[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4559-H4643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
U.S. HOUSING ACT OF 1996
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 426 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 426
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2406) to repeal the United States Housing Act
of 1937, deregulate the public housing program and the
program for rental housing assistance for low-income
families, and increase community control over such programs,
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title
rather than by section. The first two sections and each title
shall be considered as read. Points of order against the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure
to comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. Before
consideration of any other amendment it shall be in order to
consider the amendment printed in the Congressional Record of
May 7, 1996, pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, if offered
by Representative Lazio of New York or his designee. That
amendment shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
ten minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against that amendment are waived. If that amendment is
adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the
original bill for the purpose of further amendment. During
further consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6
of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone
until a time during further consideration in the Committee of
the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment. The
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less
than five minutes the time for voting by electronic device on
any postponed question that immediately follows another vote
by electronic device without intervening business, provided
that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in
any series of questions shall be not less than fifteen
minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
made in order as original text. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion except one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. After passage of H.R. 2406, it shall be in order to
take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 1260 and to
consider the Senate bill in the House. It shall be in order
to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate
bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R.
2406 as passed by the House. All points of order against that
motion are waived. If the motion is adopted and the Senate
bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall be in order to
move that the House insist on its amendments to S. 1260 and
request a conference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 1 hour.
[[Page H4560]]
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Woodland Hills, CA [Mr.
Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, now I will proceed with giving the same
explanation the reading clerk just gave.
Mr. Speaker, in the tradition of past housing rules, this rule
provides an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2406, the U.S.
Housing Act of 1996. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
The rule makes in order the Banking Committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and
provides that the substitute be considered as read.
All points of order against the substitute for failure to comply with
clause 5(a) of rule 21 are waived. This waiver is necessary because
several sections of the substitute relate to the disposition of
appropriations due to changes in existing housing law.
The rule provides that the substitute shall be considered by title
and the first two sections and each title shall be considered as read.
If further makes in order, before consideration of any other amendment,
an amendment printed in the Congressional Record of May 7, 1996, if
offered by Representative Lazio of New York or his designee.
That amendment shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a
division of the question, and all points of order are waived.
{time} 1445
If the amendment is adopted, the bill as amended shall be considered
as an original bill for this purpose of further amendment. Members who
have preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their
consideration will be given priority in recognition to offer their
amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules.
The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce votes to
5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
The rule also provides for one motion to recommit, with or without
instruction. Finally, the rule provides that after passage of the House
bill, it will be in order to take up the Senate bill to move to insert
the House-passed provisions in the Senate bill, and to move to request
a conference with the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, despite all of the parliamentary mumbo-jumbo that I have
just gone through, this is a bona fide open rule. Over the years, I had
the honor of referring to the former chairman of the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services and the Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], as Mr.
Open Rule, because of his commitment to bring to the floor major
housing bills under an open rule. It is a distinction that I look
forward to bestowing upon the current chairman of the Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Opportunity, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio].
While an open rule on a bill of this nature will be time-consuming
and contentious, 75 amendments were offered in the Committee on Banking
and Financial Services alone, it is necessary. Housing policy must be
seen in the context of broader welfare policy.
Members have strong feelings about the impact of Federal housing
programs on low-income families and how these programs should be
reformed. An open rule will allow all issues to be debated and will
strengthen public confidence in whatever program changes we
collectively decide to move ahead with.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the changes called for in H.R. 2406 are
long overdue. Our public housing programs are a failure, and those
failures have been known to us for nearly two decades. Yet, until now,
Congress has failed to offer effective solutions to addressing the
housing and economic needs of poverty-level families. Instead, we have
continued to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on costly and
inefficient public housing programs that encourage waste, fraud, and
abuse while destroying urban communities and relegating tenants to
second-class status in Third World living conditions.
H.R. 2406 will improve housing conditions and economic opportunity
for tenants by substantially deregulating public housing and giving
authorities the flexibility they need to operate efficiently and
effectively.
While 2406 does not fundamentally alter the Federal Government's
intrusion into the housing market, nor does it reduce the size of HUD's
bureaucracy, it will go a long way toward reforming our failed public
housing programs. For that, I applaud Chairman Lazio for his successful
efforts in bringing this bill forward. I look forward to working with
him to bring about similar reforms to the remainder of HUD's
bureaucracy so we can enhance local control, reduce administrative
overhead and cost burdens, maximize the direct flow of housing
assistance, and promote our ultimate objective, which is the
achievement of economic self-sufficiency for low-income families.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2406 is a good bill that deserves our support. More
importantly, this rule provides for an open amendment process that will
allow all the policy issues to be debated.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we support this open rule for the consideration of H.R.
2406, the U.S. Housing Act of 1996, and we commend our colleagues for
bringing this open rule to the floor. Certainly, the rule for taking up
legislation to repeal the housing laws of this Nation, which have been
in effect since 1937, should be open and unrestricted. It should
permit, as this rule does, every Member to have an opportunity to offer
amendments that are germane. We are nonetheless very disturbed, as we
know the majority of the Committee on Rules are, too, about the manner
in which the manager's amendment made in order under the rule was
handled.
The manager's amendment, which changes many portions of the bill, was
never presented, Mr. Speaker, to the Committee on Rules. That failure
to follow our regular procedure raises serious concerns about this
disgregard for the deliberative nature of the legislative process, as
well as the effect it could have on millions of Americans who live in
public or assisted housing.
But because the Republican leadership insisted on moving the housing
bill today, the Committee on Rules was faced with a situation that all
of us, I believe, found untenable, having to approve a rule for a major
piece of legislation that neither the majority nor the minority on any
of the committees had seen.
We trust that we shall not be placed in this situation again, either
by the committee appearing before the Committee on Rules or by the
leadership. In this case in particular, the legislation is not only
momentous in nature, but it is also very complex. The public and all
Members interested in our Nation's housing policy should have had the
opportunity to see the exact wording of the manager's amendment and to
comment on it to Members of the Congress. And for Members wishing to
offer amendments, the availability of language that they are seeking to
amend is essential in preparing responsible amendments. That language
should have been available for a reasonable length of time.
