designated under paragraph (1) for 
     occupancy by only elderly families, the agency may provide 
     that near-elderly families may occupy dwelling units in the 
     project (or portion).
       ``(4) Limitation on occupancy in projects for elderly 
     families.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject only to the provisions of 
     subsection (b) and notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a dwelling unit in a project (or portion of a project) 
     that is designated under paragraph (1) for occupancy by only 
     elderly families or by only elderly and disabled families 
     shall not be occupied by any individual who is not an elderly 
     person and--
       ``(i) who currently illegally uses a controlled substance; 
     or
       ``(ii) whose history of illegal use of a controlled 
     substance or use of alcohol, or current use of alcohol, 
     provides reasonable cause for the agency to believe that the 
     occupancy by such individual may interfere with the health, 
     safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by 
     other tenants.
       ``(B) Consideration of rehabilitation.--In determining 
     whether, pursuant to subparagraph (A), to deny occupancy to 
     any individual based on a history of use of a controlled 
     substance or alcohol, a public housing agency may consider 
     the factors under section 16(e)(2).
       ``(b) Standards Regarding Evictions.--
       ``(1) Limitation.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any 
     tenant who is lawfully residing in a dwelling unit in a 
     public housing project may not be evicted or otherwise 
     required to vacate such unit because of the designation of 
     the project (or portion of a project) pursuant to this 
     section or because of any action taken by the Secretary or 
     any public housing agency pursuant to this section.
       ``(2) Requirement to evict nonelderly tenants in housing 
     designated for elderly families who have current drug or 
     alcohol abuse problems.--The public housing agency 
     administering a project (or portion of a project) described 
     in subsection (a)(4)(A) shall evict any individual who 
     occupies a dwelling unit in such a project and who currently 
     illegally uses a controlled substance or whose current use of 
     alcohol provides a reasonable cause for the agency to believe 
     that the occupancy by such individual may interfere with the 
     health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the 
     premises by other residents. This paragraph may not be 
     construed to require a public housing agency to evict any 
     other individual who occupies the same dwelling unit as the 
     individual required to be evicted.
       ``(c) Relocation Assistance.--A public housing agency that 
     designates any existing project or building, or portion 
     thereof, for occupancy as provided under subsection (a) shall 
     provide, to each person and family relocated in connection 
     with such designation--
       ``(1) notice of the designation and relocation, as soon as 
     is practicable for the agency and the person or family;
       ``(2) comparable housing (including appropriate services 
     and design features), which may include tenant-based rental 
     assistance under section 8, at a rental rate that is 
     comparable to that applicable to the unit from which the 
     person or family has vacated; and
       ``(3) payment of actual, reasonable moving expenses.
       ``(d) Required Plan.--A plan under this subsection for 
     designating a project (or portion of a project) for occupancy 
     under subsection (a)(1) is a plan, prepared by the public 
     housing agency for the project and submitted to the 
     Secretary, that--
       ``(1) establishes that the designation of the project is 
     necessary--
       ``(A) to achieve the housing goals for the jurisdiction 
     under the comprehensive housing affordability strategy under 
     section 105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act; and
       ``(B) to meet the housing needs of the low-income 
     population of the jurisdiction; and
       ``(2) includes a description of--
       ``(A) the project (or portion of a project) to be 
     designated;
       ``(B) the types of tenants for which the project is to be 
     designated;
       ``(C) any supportive services to be provided to tenants of 
     the designated project (or portion);
       ``(D) how the agency will secure any additional resources 
     or housing assistance that is necessary to provide assistance 
     to nonelderly disabled families that would have been housed 
     if occupancy in project were not restricted pursuant to this 
     section; and
       ``(E) how the design and related facilities (as such term 
     is defined in section 202(d)(8) of the Housing Act of 1959) 
     of the project accommodate the special environmental needs of 
     the intended occupants.

     For purposes of this subsection, the term `supportive 
     services' means services designed to meet the special needs 
     of residents.
       ``(e) Review of Plans.--
       ``(1) Review and notification.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     a limited review of each plan under subsection (d) that is 
     submitted to the Secretary to ensure that the plan is 
     complete and complies with the requirements of subsection 
     (d). The Secretary shall notify each public housing agency 
     submitting a plan whether the plan complies with such 
     requirements not later than 60 days after receiving the plan. 
     If the Secretary does not notify the public housing agency, 
     as required under this paragraph or paragraph (2), the plan 
     shall be considered, for purposes of this section, to comply 
     with the requirements under subsection (d) and the Secretary 
     shall be considered to have notified the agency of such 
     compliance upon the expiration of such 60-day period.
       ``(2) Notice of reasons for determination of 
     noncompliance.--If the Secretary determines that a plan, as 
     submitted, does not comply with the requirements under 
     subsection (d), the Secretary shall specify in the notice 
     under paragraph (1) the reasons for the noncompliance and any 
     modifications necessary for the plan to meet such 
     requirements.
       ``(3) Standards for determination of noncompliance.--The 
     Secretary may determine that a plan does not comply with the 
     requirements under subsection (d) only if--
       ``(A) the plan is incomplete in significant matters 
     required under such subsection; or
       ``(B) there is evidence available to the Secretary that 
     challenges, in a substantial manner, any information provided 
     in the plan.
       ``(4) Treatment of existing plans.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this section, a public housing agency 
     shall be considered to have submitted a plan under this 
     subsection if the agency has submitted to the Secretary an 
     application and allocation plan under this section (as in 
     effect before the date of the enactment of the Senior 
     Citizens Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act of 1995) that 
     have not been approved or disapproved before such date of 
     enactment.
       ``(f) Effectiveness.--
       ``(1) 5-year effectiveness of plan.--A plan under 
     subsection (d) shall be in effect for purposes of this 
     section only during the 5-year period that begins upon 
     notification under subsection (e)(1) of the public housing 
     agency that the plan complies with the requirements under 
     subsection (d). An agency may extend the effectiveness of the 
     designation and plan for an additional 2-year period 
     beginning upon the expiration of such period (or the 
     expiration of any previous extension period under this 
     sentence) by submitting to the Secretary any information 
     needed to update such plan.

[[Page H 10650]]

       ``(2) Savings provision.--Any application and allocation 
     plan approved under this section (as in effect before the 
     date of the enactment of the Senior Citizens Housing Safety 
     and Economic Relief Act of 1995) before such date of 
     enactment shall be considered to be a plan under subsection 
     (d) that is in effect for purposes of this section for the 5-
     year period beginning upon such approval.
       ``(g) Inapplicability of Uniform Relocation Assistance and 
     Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970.--No tenant of 
     a public housing project shall be considered to be displaced 
     for purposes of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 
     Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970 because of the 
     designation of any existing project or building, or portion 
     thereof, for occupancy as provided under subsection (a) of 
     this section.
       ``(h) Inapplicability to Indian Housing.--The provisions of 
     this section shall not apply with respect to low-income 
     housing developed or operated pursuant to a contract between 
     the Secretary and an Indian housing authority.''.
       (b) Lease Provisions.--Section 6(1) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(l)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) provide that any occupancy in violation of the 
     provisions of section 7(a)(4) shall be cause for termination 
     of tenancy; and''.

     SEC. 4. STANDARDS FOR ASSISTED HOUSING LEASE TERMINATION AND 
                   EXPEDITED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.

       (a) Public Housing Agency Grievance Procedure.--Section 
     6(k) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437d(k)) is amended, in the first sentence of the matter 
     following paragraph (6), by striking ``criminal'' the first 
     place it appears and all that follows through ``such 
     premises'' and inserting ``activity described in subsection 
     (l)(5) of this section or section 8(d)(1)(B)(iii)''.
       (b) Public Housing Leases.--Section 6(l) of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(l) is amended by 
     striking paragraphs (4) and (5) and inserting the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(4) require that the public housing agency may not 
     terminate the tenancy except for violation of the terms or 
     conditions of the lease, violation of applicable Federal, 
     State, or local law, or for other good cause;
       ``(5) provide that the public housing agency may terminate 
     the tenancy of a public housing resident for any activity, 
     engaged in by the resident, any member of the resident's 
     household, or any guest or other person under the resident's 
     control, that--
       ``(A) threatens the health or safety of, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of the premises by, other residents or 
     employees of the public housing agency or other manager of 
     the housing;
       ``(B) threatens the health or safety of, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of their premises by, persons residing in 
     the immediate vicinity of the premises; or
       ``(C) is criminal activity (including drug-related criminal 
     activity);''.
       (c) Section 8 Housing Leases.--Section 8(d)(1)(B) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(d)(1)(B)) 
     is amended by striking clause (ii) and (iii) and insert the 
     following new clauses:
       ``(ii) the owner shall not terminate the tenancy except for 
     violation of the terms and conditions of the lease, violation 
     of applicable Federal, State, or local law, or other good 
     cause;
       ``(iii) the owner may terminate the tenancy of the tenant 
     of a unit for any activity, engaged in by the tenant, any 
     member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other 
     person under the tenant's control, that--
       ``(I) threatens the health or safety of, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of the premises by, other tenants or 
     employees of the owner or manager of the housing;
       ``(II) threatens the health or safety of, or right to 
     peaceful enjoyment of their residences by, persons residing 
     in the immediate vicinity of the premises; or
       ``(III) is criminal activity (including drug-related 
     criminal activity); and''.

     SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF FHA MORTGAGE INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR HOME 
                   EQUITY CONVERSION MORTGAGES.