Mr. Speaker, the issues this legislation is addressing are not minor
ones. We are dealing with a bill that makes several substantial and
significant changes in U.S. housing policy, all of which we believe
could hurt people currently living in public and assisted housing. This
legislation, by repealing the Housing Act of 1937, will result in a
total rewriting of U.S. housing policy. We are dealing with legislation
that, by eliminating the caps on rent paid by seniors and working
families and eliminating targeted housing assistance,
[[Page H4561]]
could have a very negative effect on senior citizens and on families
with children who live in public housing. This is legislation that
would block grant Federal funding for public housing and low-income
rental assistance. We question whether these block grants will, as its
proponents believe, save money. Rather, we fear they may end up hurting
the very people they are proposing to help.
Mr. Speaker, the bill would also repeal the Brooke amendment, which
caps rent for tenants in public and assisted housing at 30 percent of
income. The repeal of the Brooke amendment would force many tenants in
public housing to make the impossibly difficult decision between
shelter and food and medicine. We fear it could lead to greater
homelessness in this country.
By eliminating the protection of the Brooke amendment, the bill would
permit housing authorities to set rents based on the real estate
market, with little regard to how much money people can afford to pay.
It is inconceivable that we are denying people an increase in the
minimum wage at the same time we are enacting a demonstration project,
included in the manager's amendment, to grant the 300 largest housing
authorities in the country permission to raise the rents of the working
poor.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we will move to defeat the previous
question, so we may offer an amendment dealing with an increase in the
minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about people who make a great amount
of money. We are talking about families who live in public and assisted
housing, whose income averages only $6,400 a year. Forty-one percent of
these people are seniors or are disabled. The remaining 59 percent are
families with children. They are among the most vulnerable people in
our society. At a time when one quarter of American children live in
poverty, this Congress should be doing everything possible to help take
care of them.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, we fear, would only hurt them. Mr. Speaker,
although we are not opposed to this open rule, we commend our friends
on the other side of the aisle for offering this as an open rule. We
are very much opposed to much of the substance of the bill, and we urge
our colleagues to give it very careful consideration when it later
comes before us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Greene], a very able Member and a colleague
on the Committee on Rules.
Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and
the underlying bill, the U.S. Housing Act of 1996. This rule will
provide for the open consideration of an extremely important matter,
our Federal low-income housing policy.
This is truly historic legislation. I want to commend Chairman Lazio
for his tireless efforts on behalf of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, for decades we have consigned those residing in Federal
low-income housing to conditions worse than those found in our Federal
prisons. Notorious housing projects across the country have imprisoned
families in deplorable and often hopeless conditions.
This legislation will bring real reform to our Federal low-income
housing policy. It will pull back the heavy hand of Washington and
empower communities to improve their neighborhoods.
In addition, as part of the manager's amendment that will be made in
order under the rule, Chairman Lazio has generously included an
amendment I intended to offer elsewhere. This amendment will correct a
flaw in the 1990 Housing and Community Development Act that
discriminates against cities that participate in the Community
Development Block Grant Program.
Under the 1990 act, metropolitan cities and urban counties that
qualify for 2 consecutive years are deemed to permanently retain their
program status. However, the method in which these grants are awarded,
on a 3-year basis for counties but only a 1-year basis for cities,
results in an unfair disadvantage for cities. Currently, a county needs
to qualify only once, but a city must do so for 2 consecutive years.
Because of this bias against cities, a city in my district, the city
of West Jordan, has been denied their status as a metropolitan city
since 1993. Under the manager's amendment, metropolitan cities would
now receive the same treatment as urban counties. This is a change that
is long overdue.
I would like to thank Congressman Lazio for his generosity in
including this correction within the manager's amendment made in order
under this rule.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill so that we can
take an important step to improve our Federal low-income housing
policy.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I'm urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question
and allow us a clean vote on raising the minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, the longer this minimum wage debate goes on, the more
I'm reminded of a story I once heard about a hot dog company.
The company was having trouble selling its hot dogs, so they called a
big meeting with all the department heads to find out what was wrong.
The marketing director says, ``it's not the marketing. We've won all
kinds of awards.''
The production supervisor says, ``it's not the production line. We're
running at full capacity.''
The shipping supervisor says, ``it's not the shipping. All of our
trucks are running on time.''
The CEO says, ``I don't understand. If everything is running well,
what's the problem?''
From the back of the room a janitor says, ``The problem is, kids
don't like your hot dogs.''
Mr. Speaker, it's the same thing with the Republican agenda. Every
week we get a new theory about the Republican problems.
One week it's a strategy problem. The next week it's a message
problem. This week, the Speaker says it's a media problem. When are
Republicans going to learn--it's not just the strategy that keeps
failing. It's the ideas.
The American people don't want to cut Medicare to pay for tax breaks
for the wealthy.
They don't want to cut education to pay for tax breaks for big oil
companies--as the majority leader proposed this weekend.
They don't want to allow CEO's to raid corporate pension funds.
But that's what you've tried to do the past 18 months. The Republican
agenda is out of touch with the needs of America's families.
Eighty-five percent of the American people say: ``raise the minimum
wage.''
Yet, the majority leader says he'll oppose a minimum wage increase
with every fiber of his being. The majority whip says that minimum wage
families ``don't really exist.''
And the Republican conference chairman went so far to say that he
would commit suicide before voting to raise the minimum wage.
Never mind that that the minimum wage is at a 40-year low. Never mind
that the majority of the people working for the minimum wage are
mothers trying to raise their kids and stay off welfare.
For 18 months, Republican leaders have blocked us at every single
turn.
And now, instead of raising the minimum wage, here we are today
considering a bill that will raise rents on people who earn the minimum
wage.
Forty-one percent of the people who lived in assisted housing are
senior or disabled.
The rest are working families with children.
Many of them make the minimum wage or less.
In fact, the average income of these working families is $6,400 a
year--which is less than half the poverty level. And yet, this bill
will give landlords a blank check to raise rents through the roof.
This bill operates under the theory that there aren't enough homeless
people in America--so we have to create more of them.
Mr. Speaker, if you're wondering why over 60 percent of the American
people disapprove of the Republican agenda. This is the reason.
Fortunately, some of our Republican colleagues are beginning to see
the light.
[[Page H4562]]
Twenty-one brave Republicans have co-sponsored a bill to raise the
minimum wage.