       (a) Extension of Program.--The first sentence of section 
     255(g) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(g)) is 
     amended by striking ``September 30, 1995'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2000''.
       (b) Limitation on Number of Mortgages.--The second sentence 
     of section 255(g) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1715z-20(g)) is amended by striking ``25,000'' and inserting 
     ``50,000''.
       (c) Eligible Mortgages.--Section 255(d)(3) of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(d)(3)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) be secured by a dwelling that is designed principally 
     for a 1- to 4-family residence in which the mortgagor 
     occupies 1 of the units;''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the reading). Without objection, the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as 
read and printed in the Record.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Leach] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, before the House this afternoon is H.R. 117, the Senior 
Citizens Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act. The bill is designed 
to address the physical and economic needs of senior citizens.
  On physical grounds, it is intended that seniors not be required to 
live with those who have brought drugs and crime into their housing 
projects. It is imperative to give seniors not only a safe environment 
in which to live, but one in neighborhoods where they have been brought 
up in a community with their past and current families.
  In cities in particular, it is thus designed to halt gray flight.
  For this initiative, I would compliment Mr. Blute, who introduced 
this approach in bill form, and Mr. Flanagan, who has been such an 
advocate of this change.
  The second group of senior citizens this legislation--which was put 
together by the excellent work of Representative Rick Lazio, chairman 
of the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee--would help are 
those whose major asset is the house in which they have lived for many 
years, in which they have raised their family and in which they hope to 
continue to live, as long as they are physically capable of doing so.
  Many of these elderly home-owning persons are facing financial 
pressures which can be eased by allowing them to enter into so-called 
reverse mortgages through which they can remain in their homes while 
receiving either a lump sum payment or monthly payments based on the 
value of their homes.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] to explain this program.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, time and time again Members have 
come to the floor of the House of Representatives and spoken about the 
tremendous opportunity we have in the 104th Congress. Today, through 
the corrections day process and through the hard work of many 
Republican Members, we are seizing that opportunity to right the wrongs 
of misguided public policies and to make sure our seniors can be secure 
in their homes.
  H.R. 117 accomplishes two very important goals. By allowing PHA's to 
take steps to evict dangerous tenants, this bill ensures that seniors 
who have trusted the government to provide them with decent, safe 
housing can feel secure in their own homes. By reauthorizing the Home 
Equity Conversion Mortgage [HECM] program, this bill also ensures 
seniors who own their own home and who want to stay in their own 
neighborhood can do so in comfort, not worrying about whether they can 
afford to.

  Too often, the best laid plans of HUD and Congress have effects that 
were never intended. Certainly, providing good housing for disabled 
Americans is something we should do and elderly-only housing projects 
tend to be some of the best federally-assisted housing available. Too 
many people who receive a housing subsidy are current drug addicts or 
alcoholics living under the guise of disabled persons. This mix has 
proven to be harmful to seniors and truly needy and deserving disabled 
people as well.
  We cannot tolerate the harassment, intimidation, and even physical 
abuse that is heaped on older Americans by residents in their own 
building who are living at taxpayer expense. We cannot tolerate those 
who would prey on grandparents, our neighbors, or our children.
  I appreciate the hard work of so many of my colleagues who played a 
part in bringing this legislation to the floor and the leadership shown 
by Members such as my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Blute. I applaud the commitment being made today by Members on both 
sides of the aisle who, by voting for this bill, are supporting and 
protecting our parents and grandparents.
  I also appreciate the concern many Members have shown with regard to 
the other provision of H.R. 117 that was in a bill I introduced earlier 
this year as H.R. 1934, which reauthorized the Home Equity Conversion 
Mortgage Program for older Americans. I feel 

[[Page H 10651]]
very strongly about the need to reauthorize this program because of the 
tremendous value reverse mortgages have for seniors around the country.
  This provision encourages those who want to stay in their homes and 
in the neighborhoods they care about, while at the same time making 
their life more livable. The HECM program can ensure the quality of 
life of older Americans at no additional cost to the government, making 
everybody winners.
  In closing, I would remind my colleagues of the strong showing of 
support we have received for this legislation. The American Association 
of Retired Persons, the National Association of Home Builders, the 
American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, and the 
National Assisted Housing Management Association have all voiced strong 
support for this bill. But in the final analysis we are passing this 
bill today not for political reasons: We are passing it for the people 
these groups represent and for the millions of Americans who look to 
this Congress for help and support. The Senior Citizen Housing Safety 
and Economic Relief Act of 1995 is a good bill and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me read to this Chamber the headline from an article 
written in the Boston Herald last Friday, October 20. The headline 
says: ``Chelsea Widow, 73, Raped at Gunpoint.''
  This 73-year-old woman had just lost her husband 4 or 5 months prior 
to this outrageous incident, and was living alone in what was supposed 
to be an elderly-only public housing building in Chelsea, MA, a 
working-class city just outside of Boston.
  Unfortunately, over the past several years more and more younger 
people have been allowed to move into this supposedly elderly-only 
public housing project, many with substance abuse problems. While 
noboby who actively abuses drugs or alcohol is supposed to get into 
public housing, too often screening is inadequate, old habits return, 
or drug pushers ``game'' the system and gain admittance to public 
housing under the guise of being disabled in order to ply their trade. 
As we all know, drug addicts commit crimes, particularly violent 
crimes, and, as in Chelsea, the victims are often the elderly and the 
frail.
  We have tried several times over the past several years in the 
Congress to make it possible for public housing authorities to set up 
elderly-only public housing, and to kick out trouble makers who are 
threatening the elderly for any reason. In fact, later this year I 
expect the committee to consider whether or not former drug or alcohol 
abusers should be considered disabled at all for the purposes of public 
housing.
  But for various reasons, the attempts to restore elderly-only housing 
have failed. So, today we are moving forward on a bipartisan basis to 
try to address this terrible problem and I want to commend Chairman 
Lazio for bringing this bill to the floor.
  This bill will give housing authorities the power to screen out 
people with histories of drug and alcohol abuse if they have reasonable 
grounds for expecting that the applicants will cause problems.
  It requires housing authorities to get rid of nonelderly tenants who 
have current alcohol or drug abuse problems.
  It enables housing authorities to get rid of tenants in family or 
elderly projects who are threatening the health and safety of other 
tenants.
  It clears away the existing barriers to the creation of elderly-only 
public housing, and allows for the creation of disabled-only housing or 
housing for mixed populations.
  While I support this bill, and urge my Democratic colleagues to do 
the same, I must point out that the Republicans have not always been so 
friendly to the elderly who live in our public and assisted housing.
  Just a few short weeks ago, the Republicans voted to kill all new 
rental assistance that the Secretary was using largely to move the 
disabled out of senior-only housing.
  Just a few short weeks ago, the Republicans voted to raise rents on 
senior citizens living in public and assisted housing, and the 
Republicans defeated amendments offered by me and my colleague Barney 
Frank to roll back these rent increases.
  These same Republicans came to the floor and voted for a budget that 
will absolutely decimate public housing, in spite of the fact that 
about one-third of public housing units are occupied by the elderly. 
Where will they go when the walls start falling down around them, or 
there is no more heat or hot water?
  Finally, while authorizing public housing authorities to create 
disabled-only housing, the notion that any such housing will ever be 
built, given the tight-fisted budgets passed for housing by this 
Republican Congress is, frankly, a fantasy. The need will be greater, 
but there will be less and less housing for these extremely vulnerable 
people.
  So, I ask my Republican colleagues not just to cast the easy votes 
and make speeches on the House floor, not just to pay lip service to 
the needs of the elderly and disabled, but to cast the tough votes and 
fight the tough battles for increased housing for the elderly, the 
disabled, and the poor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, 
the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, this House passed on a voice vote 
an amendment to the Housing and Community Development Act that would 
have prevented drug addicts and alcoholics from residing in elderly 
public housing.
  However, the Senate did not act on this legislation, and, therefore, 
I reintroduced it this year. Since then I have worked with Chairman 
Leach and Chairman Lazio on perfecting this bill and I believe that 
with their leadership and with the leadership of many members of the 
committee on both sides of the aisle that we have brought before this 
House a bill which everyone can be proud of and can support.
  The fact of the matter remains as it did last year and the year 
before then that senior citizens are living in fear because of a law 
which Congress passed back in 1988. That law allows young drug and 
alcohol abusers into senior housing facilities. The result of this 
misguided statute has brought terror into the lives of elderly 
Americans across the country who deserve to live out their retirements 
in safe and secure housing.
  Not only are our parents and grandparents subjected to loud music and 
all-night parties, they are being shaken down for loans, harassed, 
robbed, assaulted and, yes, in some tragic cases even raped.
  Let me just state some of the horrible situations that our seniors 
are living with under current Federal law:
  In my district, an elderly woman was shaken down for a $1,000 loan by 
a 38-year-old former drug abuser who lived in her complex. He then 
threatened the life of the woman's relatives after being confronted by 
them.
  In the city of Boston, a 92-year-old woman was raped in her public 
elderly housing apartment by a 38-year-old neighbor in her building who 
was a drug abuser.
  More recently the Committee on Banking and Financial Services heard 
emotional testimony from a senior citizen from Worcester, MA, 
Anneliesse Belculfino, who spoke about young men lined up outside as a 
prostitute tossed her keys out the window, and a drug abuser and 
resident running naked through the hallway harassing elderly tenants.
  In addition, the committee heard testimony from Jack Mather of the 
Brockton, Massachusetts Housing Authority who said that the percentage 
of nonelderly disabled in senior housing has risen from 9 percent to 38 
percent.
  This bill will change this disastrous policy. I can think of nothing 
that is more important to correct in the Federal code than this policy. 
I urge this House to adopt this bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the former 
chairman of the committee, an individual who has done more for public 
housing and housing of our Nation's poor and senior citizens than any 
individual in this Chamber.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very kind remarks of 

[[Page H 10652]]
  Chairman Kennedy, particularly coming from him, whom I greatly admire. 
In a grandfatherly way, I have watched him grow up, so it is something 
that I deeply appreciate.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House clarifies current law. As a 
practical matter the bill is not necessary. The fact is that housing 
authorities already can screen applicants for disabled housing, to 
ensure that persons who are likely to be disruptive or a threat to 
their neighbors are not placed in senior citizen projects. And housing 
authorities already can evict tenants who are disruptive or who 
threaten other tenants. But to the extent that housing authorities 
believe they need clearer legal guidance, this bill provides that 
guidance.
  In its original form, this bill would have permitted public housing 
authorities to refuse housing or to evict virtually anyone, on an 
arbitrary basis. We worked in a bipartisan way to make improvements in 
the bill, to provide a reasonable level of protection against arbitrary 
and capricious actions by housing authorities. However, even as it 
stands, the bill could be read as permitting actions against tenants 
based solely on gossip and rumor, rather than any real evidence of 
misconduct. Therefore I want to emphasize that it is not the intent of 
this bill to deny anyone the right to reasonable process.
  Every tenant of a public housing unit, just like any other citizen, 
has the right to be protected against neighbors who pose a threat or 
who engage in criminal conduct of any kind. That is what this bill is 
about--to make clear that disabled individuals who use drugs or 
alcohol, and who are disruptive or threaten their elderly neighbors, 
will promptly be evicted. And in addition, this bill makes it clear 
that a housing authority can deny housing to a person who is likely to 
threaten the peace and safety of a senior citizen housing project. This 
protection can be provided without violating anyone's right to a 
reasonable process. Moreover, as I have stated before, housing 
authorities can already do this under current law--all this bill 
does is to make that fact clear to anyone who feels a clarification is 
needed.

  The majority did work with us to make needed revisions in the bill, 
and I appreciate the cooperation that we received. The bill in its 
current form is much improved, and I support it.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds 
to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. Nussle].
  (Mr. NUSSLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  On July 24, the citizens of Waterloo, IA, spoke to the Speaker of the 
House and myself during a town meeting. During that visit, the Speaker 
made a commitment to the people of Waterloo that we were going to act 
today on this important legislation. So today we do act.
  I commend the chairman, the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Lazio], and 
the gentleman from Iowa, [Mr. Leach], and many others who have worked 
tirelessly on this issue.
  I want to read to you the pleas of the citizens group in Waterloo 
that has been working on this issue. In part it says this: when a drug 
dealer lives in Federal housing, more specifically in section 8 
housing, we find our battle is not only with the drug dealer, but also 
with the Federal Government.
  They went on to say, as poor families sit on waiting lists, sometimes 
for years, to receive section 8 housing, drug dealers roll up their 
thick wad of twenties and continue to get their rent paid by the 
Federal Government. Federally funded housing should be the most crime-
free housing in our Nation. Instead it has become synonymous with drugs 
and violence. Being poor should not mean you are forced to live among 
drug dealers and violent criminals.
  Therefore, families are forced to live with drug dealing and with 
violent neighbors because of regulations that go unenforced by Housing 
and Urban Development. Today we will stop this practice by this 
important legislation.
  We answer the pleas of Leon Moseley and Donna Jones and many others 
from Waterloo and across the country that have been pleading for help 
and action by the Federal Government so that they do not have to live 
in communities that are full of drugs and violence. I commend this 
entire Congress for working in an area where Housing and Urban 
Development would not.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] who came to see me on this issue 
going back almost 6 years ago. He has been working tirelessly to try to 
clean up elderly housing in his district. I commend him for his 
steadfast efforts in that regard.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from 
Massachusetts and the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Housing 
and Community Opportunity.
  This is a very good bill. Certainly all of us are aware of the fact 
that we have so many seniors who are asset rich and cash poor, and so 
this home equity conversion mortgage extension works out very well for 
them and is going to relieve a lot of anxiety for them. I am 
particularly excited about the provision that relates to the screening 
and eviction of drug and alcohol abusers in public and publicly 
assisted housing.
  I did not come to the conclusion in any easy way. In fact, when I got 
involved in public service, back many years ago, it was really over 
subsidized housing. By the time I was mayor of Alexandria across the 
river, one out of every seven homes in Alexandria were subsidized.
  But increasingly they become characterized by drug dealing and crime 
and violence. It was not working. Elderly residents were scared for 
their lives to live in publicly assisted housing. Single mothers had to 
come to the conclusion really that their children were going to get 
involved in drug dealing before they became adults. It was almost 
inevitable. It came to a climax when I lost a very good friend who was 
a police officer in a highly publicized shootout over a drug 
transaction. I will not go into the specifics of that, but it became 
clear that we had to do something.
  I went to Secretary Kemp and got a waiver to do exactly what this 
bill does today. In fact, this bill builds on the provisions that were 
in last year's Housing and Community Development Act that expanded the 
grounds for eviction for criminal activity to any activity that 
threatens the health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment of the 
premises by the other residents and by public housing employees.
  This measure includes language that I offered last year to remove the 
geographic limitation that current law places to the expedited eviction 
procedure by striking the on-or-near-such-premises language. What 
happens is that drug dealers know very well where the boundary is, they 
just step over to do their drug dealing.
  This bill also clarifies that ignorance of illegal drug activity 
should not by itself be grounds for exempting a tenant from the 
expedited eviction procedure. That actual-knowledge standard is a real 
easy way our for the tenant of record. It encourages the leasehold, 
which is oftentimes the parent, to avoid knowing what the members of 
their family, who should be under their control, are actually doing on 
the premises.
  Mr. Speaker, one outstanding concern is that the eviction and 
screening provisions should be extended to all government assisted 
privately owned housing. There are approximately 1.4 million public 
housing units, while there are more than 2.1 million section 8 publicly 
assisted housing units.
  What is effective for public housing should be applied to the 
privately owned publicly assisted housing as well. In reviewing the 
legislation, it is not exactly clear if tenants in project-based 
section 8 programs and tenants in FHA-insured subsidized housing are 
covered. I am not aware of any legislation standards for eviction from 
section 8 project-based on FHA-subsidized housing, although I believe 
HUD has issued rules and a handbook for this housing.
  So I think it would be helpful if we could clarify with respect to 
the project-based section 8 housing and the FHA-subsidized housing 
whether this applies to them.
  Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], clarify 
that?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  
[[Page H 10653]]

  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond to 
the gentleman.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia first of all for his 
tireless work in this area and for his very valuable input and his 
strong personal understanding of the issue in working with our staff 
and particularly with me.
  The intent of this bill is to apply stronger eviction standards as 
broadly as possible to all forms of section 8 housing as well as public 
housing. Regarding other forms of assisted housing, we are urging the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to apply stricter standards, 
stricter eviction standards to all activity, whether criminal, drug 
related or otherwise in all types of assisted housing.
  I would also like to assure my colleague from Virginia that I will 
continue to work in this area with him to ensure that all multifamily 
assisted housing meets the stricter eviction standard that the 
gentleman speaks so eloquently about. I am prepared to include 
provisions in H.R. 2406, the United States Housing Act of 1995, that 
would cover all forms of assisted housing and pledge to work with my 
distinguished colleague from Virginia and other interested colleagues 
who share these concerns.
  I would turn to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], the former ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Housing and Community Opportunity whose experience in this field who 
will no doubt play an important part in this process, with the 
gentleman's indulgence.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] and our colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  I have worked on this issue as the ranking member of the subcommittee 
for a number of years. Clearly section 202 housing projects are by 
their very design for elderly only; at least they should be. These 
projects are almost universally well run, well maintained and 
relatively free from crime. But it is precisely this type of 
environment that we should be able to provide for all seniors in all 
federally assisted housing.
  I am really pleased that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has 
brought this subject up. We must work very diligently to close any 
existing loopholes that there may be and to be sure that that kind of 
protection is afforded for all seniors and disabled. I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership 
and for that clarification, as well as the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the former chairman, 
and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the former 
chairman, as well.
  I thank them very much for clarifying that, and the substance of this 
legislation is very important.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], the chairperson of the 
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit and a great 
friend of seniors throughout America.
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, recovering alcoholics and drug abusers 
should never have been allowed to live in these housing projects that 
are clearly reserved for the elderly and the disabled. We have the 
opportunity today to close this shameful chapter for our senior 
citizens.
  Our seniors have a right to live their lives in quiet and trouble-
free environments rather than one filled with drug abusers, dealers, 
and alcoholics. It should never have happened.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute]. I 
worked with him since 1992. We thought we had the problem resolved. As 
has already been stated, the problem goes back to the 1988 act.
  At the time of that 1988 legislation, I opposed the change in the 
law. In 1992, we thought we had worked with the chairman of the 
committee and many others who rewrite the laws and protect against it. 
But we said at the time it would probably need more working. In 1994, 
we went through the same exercise, a good exercise. It was a good piece 
of legislation. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on the 
legislation.
  So I want to thank the chairman, thank the ranking member, and all 
those who are working here today to finally fix the problem and provide 
for clarity, not only in the law but also for the regulatory process so 
that there will be no more confusion and that we will give the safety 
to the senior citizens that they deserve and close this shameful 
chapter in the history of public housing and subsidized housing.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I really thank the gentleman for his work and 
the work of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] on this bill. 
This is a long time coming.
  It is great work, and I am proud to be associated with it and to 
support it. It seems to me that what we have done here finally is we 
have injected some common sense into a process that was very short on 
it. We are saying very clearly and for the first time that there are 
certain things, certain standards that we can demand that people must 
adhere to in order to qualify for, in order to be able to take 
advantage of public assisted housing.
  One of those things is that we are not going to allow drug addicts 
and drugs to be disrupting the lives of senior citizens in federally 
subsidized housing. I have got a specific project in Cleveland on the 
west side of the Cuyahoga River that overlooks the river. It is a 
wonderful community, a diverse community of senior citizens who care 
for each other, who care about each other, who take care of each other 
in a very remarkable way. Yet, they were victimized by drug dealers in 
their building. I am so delighted that we are fixing that problem 
today. I commend the gentleman for his efforts.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan], a great advocate of this 
legislation.
  (Mr. FLANAGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, before I give the statement I prepared, I 
would like to call to the House's attention the testimony given by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] before the full committee. If 
Members are in any way undecided on this bill, I urge them to pull that 
testimony and read Mr. Moran's remarks. He was very self-effacing today 
when he said he would not go through the details, but it is an amazing 
story, and it is truly a moving one. I wish that there were time for 
him to repeat it fully here.
  Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 117, the Senior Citizens Housing 
Safety Act of 1995, I am pleased that this legislation is on the House 
floor today. I am very proud of this legislation. It is the result of a 
bipartisan effort to protect our seniors and to make their housing 
safer.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I visited with the coalition to save 
the Greenview and Eckhardt apartments in Chicago. Seniors discussed 
many of the problems that they face everyday as residents in public 
housing. The picture that they painted was horrifying. The housing of 
substance abusers in these complexes is despicable. Our seniors' safety 
is threatened with guns, gang crime, violence, and prostitution into 
what should be their safe haven--their homes.
  The Eckhardt apartment complex clearly illustrates that mixing 
elderly and nonelderly substance dependent residents does not work. Mr. 
Speaker, it is nothing less than tragic that our poor and innocent 
senior citizens should have to live in public housing facilities 
designated for the elderly and the elderly and disabled families with 
nonelderly tenants who are substance abusers. These drug and alcohol 
abusers are a threat to the health and safety to the seniors who live 
in these projects. For elderly citizens, who are most susceptible to 
physical attack, having to live in the same project with these 
substance abusers in an outrage.