Unfortunately, 12 of them have voted ``no'' every single time we've
tried to bring the issue to the floor.
So we are giving you another chance here today.
Please help us Chris Shays, Spencer Bachus, Frank Cremeans, Bob
Franks, Steve Horn, Amo Houghton, Nancy Johnson, Steve LaTourette, Rick
Lazio, Bill Martini, Jack Metcalf, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Help us raise the minimum wage for 12 million working Americans.
All of you had the courage to cosponsor a bill to raise the minimum
wage.
Now we're asking you to put your vote where your heart is, help us
defeat the previous question, raise the minimum wage, and give over 12
million Americans the dignity and respect they deserve.
They have chosen, they have chosen work over welfare. They ought to
be rewarded. We ought to make work pay. Help us defeat the previous
question.
{time} 1500
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the eloquence of my friend from Michigan has
led me to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, under House rule IX, which requires that a
Member must confine himself to the question under debate, is it
relevant to the debate on either this rule or the bill it makes in
order to engage in a discussion of the merits of the minimum wage?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As explained on page 529 of the manual and
reiterated by the Chair last week, debate on a special order for
consideration of a bill may range to the merits of the bill to be made
in order but should not range to the merits of a measure not to be
considered under that order.
Mr. DREIER. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Could the
Chair enlighten us as to the subject matter of the question that is
under debate at this point?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. House Resolution 426, the rule providing for
consideration of the bill H.R. 2406, to repeal the U.S. Housing Act of
1937, deregulate the public housing program and the program for rental
housing assistance for low-income families, increase community control
over such programs and for other purposes.
Mr. DREIER. I thank the Speaker very much.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my dear friend and colleague, the
gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce].
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule
and H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act, and to remind my friends this is a
rule on a historic housing bill, nothing else. This important
legislation sets the Nation's public housing system on a course that
will save families and neighborhoods from the grasp of the welfare
state.
H.R. 2406 starts by repealing the outdated Housing Act of 1937 and
begins sending power back to local communities and away from
Washington, where residents, nonprofit organizations, and community
leaders will determine which housing policies work best for them and
their neighborhoods.
Mr. Speaker, tenants in America's public housing system deserve a
break. They deserve a break from overcrowding, crime, and insecurity.
This legislation will allow tenants with low and moderate incomes to
share neighborhoods, and gives the poorest of American citizens a
chance to escape poverty-stricken areas through the use of vouchers.
Mr. Speaker, I also urge my colleagues to support the manager's
amendment which strengthens the bill's ability to provide safe and
affordable housing. The manager's amendment prevents housing
authorities from overcharging the Nation's poorest tenants as well as
the elderly and disabled.
This amendment further ensures that adequate housing be available for
our Nation's most needy, and taxpayers will benefit from provisions of
the amendment which establish criteria to replace costly, ineffective
housing projects with private housing vouchers.
Additionally, the manager's amendment addresses the problem of
overcrowding, which threatens to undermine even the most successful
housing projects by creating unhealthy living conditions that isolate
the poorest and most dependent citizens. The manager's amendment
remedies this problem by allowing States, not HUD, to set occupancy
standards. This provision cures the problems of overcrowding in one
simple step.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Lazio for his leadership and fine
work on this historic legislation and urge my colleagues to support the
rule. America's housing system needs a shot in the arm. Chairman Lazio
and the fine work of his committee and the U.S. Housing Act provide
that.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the ranking member of the policy
committee.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, the House soon will take up the Housing
Act of 1996, a bill that in large part aims to force the residents of
public housing to pay more rent.
But this is trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip--75 percent of
the people who live in public housing make less than one-third of the
median income. Even if the minimum wage were increased by 90 cents an
hour, it would not be enough to raise the income of a family to the
poverty level.
So it is exceedingly ironic that we are going to raise the rent of
the poorest people in America, while denying them an increase in the
minimum wage, which the Republicans will not even permit the House to
vote on.
Here we are, telling the poor to be self-sufficient, when the House
will not even guarantee a poverty-level wage.
It is shameful. I do not know anybody who enjoys being poor. I do not
know anybody who likes working for a wage that does not pay the rent
and grocery bill. And I do not know anybody who believes that it makes
sense to add ever-greater burdens to the elderly, the disabled, and the
struggling poor and exhort them to do better--all the while saying that
we won't adjust the minimum wage to make up for the buying power it has
lost since 1988, the last time it was changed. It is wrong and it is
unjust, it is shameful to prevent a vote on the minimum wage while the
House is telling the poor to pay more rent, as it is today.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vineland, NJ [Mr. LoBiondo], a very able new Member of Congress.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
rule and H.R. 2406, the United States Housing Act of 1996. As a member
of the Banking Committee, I have seen the hard work of Chairman Lazio
over the past several months and I believe that he is bringing a very
good bill to the floor today.
H.R. 2406 will repeal the long since outdated Housing Act of 1937.
This Depression-era legislation has been altered over the years to the
point that local governments and local housing authorities have very
little flexibility in meeting the housing needs of their own
communities. H.R. 2406 will abandon the notion that HUD should
micromanage every aspect of public housing through one-size-fits-all
regulations. With this legislation we will return the power to local
communities.
This bill rewards good housing authorities with less Federal
regulation and helps those already good public housing authorities to
better serve the needs of low-income families at a lower cost to the
taxpayer. Just as we are rewarding good operations, H.R. 2406 inflicts
severe punishments on those authorities that have failed the American
public year after year. This bill provides the tools to end these
embarrassments that have wasted so many taxpayer dollars without
helping those of our society who are in need.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Lazio for his work on this
legislation and for his vision. With these reforms, I believe we will
see the creation of neighborhoods and communities of which we all can
be proud.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and in
favor of H.R. 2406.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
[[Page H4563]]
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It is an
open rule. However, it does include a manager's amendment which was not
fully explained. It is in the Record today but nevertheless, it makes
in order certain nongermane amendments which I think should have
complied with the rules of the House, and not be waived by the rule
that is before us.
Furthermore, I join others in objecting to the procedure of this
House floor, when important matters for the last months have been
denied a vote on this House floor by this Committee on Rules and by
others. It could have easily made in order legislation that would
provide for the consideration of legislation to raise the minimum wage.
That is directly related to the proposition that we have before us,
Mr. Chairman, because the fundamental tenet of this bill is public and
assisted housing, trying to help those that have to attain sanitary and
safe housing. In fact, since 1937 our Nation has championed public and
assisted housing to meet that need. Today we have 1.3 million families
in public and assisted housing.
The fact is that unfortunately, 13 million families are eligible for
such housing today, and that is a direct result of the economic
disparities that exist in our American economy and in our society. The
fact is that the minimum wage is one of the major means that we have,
one of the major tools that we have available to change those
disparities.
It is important I think that we have other programs such as housing,
that we have other programs such as health care programs that rise to
try and meet and set minimum standards for individuals, but I think we
need to start with the world of work. We need to make work pay. We need
to give people the autonomy of having a stake in our society, that that
job would actually give the type of wages that is necessary to sustain
them and to meet their basic family needs.
Too often American workers are forced to take jobs that pay
substandard wages and have no health benefits, yet my Republican
colleagues will say you don't need to raise the minimum wage because it
will hurt American workers. Well, it is not quite clear to me how
giving 10 million American workers a 90 cents raise over the next 2
years will hurt them? Especially since the real value of the current
minimum wage has fallen by one-quarter over the past 15 years.
At a time when U.S. corporations are making record profits and the
economy is strong and stable, it is unreasonable that working families
receive wages far below the poverty level. This is the unhappy and sad
status of our society as we move into the 21st century. Whatever means
American workers had to achieve a minimum standard of pay in the past
has been broken over the last decades.
This condition--this circumstance must stop and be corrected. Our
Nation should be moving beyond even a minimum wage to be a livable wage
for workers and their families. Our workers deserve to be paid a fair
day's wage for a fair day's work. Employers and corporations must be
held accountable to provide a fair shake to American working families.
The annual pay for a full time minimum wage earner is $8,840. This is
not an exorbitant wage. Imagine a family trying to live on this amount.
It may not seem possible, but it is done every day in this country.
There is a serious problem in our society when hard-working families,
holding down full-time jobs, cannot earn enough to bring their families
out of the poverty cycle, while company executives earn an average of
70 times that of their average employee.
Let's not make America a caste system. We need to raise the minimum
wage and ensure workers are paid a fair and livable wage. We need to
let this Republican Congress know that we will fight to protect workers
and that promoting the special interest of mega-corporations at the
expense of working Americans is wrong. We need to return to the days
when a worker made for a family, a wage that provides a decent home and
a good opportunities for his or her family--the promise of America. We
need to give dignity and justice back to American working families
which they earn every day on the job.
We as a Congress should do all that we can to try and enhance the
wages of those persons so that they can meet their housing needs, so
that they can put food on the table, so that they can meet their health
needs. But unfortunately today this Congress is demonstrating a refusal
to consider raising the minimum wage even 90 cents or a dollar, which
in fact would affect nearly 13 million American workers.
These are not teenagers. Half of them are over 25 years of age, and
many of them are the very individuals that we are talking about in
terms of this assisted and public housing. One individual article
pointed out that almost everyone in this country is that available for
housing, that needs it, can get public housing.
As I have said, only about 10 percent of the poor actually, there is
only that much housing, so 90 percent are out there struggling and
sometimes they fail. Sometimes they end up homeless. They are out there
trying to get the health care and take care of their basic needs. But
the best thing that we could do for them is to provide an opportunity,
a minimum wage that would help them meet their own needs, to make work
pay.
That is really what this should be about. This Congress should be
busy on that track to try and respond, not to create more transfer
programs. Even now I see that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have a new-found affinity for the earned income tax credit. But
again, that is a transfer payment. It is a good program. We pushed it,
I think, as far as it probably can go.
The fact is we should not be subsidizing the mega corporations and
others that are refusing to actually pay a minimum wage, a livable
wage. When we stop and think about what a minimum wage is, it is only
$8,800 a year. Very few families are going to be able to survive on
that.
What is happening here in this particular bill is that we are pulling
the rug out from under the public in assisted housing programs so that
we are limiting basically the amount of assistance. In fact, we are
really repealing the 1949 law. It is not just the repeal of a law that
is archaic. It is not archaic. I urge the defeat of this particular
rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Minnesota who
raised the issue of waivers on the manager's amendment, the manager's
amendment was fashioned after hours and hours of negotiations that took
place between the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity and Secretary Cisneros, and while there was not an
agreement on every single issue, it was a compromise that was struck
with them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
King].
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 2406, and urge my
colleagues to support both the rule and this truly historic and
revolutionary legislation.
I also must commend my good friend and fellow New Yorker, Rick Lazio,
chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of
the Committee on Banking, for the outstanding work and dedication he
has shown in addressing the issue of public housing, of introducing
this critical legislation.
Mr. Speaker, public housing in this country has been a failed policy
but H.R. 2406 will, among other things, reform public housing by
putting power back into the hands of local communities and by making
public housing authorities accountable to professional standards of
management. This is an outstanding bill that is revolutionary
legislation, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
{time} 1515
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
opposition to this rule on a number of different fronts. First and
foremost, I rise in opposition because of the procedures that we are
operating under in terms of what the rule provides.
We ought to recognize that during the last evening, as we were before
the Committee on Rules, early in the evening, for the first time I saw
the manager's amendment. The Committee on Rules itself indicated to me
that this was a highly unusual circumstance. We had no ability to
reflect upon or understand what was contained in the manager's
amendment.
The staff of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, which
is here on the floor this afternoon, went
[[Page H4564]]
through the manager's amendment and found at least three whole new
programs that were contained within the manager's amendment, which none
of us were ever even made aware of.
While some of these programs might very well end up making some sense
somewhere down the line, the fact of the matter is, to have them
contained where we have never had a hearing, where we do not understand
what all the implications of these provisions might be, we have got the
vouchering out of public housing by housing authorities under certain
terms and conditions, that none of us are clear upon, we have got
another amendment that is contained within that provides for a
wholesale exemption of the Brooke amendment, which guarantees the 30-
percent ceiling on the amount people are going to pay for rent,
regardless of whether or not we pass the Brooke amendment today on the
House floor and reinstall it as part of our Nation's commitment to the
poor. These demonstration programs, which were 30 in number in the U.S.