[[Page H 10654]]

  This legislation toughens placement and eviction policies in order to 
protect residents of public and assisted housing programs from 
substance abusers. It gives public housing directors the authority to 
bar troublesome tenants from their buildings, and this reduce the 
threat to seniors.
  Although I am not on the committee, I have attended hearings on 
public housing by the Banking and Financial Services Committee and its 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunities. Time and time 
again it was brought up that one of the most important actions that can 
be taken to protect our seniors from such atrocities in public housing 
is the careful pre-screening of applicants. Everyone wants this to 
happen, the tenants, the managers, the Federal, State, and local public 
officials. The only ones who are not happy about this bill are those 
who know that they wouldn't be allowed in.
  The blute bill, the Senior Citizens Housing Safety Act of 1995 (H.R. 
117) is the appropriate step in that it allows for proper pre-screening 
of potential tenants. We owe it to our seniors to fight for their safe 
housing. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my 
good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] for yielding this time to me.
  This is an issue that is very important across the Nation, but 
particularly we have seen it in the Pittsburgh region. I know the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has worked very hard on this 
issue, as has the former chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Gonzalez], now ranking member, and I thank the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Lazio] for his hard work on this because this is an issue that, I 
think, we can see that something good occurs today.
  As my colleagues know, back in 1988 housing provisions were enacted 
that resulted really in commingling of senior citizens and substance 
abusers in public housing complexes, and obviously the introduction, as 
my colleagues have heard from Members here today, Mr. Speaker, had led 
to conflicts, and it had led to crime. In response in 1992 Congress 
designated seniors-only, disabled-only, and mixed housing, but there 
has been some confusion by those people who run the public housing. I 
think that this bill today will clarify how these designations can be 
made. I think this will be a great help. The rules to implement these 
three categories have been difficult to enforce, If we talk to our 
housing directors. We have talked to them, in western Pennsylvania. 
They tell us that only 10 of 3,400 public housing authorities have had 
their plans approved so far. We hear all the time from people who say:

       Look, we don't want to go down to common areas because we 
     are afraid of who we are going to see down there. We don't 
     want to go down to shared laundry facilities because we don't 
     know what kind of situation we are going to get involved 
     with.

  I thought the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Blute] were particularly enlightening because we heard the same thing 
where they get shaken down by people who really kind of force them into 
giving them loans, and it is really a shakedown, and the seniors really 
at this point in their lives are supposed to feel some kind of security 
in their home situation.
  In Pittsburgh we have also had in recent news; in fact this was back 
on the sixth of September of this year, the attempted rape of a 90-
year-old woman in the Wilmerding Apartments just outside of the city of 
Pittsburgh. This is just the kind of thing that residents there had 
feared would happen for a long time. This is a senior citizens' high 
rise. Betty Pebanic, who is 76 years old who lived in the Wilmerding 
Apartments for 10 years said, ``We are all frightened, this fellow has 
got to be put away.'' Of course she was referring to a 40-year-old man 
named Earl Thomas who was arrested within an hour after the assault. 
Now this 90-year-old woman who he attempted to rape must have been just 
a little bit too much for Mr. Thomas to handle despite the difference 
in age because she bloodied his eye, she got away from him, and she 
chased him away. Not only did she chase him away, but when the police 
were summoned, they found blood droplets. They found out it was not 
hers, it was his. But they also found his plastic bank card, and they 
were able to identify him, and within 1 hour Mr. Thomas was arrested. 
He was taken out, he was arraigned on $100,000 bond. It was really 
something because the police station is right next door to the 
highrise, and the police officers arrived, and they saw Mr. Thomas 
peeking out of his apartment. What is going on here? And they noticed 
that he had a fresh wound on his eye. They said, ``Come out here, we'd 
like to talk to you.'' He did, and within a matter of a few moments 
after they found the bank card, they talked to him, and they were able 
to arrest him, but this is really not the kind of peace of mind that 
people need to have. They need to know that they are not going to be 
attacked, and, unlike this 90-year-old woman, they will not have to 
fight themselves off. I think that if Congress enacts this bill today, 
it will have done something good.

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio], chairman of this committee, for yielding me the time and for 
the excellent work he has done in this area, and also the speaker, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Nussle], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Blute], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran], and all the people that have been involved 
in straightening out, bringing some common sense back to, this 1988 law 
which mandated that disabled people were eligible to live in public 
housing and disabled people were people who had doctor's certificates, 
they were mentally ill, drug addicts and the like, alcoholics. We are 
restoring a little common sense back into the law today.
  This again, I think, shows and points to the fact that law in many 
areas of our country today has run amok. We have got too much 
Government, we have got to bring some common sense back into these 
areas again, and I think we could be in session here 2 weeks or longer 
taking up bills like this.
  Drug dealers have no place in public housing. In fact, drug dealers 
have no place in America anywhere, and we are going to force them out 
of public housing, but where are these rats going to run? We have to 
make sure that we get after the drug dealers, not just push them out of 
public housing, although that is a first step.
  We have waged wars all over the world, hot and cold, to go after, 
against, murderous regimes so people throughout the world could live in 
peace, dignity, and safety. We are doing it for people in public 
housing here today. We have some 3,400 public housing projects 
throughout the country.
  It has been mentioned before that we heard excellent testimony, and 
we did at the hearing. We heard from many senior citizens. Quite 
frankly it was very moving when people would tell us, ``Hey, I moved 
into this beautiful apartment, Members of Congress, but after a few 
months the drug dealers came in, the alcoholics came in, and they took 
over, and I was a prisoner in my own apartment.'' Is that the kind of 
America we want? I do not think so, and that is why I think the 
legislation of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] is so important.
  I want to digress here, make a point. We have got drug dealers and 
alcoholics who are so-called disabled on SSI. Why do we have 250,000 
people, drug addicts and alcoholics, as disabled? They should not 
be disabled. It is costing us $2 billion a year, and I hope we address 
that issue, too.

  Mr. Speaker, the dreaded knock on the door is no longer just a famous 
metaphor representing the power of evil in foreign dictatorships.
  Such sinister knocking is being heard increasingly by our Nation's 
elderly living in our public housing projects.
  So who is doing the knocking here? The answer sometimes means life or 
death to the frail elderly person reaching for the door knob.
  Is it a delivery person with essential food or medicine as ordered? 
Or is it a menacing neighbor disabled by drugs, alcohol, or mental 
illness? Often that is exactly whom it is.

[[Page H 10655]]

  Often, the vulnerable aged person finds robbery, rape, injury, and 
even death waiting when the door opens.
  Such crazed or addicted neighbors live legally cheek by jowl with the 
elderly in public housing projects.
  This is true because a 1988 Federal law mandates that such mentally 
disabled persons are eligible to live in the same public housing with 
our senior citizens.
  Physically disabled persons are eligible for public housing, too, but 
the physically disabled reportedly pose little or no threat to others.
  The reign of terror comes from the doctor-certified mentally 
disabled--the mentally ill, drug addicts, and alcoholics.
  The threat affects the entire population of public housing projects, 
including children. It is particularly terrifying for the hundreds of 
thousands of our vulnerable senior citizens forced by economics to live 
there. And we must put a stop to it.
  The legislation before us today, H.R. 117, the Senior Citizens 
Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act of 1995, addresses this 
intensifying problem of our senior citizens.
  I intend to vote for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me.
  We have waged wars--both cold and hot--against murderous regimes 
around the world to try to make sure our people--all of them--can live 
in peace, dignity, and safety. But in our country's 3,400 public 
housing projects, many, particularly our senior citizens, live 
frightened, often terrified lives.
  Testimony received by the committee is compelling.
  It suggests addicts' attacks and threats aimed most often at the 
frail elderly are occurring hundreds of times a day throughout our 1.3 
million public housing apartments and units.
  Of these units, about 35 percent are occupied by elderly persons 
averaging 76 years of age.
  Four out of five are women.
  About 10 percent of the units are occupied by mostly younger persons 
disabled by mental illness, drugs, or alcohol.
  Of the remaining units, 45 percent are families with children, and 10 
percent are families without children.
  The liberals argue that the disabled component is only a small number 
of people, and that they should have the right to try to live 
independently and to try fit in if they can.
  Housing project managers tell me, however, that it only takes one 
disruptive disabled person to keep an entire building in a constant 
uproar.
  Disabled persons have no business being intermingled, as present 
Federal law mandates, with the elderly.
  The test for the elderly and others should be whether ages are high 
enough, whether incomes are low enough to make them eligible and 
whether they are capable of independent living.
  Our housing managers should not be required to minister to a 
population of disabled persons.
  They have no trained staff for the disabled. They are not nurses. 
They have no medical or other special qualifications for coping with 
those who refuse to take their prescribed medications.
  They are not skilled in criminal investigation often essential to 
preventing or eradicating drug-dealing rings who seek out elderly-only 
projects as ideal bases for drug selling.
  I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] for his 
crusade to keep this issue before the Congress.
  The gentleman brought the committee one of its most eloquent 
witnesses, Anneliese J. Belculfino of Worcester, MA.
  She is the tenant leader in her building. I will never forget her 
testimony:

       We have 199 apartments . . . . When I first moved in about 
     eight years ago, it was beautiful. Most tenants were senior 
     citizens.
       Now we have almost more young people in here than seniors.
       Most of the younger tenants are drug addicts or alcoholics 
     or both.
       Old ladies are afraid to ride with those people in the same 
     elevator. . . . A few times human waste was found in the 
     elevator. . . .
       Late at night prostitutes are being let into the building. 
     I have also seen drugs being dealt here outside near my 
     porch.
       A lady went to the laundry room to wash her clothes. She 
     places them in the dryer and goes to her apartment to do 
     a little housework while the dryer takes about one hour. 
     When she gets back to the laundry room her dryer is empty. 
     That happens quite a few times.
       I would like for the younger people to have their own 
     building and let the seniors live in peace and without fear 
     for the time they have left.