Senate, are rising to over 300, which are also mandated in the fine
print to include New York City, with 108,000 units of public housing.
This is the kind of legislation where we have some sort of self-
sufficiency, the PIP program I guess. Somehow each individual that
attains public housing is going to have to file a statement with
someone, somewhere, to determine what their own personal plans are for
improving themselves in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I urge strongly that we defeat this rule and look out
for the needs of working class Americans.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I respond to my friend by saying one of the three
programs he mentioned was specifically at the request of the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development. It is voluntary vouchering out of
public housing, which is a priority item.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are very limited on time. I am just
responding to the gentleman.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is very unfair for the
gentleman to suggest that, when I talked to the Secretary himself and
he disagrees wholeheartedly, very strongly with that statement.
Mr. DREIER. It is a specific request.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Do not lie about it on the House floor,
David.
Mr. DREIER. I am simply providing what staff has informed us, that
the Secretary of Housing and Development requested that of the
Subcommittee on Housing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman
from Chicago, IL [Mr. Flanagan].
(Mr. FLANAGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2406, the
U.S. Housing Act of 1996. I thank Mr. Lazio, chairman of the Housing
and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, and the committee for their
efforts on this excellent bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill to all communities. Passage of
H.R. 2406 will ensure that local housing authorities, not Washington
bureaucrats, are responsible for the management of local housing plans.
Residents of public housing will assume responsibility for the day-to-
day operations of the housing project, thus having an active rather
than passive role in managing their facilities.
America's housing system is a total disgrace. Manyu families have
found themselves trapped in a system that was originally designed as a
short-term solution to what has become a long-term problem.
Centralizing a housing program, which has become very complex, is not
the most constructive way to serve residents of those housing
complexes. Washington cannot effectively serve communities across the
country who all have different needs. Local authorities are, for
obvious reasons, much more specifically concerned with the residents of
their community. Local organizations who know and understand the need
of the communities will be much more efficient and effective in making
the decision that will affect them.
In 1966 in Chicago, a lawsuit--Gautreaux versus the Chicago Housing
Authority--was filed. The objective of the suit was to prove that there
was an intentional pattern of racial discrimination against tenants of
CHA sites. In 1969, the Federal judge--Judge Richard Austin--ruled in
favor of the plaintiffs. A new problem emerged. Desegregating public
housing complexes in the city was going to be much more difficult than
desegregating the city schools. Since the Gautreaux decision, there
have been many problems with implementing the court order.
There is no need nor any benefit to forced, instituted social
engineering from Washington. Had H.R. 2406 been the law at the time of
this suit, there most likely would not be the problems that we have
today. Federal judges, appointed for life, were allowed to write laws
in the face of congressional inaction. Local communities could have
come to some kind of accomodation, if they had been given the
opportunity to do so. At longlast, this legislation would so empower
localities.
H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act of 1996, is an excellent bill. I
commend the committee as a whole, and especially Chairman Lazio for all
the hard work and commitment to America's communities. I only wish that
a bill like this had been enacted many years ago. It will certainly
benefit local neighborhoods.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I come this afternoon sharing a fond
relationship with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] the chairman
of the committee, and thank him and his staff for working with my staff
in trying to get certain things into the bill. In spite of that, there
are some serious concerns that make me juxtaposed to wanting to see
this particular rule pass at this time, because some of the concerns
that those of us who are not only Members of this body but also
providers of housing understand as it relates to what is necessary for
people to put a roof over their head, to keep a roof over their head,
are not included in this particular piece of legislation.
The best means of trying to get people to that point, where they can
be self-sufficient, when they can take care of their own
responsibility, is to create for them opportunities for income, rather
than creating a bill that takes away from them the means of resources
that they already have available in trying to determine whether or not
they are going to put food on the table or whether or not they are
going to pay other bills.
It is extremely difficult for me to understand how one can argue that
this bill, along with welfare, makes sense, and this bill, along with
minimum wage, does not make sense. If you are talking about the same
people in each class and in each category, it becomes almost impossible
to conceive of putting together a bill that raises the amount of money
that a person who works every day, yet is beneath the poverty line, is
only able to provide for shelter for their family by virtue of the fact
that they have access to the public housing, and then say though you
will be paying more out of the little bit that you do make, we are not
going to give consideration to a minimum wage bill that will allow you
to be able to pay the difference between what we are now charging you.
It makes no sense to me for us as a body responsible for making sure
that every citizen in this Nation not only has an opportunity to be
able to live to the best degree possible, that we do not even have in
this an affordable housing provision that allows for people to be able
to work their way out of public housing into an affordable housing
category, so that they can have the benefit of sharing in the American
dream of home ownership.
I would agree with my colleagues, if we could get rid of public
housing and put everybody into a home, that would make sense. This bill
does not do that.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very able colleague,
the gentleman from Bloomfield, MI [Mr. Knollenberg].
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule and the underlying bill.
This bill repeals an outdated, depression-era law and puts the power
and responsibility
[[Page H4565]]
where it belongs, in the hands of local communities and residents, not
the Washington bureaucrats.
I am especially pleased with the provisions, that reform the Brooke
amendment. I salute Chairman Lazio and the committee. Simply put, our
current policy under the Brooke amendment punishes work and rewards
welfare dependency. Here is how:
Public housing rent is calculated at 30 percent of a resident's
income. Thus, the more you earn, the more you pay. But if you go to
work, you pay income and FICA taxes, in addition to higher rent, and
also begin to lose welfare, foodstamp, and medicaid payments.
Nine times out of ten, residents who find gainful employment, end up
with less disposable income than if they had simply stayed on welfare.
In fact the, highest marginal tax rate in the United States is not paid
by millionaires or people in boardrooms, it is paid by AFDC-dependent
public housing residents who accept a full-time minimum wage job.
Understanding this fact is the key to understand public housing. You
know why there are people trapped in poverty.
The only way you can change this is to give, as the bill does, more
flexibility and decisionmaking ability to local public housing
authorities, who frankly have the best interests of public housing
residents at heart, and have a much better track record of protecting
the resident's concerns than the bureacrats at HUD.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2406 is a giant step forward in the debate of real
welfare reform.
We must pass this bill and rule, with Brooke fully intact, to provide
the reform of Brooke, to provide the much-needed relief for our
families and local communities.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, a major part of the American dream is to
own your own home. Unfortunately, for millions of people in public
housing, this dream has little chance of becoming reality, because they
don't earn enough to get out of public housing.
As a result, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. taxpayer covers the cost of public
housing because millions of working poor don't make enough money to pay
rent and put food on the table. A large part of the reason for this is
our tragically low minimum wage. We could do a great deal to move
people out of public housing by increasing the minimum wage to a level
where people can earn enough to move out on their own. Unfortunately,
the Republican leadership is so opposed to raising the minimum wage
that they would rather kick the working poor into the streets.
Mr. Speaker, this bill misses the point. The way we reduce the need
for public housing is to give people a living wage. And today's minimum
wage is certainly not a living wage.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very thoughtful
colleague, the gentleman from Long Beach, CA [Mr. Horn].
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and
the U.S. Housing Act of 1996. It means real reform and it means hope
for our neighborhoods. This bill, removing obstacles that have existed
in the law for many years, will end the cruel hoax of our outdated,
inefficient, ineffective public housing system. It scraps the system
that tolerates failure and replaces it with safe, clean, healthy,
affordable housing for our most vulnerable citizens. It gives low-
income Americans hope and opportunity by removing obstacles to work and
insisting on professional management standards in local public housing
authorities.
By passing this bill, the House will be saying yes to accountability
and to work incentives, and no to bloated bureaucracies and the decay
of our neighborhoods.
I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for
including in his manager's amendment a provision that is very important
to the people of the city and county of Los Angeles. The manager's
amendment extends the authority of the city and county of Los Angeles
to spend up to 25 percent of their community development block grant
funding on public service. This desperately needed provision fits well
into the Republican effort to return broader decision making authority
to state and local government.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to forget the past, forget the decrepit, rotten housing we have
provided for the most vulnerable over the years, and vote for the U.S.
Housing Act, which means real reform that will mean better living
conditions for low-income Americans.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, so many Americans are working two jobs, they
are making sacrifices for their children, and they still cannot get to
the American dream of homeownership. One affordable and quality option
for many of these Americans is manufactured housing. We have worked
very hard and achieved a delicate balance with Republicans and
Democrats, with consumer groups and taxpayer groups, in a bipartisan
way, to put together an amendment that will help increase the
availability and the access to this very important industry and to this
dream.
Republicans, such as the gentlemen from California, Mr. Rohrabacher
and Mr. Calvert, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. McCollum, have
supported this, as well as the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, and
the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Vento, We also have strong consumer
support for this amendment.
I think that this is the way to go as we downsize HUD, as we get
input from the industry, as we get input from consumer groups, as we
try to make available to hard working Americans this great dream. Let
us try to have as many options as are available to these hard working
Americans, and manufactured housing and a better understanding of
manufactured housing certainly is that option.
I intend to offer in a bipartisan way this bipartisan amendment, and
hope to get the support of this House.
{time} 1530
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Appleton, WI [Mr. Roth], my colleague on the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, that is a very good bill and it is a good
rule. In fact, the gentleman from California in yielding me the time
had mentioned Appleton, WI. Well, it was Green Bay, WI, and Fort Wayne,
IN, where they initially started this voucher program as a pilot
program and it worked out very well.
This is a good bill because the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio]
and the people working on that committee had looked at this in depth.
Let me point out that this bill now takes some of the power from
Washington and puts it in the hands of local communities. But, Mr.
Speaker, it does more than that. It gives it to private, nonprofit
organizations; it gives it to the people who actually live in those
housing units.
It also gives them the vouchers so that the tenant now has freedom of
choice. If the tenant does not want to live in this unit, this tenant
can find another unit so he or she can vote with their feet. It brings
the free market forces into public housing, which is what is so
desperately needed.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation also consolidates several programs into
block grants, and, of course we debated that issue here for years and
years about the block grant program, but the block grants are good
especially in this instance because it makes people in public housing
more self-sufficient and it streamlines the program. That is why the
voucher program is so important.
This bill gives people an incentive to move off of welfare in public
housing by cutting the legal link between their income and the rent
they have to pay. As has been said here in debate before, there is this
30 percent formula, but this 30 percent formula under this bill is not
chiseled into stone so that the people again have more latitude.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is what we want to do. We want to give
people who are utilizing public housing some latitude, and give them
some other avenues besides just concreting them into one particular
formula. That is why this legislation is so good.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Waters], my fine colleague.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the radical Republicans are playing a cruel
[[Page H4566]]
hoax on the American people. They refuse to raise the minimum wage by a
lousy 90 cents and the bill before us would raise rent on the poorest
and most vulnerable Americans, Americans who are only making minimum
wage.
Mr. Speaker, why can we bring a bill to this floor to raise public
housing rents for the elderly, single mothers, and the working poor
when the overwhelming majority of Americans, 78 percent, believe this
Congress should consider a modest 90-cent increase in the minimum wage,
but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, ``No way.''
This rule on this bill shows clearly this Congress' contorted
priorities. We could give 11 million Americans a tiny raise. Six out of
10 workers earning the minimum wage are women, many of whom are single
parents. Seventy-two percent of these women are adults 20 years old or
over.
So much for Mother's Day. So much for family values, my Republican
friends. They have just gone too far, Mr. Speaker. We cannot justify
this attack on poor and working families. Let us oppose the previous
question and craft a rule that will bring a minimum wage increase to
this floor. If the Republicans want to raise the rents on seniors
tomorrow, let them try. But let us give 11 million Americans a raise
today.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair what piece of
legislation is before us?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. House Resolution 426.
Mr. DREIER. And what is that, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Would you like the Chair to repeat it again?
The Chair has read the title before. House Resolution 426.
Providing for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2406, to repeal the
United State's Housing Act of 1937, deregulate the public housing
program, and the program for rental housing assistance for low-income
families, increase community control over such programs, and for other
purposes.
Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I would say to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] that that lousy 90 cents works
out to $57,000 for the average small business.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentelman from West Chester,
OH, [Mr. Boehner].
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the committee and Members on
both sides of the aisle for the excellent work that they have done.