  And the problem seems to be getting worse. Actually, the magnitude 
makes no difference. None of this should ever happen at all.
  This bill would provide three approaches: Managers could keep seniors 
and addicted persons separated if the managers submit and win HUD 
approval of operational plans to do so under streamlined procedures.
  Such plans would be effective for 5 years under my amendment adopted 
by the committee, instead of for only 2 years as originally proposed.
  Public housing managers could refuse to mix senior citizens and 
persons with a history of drug and alcohol abuse.
  And druggies and alcoholics could be evicted for disruptive behavior 
under an expedited procedure.
  As far as our senior citizens are concerned the subject before us 
amounts to fear and powerlessness inflicted on them by the Federal 
Government in public housing.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, in July 1994 I received a letter from a 90-
year-old woman in my district, and she said:

       I live in a senior citizens' apartment building which now 
     accepts tenants with drug, alcohol, and emotional problems. 
     There have been several threatening instances caused by these 
     problem people. I no longer feel safe in this building.

  She signed the letter:

       Please help us.

  As a result of that letter, I made some inquiries and found that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] was to offer H.R. 117, and I 
became an original cosponsor. Since that time I have heard testimony 
which basically tells us of the terror of these senior citizens. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] spoke of a lady who saw her public 
housing building turned from a wonderful place to live to a nightmare. 
I heard testimony from a similar woman on our committee who said, and I 
am going to read her description:

       When I first moved in about 8 years ago, it was beautiful. 
     Most tenants were senior citizens. Now we have almost more 
     young people than seniors. Most of the young tenants are drug 
     addicts, or alcoholics, or both. Old ladies are afraid to 
     ride with these people in the same elevator. At night 
     prostitutes are being led into the building. I've seen drugs 
     dealt outside my porch. A lady went to the laundry room to 
     wash her clothes. She placed them in the dryer, goes back to 
     her apartment. When she returns, her dryer is empty. This 
     happens quite a few times. A few times human waste was found 
     in the elevator. I would like for the young people to have 
     their own building. Let the seniors live in peace and without 
     fear for the time they have left.

  I call on all of us in the time that these seniors have left, let 
them live in peace. Vote ``yes'' on this legislation.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Domestic and International Military Policy, a great 
Member of this body.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend 
Chairman Lazio and Congressman Blute, who have worked hard on this 
legislation and who have made a commitment to supporting and protecting 
older Americans. As a member of the Banking Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Development and a cosponsor of this bill, I am pleased that 
we are voting on this legislation today.
  The Senior Citizens Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act addresses 
a problem that has arisen both as a result of a national housing policy 
which allows for the mixing of elderly and disabled populations in 
public housing; and a 1988 law that expanded the definition of disabled 
to include former abusers of drugs and alcohol.
  Senior housing units were created to aid older or disabled people who 
needed a place to live by. By expanding the definition of disabled, we 
have virtually made seniors prisoners in their own homes. They are 
afraid to leave their own apartments due to the harassment, 
intimidation, and even physical abuse that they must endure at the 
hands of some so-called disabled residents who are living at the 
expense of American taxpayers.
  I have visited housing complexes in Delaware, and when I toured 
Electra Arms high-rise apartments and East Lake family housing complex, 
I heard time and time again from both the housing authorities and 
residents that other than weapons and crime in some of the lower income 
housing, they thought this was the single greatest problem which they 
face.
  Just last week, a female, a mentally disabled resident with a history 
of drug dependency who is not elderly, but is 

[[Page H 10656]]
living in the elderly-only Crestview Apartments in Wilmington, set fire 
to her 8th floor unit. The fire was set intentionally, and did 
considerable damage before being brought under control. Thankfully, no 
one was hurt. But, unfortunately our country's seniors endure 
incidences such as this every day.
  Seniors should feel protected and secure in their homes. This bill 
takes us one major step closer to making public housing communities 
safer and bringing peace of mind to residents.
  Again, I applaud the leadership of Chairman Lazio and Congressman 
Blute and urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my 
friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon really to say thank 
you to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work on this 
very, very important bill, and I tell my colleagues that this bill 
makes public housing safe for our seniors, and amen. We have waited for 
this day for a very, very long time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill employs better screening of potential tenants 
prior to admission and a more streamlined procedure for evicting 
tenants who put the health, and safety, and peaceful enjoyment of other 
residents at risk in senior housing.
  In addition, this legislation clarifies the ability of public housing 
authorities to create elderly-only, disabled-only and mixed population 
housing based on local needs.
  I have worked with elderly residents and public housing authorities 
in New Haven to ensure that such protections were passed into law as 
part of the Community Development Act in 1992.
  Seniors have the right to feel safe in their homes; particularly, 
elderly residents who can afford to live nowhere else.
  I am proud to join my Republican and Democratic colleagues today, as 
we embark on the next stage in providing seniors a safe and more secure 
living environment.
  The Community Development Act of 1992, included language to permit 
public housing authorities to designate certain projects for elderly-
only, for disabled residents only, or mixed housing. However, we did 
not provide the tools necessary to implement these laws. To date, only 
10 out of 3,400 local public housing authorities have had mixed housing 
plans approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  The Senior Citizens Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act, that we 
are taking up today, clarifies the rules for implementing these plans 
while providing essential safeguards against wrongful exclusion or 
eviction of tenants under current law.
  This can truly be an issue of life and death. In New Haven, CT, 
several years ago, an elderly public housing resident living in the 
Crawford Manor public housing development was killed by a non-elderly 
resident. This painful tragedy created a reaction of fear and 
resentment among the elderly, not only in Crawford Manor, but 
throughout the city.
  Despite the passage of the mixed housing legislation, I continue to 
receive letters from local tenants, organizations citing complaints 
from residents of elderly housing complexes regarding abusive or 
violent tenants.

                              {time}  1515

  Here is a portion of a letter I received from Sylvin Nisbet, 
president of the New Haven Tenants Representative Council in October of 
last year.

       The problems that certain persons are subjecting the 
     elderly to are extraordinary and catastrophic. I have 
     received complaints about fighting, lack of security, 
     intoxication, urine in hallways, loud, offensive, obscene 
     language, threats on seniors lives, confusion, disorder and 
     criminal activities. Senior citizens deserve to have a better 
     living environment. At the very least, we are entitled to our 
     rights of peace and quiet enjoyment in our apartments.

  Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with Sylvan Nesbitt. This bill 
will assist in achieving that peace and security and community that our 
seniors deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, let me make a personal comment here. My mother is 82 
years old. She sits on the city council in New Haven, CT. Five years 
ago at age 77 she said to me when I was elected to this body, ``If 
there is one issue that you can work on that I have seen day after day 
in every senior housing complex that I go into, it is the fear that 
seniors live in because of the situation with drug addicts and alcohol 
abusers.'' She said ``If you can work on anything, please see if you 
can do something about this.''
  I do not sit on this committee, but I have been active in this area. 
I applaud my colleagues for bringing this bill forward today, and 
helping me make good on a promise to my mother and to the seniors of 
the city of New Haven and the Third District and the seniors of 
Connecticut.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Weller], a fine member of the Subcommittee on 
Housing of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 117. I am proud to 
cosponsor this initiative with the chief sponsor, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. Speaker, let us keep this issue real simple. This bill rights a 
wrong, that wrong that jeopardizes the safety of my constituents, 
seniors living in senior housing. Today HUD bureaucrats say my seniors 
must live alongside recovering drug addicts and alcoholics, a situation 
that has forced many seniors to live in fear. In fact, according to 
testimony from seniors living in the Chicago housing authority and 
other public housing authorities in Joliet, Will, Grundy, Kankakee, and 
LaSalle counties, many seniors have been victims of rape, physical 
assault, and other violent crimes and are afraid. According to many of 
the news articles that many of us are sharing, and I will include this 
in the Record, they are afraid even to leave their apartments to go to 
the store, simple daytime activities.
  H.R. 117 rights this wrong and lets local housing authorities keep 
senior housing for seniors. This is authority they have asked for. I 
urge an aye vote. Let us allow our senior highrises to be safe 
housing for seniors. Keep senior housing safe for seniors by putting 
this into law.

  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article by Joseph Mallia:

                [From the Boston Herald, Feb. 22, 1994]

      Rape Victim Sues BHA--Says Attacker Should Have Been Evicted

                           (By Joseph Mallia)

       A 92-year-old woman who was raped in her elderly-housing 
     apartment two years ago is suing the Boston Housing Authority 
     for failing to protect her from her assailant, another 
     resident with a history of violence.
       The housing authority is responsible because officials knew 
     the assailant, Eric Lee Davis Jr., was dangerous but failed 
     to evict him, the woman maintains in her Suffolk Superior 
     Court civil suit.
       The woman's name was not made public because she was the 
     victim of a sexual crime.
       ``The elderly have been asking for help for years. But the 
     only time the BHA or other agencies take notice is when a 
     lawsuit is filed,'' said the victim's lawyer, Jeffrey A. 
     Newman. ``This was a man who would assault them, threaten 
     them, walk around without clothes--they were absolutely 
     responsible to evict him.''
       The attack ``severely psychologically damaged'' the victim 
     the lawyer said. ``She has essentially lost her independence. 
     She's untrusting and fearful.''
       BHA officials could not be reached for comment last night.
       Davis, who is 6-foot 3-inches and weights 190 pounds, was 
     found unfit to stand trial and was committed to Bridgewater 
     State Hospital, Newman said. After he was charged, Davis gave 
     police a tape-recorded confession, authorities said.
       Davis, who was 38 at the time of the attack, had faced a 
     previous attempted rape charge in a 1986 assault on a 66-
     year-old woman, law enforcement sources said. That charge was 
     dropped and Davis instead was civilly committed to 
     Bridgewater State Hospital for treatment, and later released.
       Federal law allows disabled and handicapped persons to live 
     in the Dorchester complex at 784 Washington St. which was 
     designed for the elderly. And elderly tenants of public 
     housing across the country face similar dangers, Newman said.
       For a year before the rape, Davis ``had harassed various 
     tenants; had threatened them; had demanded money and food 
     from them; had made a practice of roaming the hallways 
     causing various tenants to be afraid to walk the hallways 
     unaccompanied,'' according to court documentation.

[[Page H 10657]]

       Davis also ``roamed the halls semi-naked; loudly expressed 
     threats and desires to kill various people and to rape 
     various people, including tenants and his own mother; he 
     grabbed various tenants including the rape victims,'' the 
     lawsuit claims.
       He also forcibly kisses the victim, and forced his way into 
     elderly tenant apartments, the lawyer says.
       The lawsuit accuses the BHA and its officials with 
     ``deliberate indifference to a known danger . . . the 
     dangerous activities and proclivities of Eric L. Davis.''
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], another fine member of the committee.
  (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Blute] for his relentless commitment to senior citizens living in 
federally assisted housing. The reforms in H.R. 117 are long overdue. 
In title VI of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, 
Congress allows public housing authorities and federally assisted 
apartment owners to designate elderly only housing. However, problems 
still persist in mixed populations housing, especially in buildings 
where the level of nonelderly residents remain high or where drug- and 
alcohol-abusing much younger tenants continue to be admitted.
  Our seniors deserve to live in a peaceful environment free from the 
threats of violence and inappropriate conduct from a small group of 
residents. As a senior myself, I can understand the problems which 
arise when different age groups live in close proximity to each other. 
H.R. 117 provides the tools to fix this problem.
  This legislation will achieve the following:
  Authorizes public housing agencies to establish occupancy standards. 
This would allow public housing agencies to screen potential tenant 
first, before providing housing. The Everett Housing Agency in my 
district has had problems with some nonelderly tenants with alcohol 
abuse. If they could screen potential residents first, they can assist 
these individuals and direct them to treatment centers.
  Amend the lease provisions which give public housing agencies greater 
flexibility in evicting residents in cases where the behavior of one 
resident affects the safety of others.
  Last, nonelderly residents who do not display inappropriate behavior 
or are drug users are not evicted. I support this commonsense reform 
which will protect both our seniors and other tenants. I encourage my 
colleagues to support H.R. 117.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while I want to continue to be complimentary of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] on this bill, and other Members on 
the other side of the aisle with regard to their concerns about elderly 
only housing, we cannot ignore the fact that while this has taken place 
on the House floor today, this Congress, over the course of the last 
few months, has absolutely decimated the public housing budget of this 
country. We have seen a quarter of the Nation's housing eliminated by 
the Republicans in a move, at the same time while they are providing a 
tremendous tax cut to the richest people in this country.
  So while everybody is marching out to the House floor today 
indicating they are standing up for our Nation's senior citizens, let 
us recognize that there are millions and millions of Americans that are 
becoming senior citizens that will never get access to any housing 
because of the housing cuts that have taken place under the leadership 
of the Republicans that are now sanctimoniously standing up and looking 
as though they are protecting the seniors of the country. It is the 
height of hypocrisy to indicate that we are protecting seniors as we go 
about gutting the very programs and projects which they need.
  Mr. Speaker, we will see housing for senior citizens decimated at a 
result of these cuts. We will see homeless people created as a result 
of these cuts. We will see the homeless budget cut by 50 percent as a 
result of these cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, I just think it is unbelievable that people can stand up 
here on the House floor and look like they are standing up for our 
Nation's elders, like they want to stand up for every grandmother that 
writes them, and at the same time they walk in the back door and cut 
the very legs off of the programs that provide for this housing.
  Mr. Speaker, I just believe we ought to be honest with the American 
people, that if we are going to provide a $245 billion tax cut and at 
the same time go about absolutely decimating the public housing budget, 
absolutely decimating the assisted housing budget, and we go back in 
and try to pretend to people like we are actually doing them a favor, 
then it is just not intellectually honest, it does not hold up for the 
kind of politics that the Lincoln Republican Party has stood for in the 
past; that it in fact ends up going after and blaming the victims.
  We refer time and time again to the worst public housing, ignoring 
the fact that out of 34,000 public housing authorities in this country, 
33,300 of them are well-run. We cannot tell the difference between the 
private housing and the public housing. Yet, we go about indicting 
public housing, as a result of the worst public housing in America.
  Let us stand up for housing. Let us stand up for our senior citizens. 
Let us give them housing. Let us house our homeless. However, let us 
not do that, and the same time coming on the House floor and looking 
like we are acting and standing up for our Nation's seniors, and going 
in the back door and absolutely leveling the housing budgets that they 
depend on so they can lead a life of dignity in their senior years.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling].
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the following question: Is a $500 
credit for long-term care insurance, which every senior citizen wants, 
something for the rich? Is a $500 credit for home care something for 
the rich, which is part of that tax package? Is a $148 marriage penalty 
correction something for the rich? Is $5,000 for the adoption of a 
child something for the rich? Is $2,000 for an IRA for parents that 
stay at home with their children something for the rich?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo], one of the 
outstanding class of 1994.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our 
Nation's senior citizens. H.R. 117, the Senior Citizens' Housing Safety 
and Economic Relief Act, addresses a problem that is facing housing 
authorities throughout the country and in the Second District in New 
Jersey.
  For months now, the Housing Authority of the city of Millville has 
been attempting to designate its three highrises as ``elderly only'' 
under the bureaucratic nightmare imposed by current statutory and 
regulatory law. The delay that Millville has encountered in this 
designation has led to several problems. First, as we heard in the very 
compelling testimony presented to the committee, our senior citizens 
should be allowed to live together in peace and quiet without fear for 
their own safety. The current law simply delays Millville's ability to 
put this designation into effect. An additional effect of this delay is 
that without approval of the designation plan, the housing authority 
cannot acquire and renovate another building that will be used for 
housing the young disabled even though funding is available.
  Enactment of H.R. 117 will streamline the process of elderly or 
disabled only designations while also giving our housing authorities 
greater power to exclude those with a history of drug or alcohol abuse. 
The designation and exclusion provisions of this bill will ensure that 
seniors have clean and safe quality housing. I strongly support this 
very important legislation and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
our elderly and disabled by voting yes on H.R. 117.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to 
answer the allegations that were just made.
  The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the tax cuts 
that are being provided by the Republicans go to people with incomes 
above $100,000. There are some small provisions that trickle down to 
the working people,  

[[Page H 10658]]

and to people that fit certain categories, but the overwhelming 
majority of the benefits go to the richest people in the country, No. 
1; No. 2, the Republicans are gutting the Medicare program, they are 
gutting the Medicaid program; No. 3, they are gutting the basic 
standards for all of the nursing home care in this country.
  If we are going to talk about who is standing up for our Nation's 
senior citizens, go look at their own budget, go look at who benefits, 
who wins, and who loses.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez].
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and at the very outset wish to identify and adhere to his remarks 
and his position, and once again express my admiration for his superb 
leadership in this respect.
  Mr. Speaker, what the Republican cuts mean, simply put, is less 
housing, higher costs, and lower quality. We will see more homeless 
than ever before, and more people who are forced to choose between 
paying the rent and buying fuel. We should not delude ourselves that 
this is making things better, what we have here before us; housing will 
not be improved, that is, made possible to be improved. It will only be 
made worse.
  This bill may be a good and sensible thing in itself to do, but at 
the same time, the Republicans are intent on wrecking housing, not 
making it better. The Republicans are using this bill to look as if 
they are concerned, even as they wreck housing and housing programs. 
Therefore, while this bill in itself may be good, what comes next is 
the wrecking ball. That makes senior citizens and everyone else pay 
more and get a lot less.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood].
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to refocus the attention on what we 
are here to debate today, and try to be intellectually honest with the 
American people about what we are talking about. We are talking about 
the fact that we want to make the existing housing that exists in this 
country safe for senior citizens, and we are doing it in a bipartisan 
way.
  I think it is a little unfortunate that those Members that want to 
accuse Republicans of doing things against senior citizens do not take 
the time to do that in another place and another time, perhaps on the 
debate on budget reconciliation, or as you did during the Medicare 
debate, but the debate here today and the discussion here today is on 
the efforts of your colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Peter 
Blute, who, when he was elected, came here and introduced this bill 
while you were in control, not when we were talking about tax cuts.
  I think the gentleman from Massachusetts deserves an awful lot of 
credit for having the foresight to bring this bill to the House when he 
was first elected.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point 
out that we did pass this bill.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I know, and I think your colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, deserves an awful lot of credit for bringing it back up 
again, not the idea now that we are trying to use this to leverage and 
try to scare senior citizens, when what we are really trying to do is 
protect them.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make one comment about my own aunt. I have 
traveled all over central Illinois, whether it be in Jacksonville, 
Havana, Beardstown, Springfield, or my hometown of Peoria. My aunt is 
90 years old. She was lived in senior housing for 25 years. She is 
blind. She has lived in that housing scared to death for many years of 
the kind of people that were there.
  I think because of the leadership of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
Peter Blute, the gentleman from New York, Rick Lazio, and Members on 
the other side to bring this bill forward and to get it passed, not 
only in this House but in Senate, it is a credit to our majority, along 
with the minority, who care deeply about senior citizens and improving 
their community, because these senior housing projects are their 
community within a community. I laud all of those for getting the bill 
forward and ask support.