Especially congratulations to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio]
on a bill that really is reflective of our broader Republican agenda.
The gentlewoman from California who spoke before me referred to this
as another radical part of our agenda. What the gentlewoman refers to
as ``radical'' most people in America would look at and say, ``Now this
is common sense,'' because what we are trying to do is to move this
power out of Washington, back to States and local communities, to make
decisions for the people who live in their communities that can best
help the people in their communities.
One provision that will be in the manager's amendment that I am
especially pleased with refers to title V of the McKinney Act that
currently sets up a three-agency review process for processing
applications by homeless groups for Federal surplus land. The process
can take years and really does not reflect any local concerns.
Even if there is a local homeless or low-income housing group that
would like some of the land and the local community wants to give it to
them, they cannot under existing law. The Federal Government decides
here in Washington.
This provision in the amendment cuts through all of this redtape. It
says that if the local elected officials consent to the transfer of
surplus Federal land to a local homeless or low-income housing group,
that the Federal Government can transfer the property immediately. No
endless process; no three-agency review. The property goes straight to
local groups who have local support.
If the local officials cannot agree, then the process goes on through
the regular McKinney Act. I think this is a win-win solution. It gives
local leaders the authority and the incentive to work with local groups
who are trying to address the housing needs of the poor and the
homeless.
Local housing assistance groups will get a more receptive ear at city
hall and will have more incentive to build local support within their
communities. This is an important provision, and I would urge my
colleagues to support the rule, support the manager's amendment and the
bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I really do know what bill
this is. This is the turn the local housing authority into your local
rental office and to help and to provide economic opportunity for all
those vacant apartments. It has nothing to do with housing poor people
who, in fact, many of us would say I would not live in that place if I
had to.
Mr. Speaker, this forces residents to pay more rent. Of those who
live in public housing 75 percent earn less than one-third of minimum
wage. What this does, oh, yes, give somebody a voucher. In the
segregated South I can tell my colleagues there are many of those in
the public housing that will not be allowed to live in certain
neighborhoods.
This is a bill that has the right direction, but it is the wrong way
to do it. This is a bad rule. The reason is because the bill is a bad
bill. Yes, we can do some things to reform our local housing
authorities, but not take away total Government direction on the
national level to ensure that all of us can have good housing for all
of America.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does not represent a cohesion and a coalition
of those who would say it is good to have Americans in good housing.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Scottsdale, AZ [Mr. Hayworth], our very able new colleague.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
open rule and of H.R. 2406. I believe this legislation signals the end
of a public housing system which helps trap people in a cycle of
poverty instead of providing a safety net for families who really need
short-term assistance.
Enactment of H.R. 2406 will give public housing residents more
choices and help those who are able move on to a life of greater self-
sufficiency.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to publicly
thank and commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for his
efforts to improve our Nation's system of Indian housing. H.R. 3219,
the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of
1996, which I will offer as an amendment to H.R. 2406, will give tribes
the flexibility they need to meet their unique housing needs.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will provide a block grant that will go
directly to the tribes and those tribes in turn can then use the funds
to build new housing, renovate existing homes, and revitalize their
communities
Mr. Speaker, it is all about local empowerment and empowerment of
individuals. ``Yes'' on the rule; ``yes'' on the bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote to
defeat the previous question on this rule so that we can offer a clean
up-or-down vote to raise the minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage now stands at a 40-year low in real
purchasing power. Working American families go to their jobs every day,
they play by the rules, and they provide for their families. It is
about time someone gave them a break.
Today the Republican majority wants to increase the rents for those
who are on the minimum wage, but they will not give them a wage
increase. Democrats in this body support the modest proposal to raise
the minimum wage by 90 cents. At least 21 majority Members have had the
courage to buck the Republican leadership and sign on to a raise for
working folks.
[[Page H4567]]
Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf],
the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], and the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Lazio], please vote against the previous question so we can
have a vote on the minimum wage.
A majority of this body supports raising the minimum wage. On April
17, Speaker Gingrich promised hearings on the minimum wage. Anyone who
may have believed that promise, it has now been 21 days. Speaker
Gingrich's taxpayer-funded salary has paid him $9,867 since April 17,
but a minimum-wage worker takes home only $8,840 in an entire year.
Mr. Speaker, I call on this House, I call on the Speaker, to stop
stiffing working Americans. Defeat the previous question so we can get
a clean up-or-down vote to raise the minimum wage in this country.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Providence, NJ [Mr. Franks].
(Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support
of the rule on H.R. 2406. Further, let me take this opportunity to
congratulate the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] on its innovative
effort to bring reform to America's Byzantine housing laws.
Over the past year I have worked with Chairman Lazio to ensure that
public housing residents for the first time have the opportunity to
directly elect tenants to their local housing and management
authorities. For too long the residents of public housing have been
subjected to poor living conditions. Those conditions often go
unaddressed because tenants have no elected representation on the very
housing authorities that oversee these dwellings. The provision that I
have worked to include in the manager's amendment empowers tenants by
providing for their direct election on housing boards.
If Members believe that these authorities should be more accountable
to the very tenants they exist to serve, I urge all Members to vote
``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the manager's amendment, and ``yes'' on
final passage.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion on
the previous question to this rule to H.R. 2406. We hear a lot of
rhetoric about moving people off of welfare and out of public housing
and into work, but the Republican leadership has simply refused an up-
or-down vote on a minimum wage increase.
Mr. Speaker, a livable wage would give our constituents and other
working Americans the ability to move off of welfare rolls and out of
public housing, but the Republicans continue to oppose this minimum
wage increase. In fact, all we hear in the Senate is that Senator Dole
wants to call attention to an increase of 4.3 cents in the gas tax in
1993, but not an increase in the minimum wage at the same time.
What the Senator fails to inform voters is that he voted for two 5-
cent increases from 1982 to 1990, the so-called ``Dole dime.'' Working
Americans strongly support an increase in the minimum wage. In fact,
the latest national poll shows 83 percent of Americans support an
increase.
Mr. Speaker, we have a golden opportunity to give American families
what they really need, a decent wage for a decent day's work. Mr.
Speaker, it is time for a clean vote on a minimum wage.