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in complete support of this important piece 
of legislation, not only for the country, but for my district as well. 
Next to balancing the Federal budget, public safety in our housing 
communities is something I hear about all the time. Everywhere I go, 
senior citizens tell me of the horror stories of having to live their 
lives terrified by crime in public housing facilities. Senior citizens 
are being held hostage, because crime is out of control. Our Nation's 
public housing facilities have become a breeding ground for criminals 
and criminal behavior. I am sometimes outraged at the stories told to 
me throughout my district. This must stop.
  Mr. Speaker, I also speak from personal experience. My 90-year-old 
aunt, Ann Tapscott, who happens to be blind, is a resident of the 
Sterling Towers Apartments in Peoria, Illinois. She has lived there for 
over 25 years. Not a day goes by in which she has not felt threatened 
by the drug activity at Sterling Towers. This type of activity is 
reprehensible,and we have an obligation to bring it to a halt.
  Fortunately, the bill we are considering today, H.R. 117, the Senior 
Citizens Housing Safety Act of 1995, would prohibit the placement of 
current or former drug and alcohol abusers in public housing that is 
specifically designated [section 202] for elderly, or elderly and 
disabled families. Mr. Speaker, I commend our colleague and friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute]. He has worked tirelessly, 
since 1992, on this issue. I wholeheartedly support the bill and urge 
its adoption by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, before closing, I would also like to thank my colleagues 
on the Banking Committee for their leadership in this issue. Senior 
citizens in central Illinois are truly grateful.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], a great Member of the new class.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, compassion should not be measured by how many 
people are in government housing, or by how much money we spend on 
government programs. Compassion should be measured by how few people 
are in government housing, and how efficient we use the limited 
resources we have in the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we have been to this floor and this 
House many times this year benefiting senior citizens. As a matter of 
fact, I believe that last Thursday when we passed the Medicare 
Preservation Act it was the most courageous vote that we will cast the 
whole time I am here, and I just got here, for senior citizens.
  This bill cures two problems that have been identified with senior 
citizens. Those who have equity that they can use to generate income on 
a monthly basis for themselves, and those who do not have home equity 
that are living in government housing to make that a safer place. For 4 
years my grandmother, at 85 years old and on a $450 a month income, 
campaigned to send me to Congress, and she died 10 months ago. Today 
she would be pleased.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules and a great 
Member of this body.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Long Island, NY 
[Mr. Lazio] for yielding time to me, and I congratulate him and the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
  Mr. Speaker, this bill fixes precisely the type of senseless, really 
I should say dumb, regulation that the Corrections Day process was 
created to address. Placing violent drug abusers and alcoholics 
intentionally into taxpayers subsidized senior housing project defies 
common sense. More important, it puts at risk some of the most frail of 
our society, as we have heard numerous times here.
  There have been numerous reports of seniors being harassed, abused, 
and even to the point of rape, because of this ill-conceived mandate 
that needs to be fixed. This is wrong, and like so many big government 
regulations, it is hurting real people across America.
  Mr. Speaker, obviously seniors should not have to live in fear of 
their neighbors. They should not have to endure criminal activity in 
their homes, 

[[Page H 10659]]
and they should not have to endure anxiety-causing rhetoric by 
architects of failed social experiments either. They should be allowed 
to enjoy their retirement peacefully, comfortably, and with dignity.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation 
which also extends the home equity conversion mortgage program, which 
is of great interest to many seniors.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], a distinguished member of the Committee 
on the Budget.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. I have always been 
puzzled why alcoholics and drug abusers are considered disabled with 
all the government rights and privileges that go with being disabled.
  Young alcoholics, young drug abusers should not be in senior citizen 
housing. They should not be in federally subsidized homes, and I am 
grateful we are finally coming to grips with this terrible problem.
  Senior citizen housing should be for the elderly and those who are 
truly disabled.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
   Mr. Speaker, once again I just want to say that I strongly support 
this legislation that we are acting on today. It is legislation that 
was passed in the last Congress. It was also interesting to see earlier 
this year when we were attempting to work out a policy that had been 
begun by Secretary Cisneros to get these drug abusers and alcoholics 
out of public housing, that was voted against by my Republican 
colleagues.
  The truth of the matter is, while people want to say well, there is 
some negativism with regard to the general attitude of the Democrats 
toward what is going on in the housing bill of this country, that is 
absolutely right. We are very negative about the fact that you can cut 
26 percent of an agency's budget without a single hearing and come back 
and then have a bill on the House floor that makes a small appeal to a 
particular group of people, and then try to pretend that that is 
representative of all of the things that you are trying to do in terms 
of senior citizens' housing.
   Mr. Speaker, we ought to be getting rid of this policy that is 
patently ludicrous policy, that we consider people disabled for the 
purposes of gaining access to public housing because they have drug 
abuse or alcoholic abuse in their histories. That is patently 
ludicrous. The Democratic Congress knew that, and passed a bill to fix 
it last year.
  The Republicans are now piling on, giving credit where it is not 
really due, but giving credit for passing this bill on the House floor 
today. I give them credit for having passed this bill in the committee; 
it is something we ought to do. But we ought not to lose sight of the 
fact that while we are doing this we are also gutting and decimating 
senior citizens' housing all across this country. We have cut a quarter 
of the Nation's housing budget and we are absolutely gutting the very 
homeless programs that are needed to back up the cuts in the programs 
that are providing public and assisted housing.
  So while I want to give credit, and I have given credit, to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] and others for their steadfast work, and it 
has been steadfast on this issue, we ought not to lose sight of the 
fact that at a time when we are taking a small step in moving senior 
citizens' housing forward, we are taking a large step backward in terms 
of all of the effects that the Republican policies will have on our 
Nation's seniors.
   Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the great responsibilities of this body is to 
care for those who cannot care for themselves, and it was with this in 
mind that an amendment had been offered earlier in the year to restore 
money for the section 202 program, which is the program for new 
construction for senior housing and for the disabled, and also for 
housing for people with AIDS. In the end, because of the changes that 
have been made as a result of that amendment, and because of the 
support in this body on a bipartisan basis, there will be more units 
available to the disabled and more units available to seniors than have 
been in the past, and that is a very positive thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to mention the fact that in this program 
we are working hard to give seniors the ability to take equity out of 
their own homes. This is not a handout. Back on Long Island, Betsy, 83, 
and Estelle, 90 years old, who live in Amityville, were able to use the 
reverse equity program to get a new heating system, to get a new roof 
on their home where there had been none before.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Blute], a great proponent of this legislation.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Leach, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lazio, 
and all of the Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who have 
worked to bring us to this point where we are dealing with this very 
important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, today we Members of Congress have a unique opportunity 
to right a historic wrong, a wrong-headed Federal policy that has 
allowed drug and alcohol abusers into senior housing which has caused 
the ruination of the lives of senior citizens from Los Angeles to 
Boston, from Chicago to Miami, and all over our great country. This is 
a policy that needs to change, and it needs to change today.
  The fact is that this situation violates the American people's sense 
of reasonableness, and it is having an impact out there among senior 
citizens.
  We now have a phenomena called Gray Flight in which senior citizens 
no longer even want to apply for senior housing because they know what 
is going on in those buildings.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this bill makes sense. It will right a historic 
wrong. I think we should stand up for common sense, for reasonableness, 
for sanity, and for senior citizens' protection, and I ask that the 
Members of this House on both sides of the aisle strike a blow for 
seniors living in senior housing and vote for this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 117 and I 
urge all of my colleagues to support it. While H.R. 117 does not break 
any new ground in terms of what a public housing authority can do to 
ensure the security and happiness of its senior residents, it does 
clarify the intent of Congress in this area. Furthermore, H.R. 117 is a 
good example of Members from both sides of the aisle working together 
to produce solid, fair legislation.
  It is clear that the law allowing disabled people into senior-only 
public housing, while extremely well intentioned, has led to problems. 
And, while we do not want to say that all handicapped people should be 
excluded from senior-only housing, it is clear that we should enable 
public housing authorities [PHA's] to make and enforce policies that 
ensure the rights of all senior citizens to pursue a safe and peaceful 
existence.
  H.R. 117 does, I believe, a good job of clarifying that the PHA's do 
have the power they need while at the same time ensuring that they 
cannot and should not use this law to act in a capricious or arbitrary 
manner. As originally brought before the full Banking Committee, H.R. 
117 contained some language that concerned me. Amendments which were 
adopted by Mr. Lazio and Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Flake and Ms. Waters, Mr. 
Ney and Mr. Weller, and Mrs. Roukema and myself, however, improved the 
bill considerably and eased many of my concerns.
  In the case of my amendment, I had concerns that by explicitly 
stating that PHA's could evict a person for disruptive or illegal 
behavior by others in their household or guests ``regardless of whether 
the resident had actual knowledge of such activity'' would provide 
disingenuous PHA's with too much authority to follow their own agendas. 
It would be wrong, for example, for a grandmother to be put out into 
the street because a grandson sold drugs from the apartment once, if it 
was done without her knowledge.
  At the same time, I do not believe that a claim of ignorance, 
especially when it is false, should absolve a person of all 
responsibility. For this reason, I feel comfortable that the language 
which is contained in the amendment offered today by Chairman Leach, 
which reflects the agreement between myself and Chairman Lazio, will 
allow a PHA to evict problem tenants while at the same time protecting 
the rights of the truly innocent.

  I believe that the legislation before us, which reflects the changes 
adopted in committee, is a good bill which will, hopefully, provide 
PHA's 

[[Page H 10660]]
with more clarity as to what they can do to cope with the problems 
facing their senior populations. The amendments accepted in committee 
were not compromises; rather I would view them as improvements. All of 
them addressed issues that we all felt were important, regardless of 
our party affiliation.
  In this vein, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the 
Banking Committee, especially Chairman Lazio, and their staff for their 
cooperation on this matter. While, as I said earlier, I had some 
concerns that in a few isolated cases the original text gave the PHA's 
too much discretion, Chairman Lazio and his staff worked hard to 
address my concerns and in the end I feel that we arrived at a product 
that is satisfactory to all involved.
  I am especially pleased to see this situation addressed by this 
Congress as it is a problem in Baltimore City. Since the 1988 change in 
regulations there have been several--too many, in fact--incidents in 
which the peace or safety of seniors living in public housing has been 
threatened. While Baltimore's PHA has taken steps to alleviate the 
problem, I understand that there are concerns as to whether or not such 
actions are legal. I hope that this bill will alleviate the city's 
concerns.
  As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation 
and I urge my colleagues to support it. Our seniors deserve to live in 
peace and safety.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 117, the 
Senior Citizens Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act of 1995. Passage 
of this measure is vital to ensure that our Nation's seniors are kept 
safe within their homes. I do not want any elderly public housing 
resident within my district, or any other district throughout the 
United States, to continue living in fear because their neighbor is 
abusing drugs or alcohol.
  Under the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA], people of any age 
with mental or physical disabilities can reside in any federally 
assisted housing program that is designated to house elderly families. 
This is good and fine. However, when current and former drug abusers 
fall under this disabled category, senior citizens do not receive the 
quiet, safe living conditions they deserve and expect. Instead, they 
are plagued by the threat of guns and violence. Such elderly residents 
of public housing are horrified to leave their houses in fear of 
falling victim to crime.
  As you can see, this effect of ADA is ridiculous and must be changed. 
On this corrections day, we must right a wrong and prevent drug abusers 
from disrupting the lives of seniors. H.R. 117 will allow public 
housing authorities to evict drug abusing tenants living in elderly 
family housing. I urge each of you to join me in voting in favor of 
this bill to protect our nation's seniors. The elderly population must 
be afforded the right to live the duration of their lives with peace of 
mind in safe surroundings.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
bill. This measure addresses the fundamental concerns of seniors--fear 
for their economic and physical safety.
  The right of seniors to continue to live in their own neighborhoods, 
and their right to live in peace, will be enhanced by this legislation.
  That is why I was working on a legislative response to the problem of 
ensuring safety in senior housing and I welcome today's response to 
this thorny issue.
  That is why I became the first original cosponsor of my colleague 
from New York's renewal and expansion of the Home Equity Conversion 
Mortgage Program that has been incorporated into this bill.
  Rhode Island has a special interest in the survival of this program. 
Three-hundred and sixty-three Rhode Islanders have benefited from the 
conversion program since its inception in 1989, giving us one of the 
top five participation rates in the country.
  The typical conversion participant in Rhode island is 72 years old, 
with an annual income of $13,000.
  The conversion program is ideally suited to the needs of Rhode 
Island's senior population.
  Sixty-two percent of older Rhode Islanders own their own homes.
  In 1989, the median income of households for persons over 65 was only 
$16,403.
  This program targets those in need with help tailored to their 
particular circumstances.
  This bill could not have come at a better time, because after what 
was approved last week and what stands to be enacted later this week, 
seniors are going to need to mortgage their homes more than ever.
  More seniors will need to mortgage their homes to pay medical bills.
  More seniors will need to mortgage their homes to pay heating bills.
  More seniors will need to mortgage their homes to pay basic daily 
expenses.
  This bill will provide comfort to some, but nothing compared to the 
harm caused by the cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and housing programs.
  It will provide little comfort to seniors who know that promises made 
to them are being broken.
  It will provide little comfort to a senior whose Medicare premiums 
will double over the next 7 years.
  It will provide little comfort to a senior whose public housing rent 
will go up at the same time the quality of that housing will decline.
  It will provide little comfort to a senior who will have to say 
goodbye to the doctor who took care of them for years as they are 
hustled into managed care.
  It will provide little comfort to a senior whose spouse is in a 
nursing home where restraints, inadequate staffing, drugging patients, 
and people sitting in their own waste are once again common practice.
  But this bill will provide comfort to politicians looking for cover.
  Those who today vote to protect seniors, are doing seniors no service 
if last week and this Thursday they vote to dismantle Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  These are conflicts that cannot be reconciled.
  The safety offered to seniors in this bill is real and laudable, but 
let's be honest: it pales in comparison to the safety seniors are 
losing in almost every other measure considered in this Congress.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. H.R. 
117 reauthorizes the home equity conversion mortgage, an important 
option for seniors that want to stay in their own homes and need a 
financial fix to do so. H.R. 117 also clarifies the abilities that 
public housing authorities [PHA's] have to protect seniors in public 
housing.
  Congress has moved several times in the past few years to address the 
controversial issue of mixed populations in public housing that had 
been designated as senior buildings. In 1992, the Banking Committee 
worked very diligently to set up a fair residency procedure for PHA's 
to set up elderly-only buildings, disabled-only buildings, and mixed 
buildings. Last year, the House passed an amendment to clarify the 
screening capabilities of PHA's with regard to nonelderly substance 
abusers and this bill today is a continuation of that process. I am 
pleased that we are moving today to clarify the role of the PHA's 
screening so that our seniors do not have to pay the price because of 
the bad behavior of some tenants.
  The bill reauthorizes the HECM program. The success of the HECM or 
reverse mortgage program in Minnesota has been outstanding, and the 
program has had a positive impact across the Nation. In Minnesota, 
through September of this year, some 298 reverse mortgage loans have 
been closed, with 25 or so pending or planned to go to closing in 
October. These 300-plus loans are the result of 853 formal counseling 
interactions that were the result or roughly 5,000 calls of inquiry 
within Minnesota.
  In 1992, Congress reauthorized this demonstration program and 
extended its authority to 25,000 loans. Although under 10,000 reverse 
mortgages have been issued, the authority has expired and we need to 
reauthorize it quickly today.
  This reverse mortgage program, with this important extension of 
authorization, will serve many more senior homeowners, improving their 
quality of life. Reverse mortgages enable people to remain in their 
homes and permit the use of their own equity to enhance their lives. 
The reverse mortgage authority has a minimal impact on the Federal 
budget--through the Federal Housing Administration--and, in fact, 
reduces the demand on subsidized housing and some nursing home 
placements because of home health care payments facilitated by such a 
choice. The reverse mortgage program targets lower income seniors and 
today has afforded close to 10,000 people the opportunity to maintain 
ownership while meeting important personal and health needs. In fact, 
reverse mortgages have been used to prevent foreclosures because of 
back taxes or ill-advised home equity loans as well as for other needs.
  I am pleased we are seeing rapid action on at least this measure and 
hope that we will continue to work positive on housing policies. To 
date as this Congress has moved, it unfortunately is making disastrous 
cuts in the overall housing budget that I cannot and do not support.
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in supporting H.R. 
117, the Senior Citizen Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act of 1995. 
I was pleased to cosponsor this legislation for our vulnerable senior 
citizens who live in public housing and who have a right to feel safe 
in their homes. There is a crisis across this country, brought about 
because of misguided housing policies that have allowed drug and 
alcohol abusers to live side by side with vulnerable senior citizens. 
The law was intended to provide housing for seniors and the disabled. 
Drug abusers have figured out that if they tell public housing 
officials that their drug addictions make them disabled, they too can 
claim public housing rights--next door to our most vulnerable elderly 
Americans.

[[Page H 10661]]

  The Senior Citizens Housing Safety Act prohibits current or former 
drug and alcohol abusers from being placed in public housing which was 
specifically set aside for the elderly, disabled, and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, as a senior citizen and a veteran, I think it is a 
disgrace to treat our seniors this way. During a recent hearing on this 
legislation, the House Banking committee heard shocking testimony from 
seniors terrified to go outside their homes, and seniors who told us 
they were repeatedly preyed upon by their drug addict neighbors. The 
Senior Citizens Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act takes care of 
this problem.
  If a public housing project was built for senior citizens, then 
senior citizens shouldn't have to fear for their lives if they live 
there. Public housing bureaucrats have used a loophole in the law to 
let dangerous drug addicts move next door to elderly men and women who 
never hurt anyone. It is a disgrace that we have allowed this to happen 
to the same generation that protected this country in World War II.
  Mixing drug addicts with senior citizens was never a good idea. It's 
not what the law was intended to do. As a former chief of police, I 
know the elderly are particularly vulnerable to crime. I'm delighted to 
help protect them.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker I rise in strong support of H.R. 117, the 
Senior Citizens Housing Safety Act of 1995. I commend the committee for 
its leadership in recognizing the urgent need to address this serious 
and distinct issue affecting elderly persons living in public housing.
  Nationwide, housing authorities have been struggling with problems 
arising from mixed populations residing in housing originally 
established for the elderly. These problems present serious challenges 
for our Nation's public and assisted housing authorities who have to 
balance the needs of our senior citizens, while at the same time, 
provide housing and other specialized services for the nonelderly, in 
particular the physically and mentally disabled.
  Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as a member of the VA/HUD and Independent 
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, I was able--a few years ago--with 
the support of my colleagues to include provisions in the 
appropriations bill that would allow the establishment of projects in 
which only elderly residents would be permitted to live. In addition, 
reasonable efforts were taken to provide alternative housing to 
handicapped and disabled persons, and to set aside certain other 
housing assistance for such persons.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the definition of eligible disabled 
populations includes certain substance abusers who tyrannize other 
residents. This is often the case in those units were mixed populations 
reside together. It is unconscionable that we place our Nation's 
elderly in such unsafe and fearful environments.
  H.R. 117 gives housing authorities the ability to rid their 
developments of unsavory individuals who have overwhelmed housing 
authorities across this Nation. Our support of this measure sends a 
strong message of support not only to our seniors but to public housing 
authority directors who are forced to operate under increasing deficits 
and declining Federal support.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will support H.R. 117 today 
and also stand up for all other residents of public housing during 
later deliberations on funding for federally assisted housing.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 117, the 
Senior Citizens Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act of 1995.
  All too often, I have spoken with residents of my State's senior 
housing complexes who are concerned about their safety and quality of 
life. For too many, expectations of a quiet, all-elderly environment 
have gone unfulfilled because of a few drug abusing neighbors who are 
so disruptive that seniors are afraid to leave their apartments. 
Instead of enjoying the golden years of life with their contemporaries, 
our older citizens have been unable to live in the type of peaceful 
environment that was promised to them.
  This legislation will clarify the current discrepancy in the mixed 
population language for section 8 housing. H.R. 117 will allow public 
housing officials to deny admission to persons whose use and abuse of 
alcohol and illegal drugs causes a severe threat to the security and 
well-being of our senior citizens. It establishes specific terms and 
conditions for leases with respect to termination of tenancy. The bill 
also provides for an expedited grievance hearing process before local 
public housing authorities, allowing these potential problems to be 
solved much quicker.
  I believe that this legislation is an important step toward resolving 
this issue. For many, public or subsidized housing is the only 
opportunity for decent, affordable housing. We must continue to expand 
the supply of such housing for all Americans. Indeed, the root of the 
mixed-population issue is really the lack of affordable housing options 
in many of our communities. The final solution to this problem will 
come when we are able to provide adequate, decent, safe, and affordable 
housing for Americans of all ages.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and make our senior housing 
complexes safe again.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to the rule, the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed until 5 p.m. this evening.

                          ____________________