{time} 1545
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The Chair reminds
Members that are speaking on the floor of the House that reference to
individual Members from the other body should be avoided. The Chair
reminds Members of that.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Middletown, NY [Mr. Gilman], distinguished chairman of the Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the U.S. Housing
Act of 1995 and commend its sponsor, the distinguished gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio], for all of his diligent work in bringing this
important legislation creating a new public housing framework to the
floor. In addition, I thank the committee for including language to
correct the improper median income calculation for Rockland County.
Currently, Rockland County, New York's median income is calculated by
the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a part of the
primary metropolitan statistical area which includes the income data
from New York City. For this reason, HUD lists Rockland County's median
income of a family of four as $40,500. However, the 1990 census shows
that the county's true median income to be $60,479, a difference of
close to $20,000.
Since HUD's income levels are used in calculating eligibility for
almost all State and Federal housing programs, these inaccurate
statistics have severely limited the access of Rockland County
residents to many needed Federal programs. Income caps for the State of
New York mortgage agency, Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac, HUD's section 8, the
home program, and a myriad of other beneficial programs are
artificially low, thus most of Rockland's residents, financial
institutions, realtors, and builders are at a severe disadvantage in
relation to their counterparts in neighboring counties.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the committee for their good work in reforming
U.S. housing programs and attending to this extremely important local
need. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2406.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, this debate centers on two issues. At a
time when the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, when
the real wages of American workers has declined by 16 percent over the
last 20 years, when most of the new jobs being created are low wage
jobs, part-time jobs, temporary jobs, we must raise the minimum wage so
that, if somebody works 40 hours a week, they do not live in poverty.
Second, given the struggle that so many working poor are experiencing
today, why would anybody want to raise the rents that low-income people
have to pay in public housing? Why would somebody tell the elderly
poor, who are barely surviving on Social Security, that they must pay
higher rents than they are paying today? This is a bad rule. Let us
defeat it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our able new
colleague from Gallipolis, OH [Mr. Cremeans].
(Mr. CREMEANS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.
Mr. CREMEANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2406, the
United States Housing Act of 1996. This legislation is long overdue.
Years ago, large high rise housing developments were built and widely
praised by public housing advocates. Times have changed, and so have
these housing projects.
In public housing today, children cower under their beds, as bullets
fly through the air right outside their bedroom windows.
Senior citizens live with 10 locks on their doors yet still become
victims of predators.
This is not public assistance, this is torture--and it must be
stopped. Congress has heard the call for help from public housing
residents, and has responded with this legislation.
This new Housing Act will reverse the cycle of poverty that keeps
families in public housing developments for generations.
It eliminates those Federal policies that discourage work and self-
sufficienty.
And it will close public housing authorities that are beyond repair.
This Housing Act is a significant departure from previous attempts to
reform public housing. This bill reflects the realization that local
public housing directors know best how to reform
[[Page H4568]]
troubled authorities, not a Federal bureaucrat in Washington.
I urge my colleagues to support this long overdue legislation.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, America needs a raise. With the minimum
wage providing the least purchasing power in almost four decades,
America needs a raise. I concluded that our Republican colleagues have
finally heard this call for a raise. They know American working people
need a raise, and so they have given us their response this afternoon.
They are going to raise rents instead of raising wages.
I say it is time to raise the roof because it is not right and fair
to American working people that are out there trying to make ends meet
to raise their rents without raising their wages.
We will have an opportunity in the next few seconds to vote on
whether the minimum wage rises above its 40-year low. All that stands
between American working families and an increase in the minimum wage
are eight Republican colleagues; not very many, eight Members.
Ironically, more than eight members of the Republican caucus have
already gone out in front of the television cameras and announced that
they are for an increase in the minimum wage. Yet, they have not yet
mustered the willingness on the last two votes to raise the minimum
wage in the last 2 weeks in this Congress to vote to do just that.
I know the gentleman from California, my friend, says that it is not
germane to this debate to talk about the minimum wage. It may not be
germane to the elites, but let me tell you, it is mighty germane to the
people that are out there scrubbing the floors, folding the linens in
the motel rooms, serving the fast foods, picking the peas. These are
the kinds of people that are doing the hard dirty work in our society.
It was only on April 17 that the Speaker of the House, and he was out
here on the floor earlier, front page story, headlines, ``Republicans
Told To Brace for Vote on Minimum Wage, Gingrich Warns Caucus,'' April
17.
But only a few days later, after all the special interest lobbyists
had worked their way, they changed their tune. Let us vote to raise the
minimum wage.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Stamford, CT [Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
The bottom line to this is, this is a vote on the housing bill, on
the minimum wage. I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous
question so we can reform public housing, which I have overseen for 9
years.
I can tell my colleagues it is in need of tremendous reform. To those
who say it is a vote on minimum wage, I will say to them, my
colleagues, I am absolutely convinced we will have a vote on this
issue. I happen to be one of the eight that the gentleman has made
reference to. To me, it is not lost that Democrats had 2 years when
they controlled the White House and Congress. It is kind of
embarrassing that they make it an issue today, when they could have
done it when they controlled both the White House and Congress.
I see this vote on the minimum wage today as a political vote, not a
substantive vote. I urge my colleagues to vote for the previous
question. Get on with our job, and we are going to do it. And we are
going to do it the right way.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing let me simply say again that we do support
the rule. But we urge a no vote on the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I shall offer an amendment to the rule
which would make in order a new section in the rule. The provision
would direct the Committee on Rules, as the Speaker knows, to report a
resolution immediately that would provide for consideration of a bill
to incrementally increase the minimum wage from its current $4.25 an
hour to $5.15 an hour beginning on July 4, 1997.
That would provide for a separate vote on the minimum wage. Let me
make it clear to my colleagues both Democrats and Republicans that
defeating the previous question will in fact allow the House to vote on
the minimum wage increase. That is what 80 percent of the Americans
want us to do. So let us do it.
I include the text of this amendment and accompanying documents for
the Record at this point in the debate:
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec. . The House of Representatives directs the
Committee on Rules to report immediately a resolution
providing for the consideration of a measure to increase the
minimum wage to not less than $4.70 an hour during the year
beginning July 4, 1996, and not less than $5.15 an hour after
July 3, 1997.''
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual:
Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule
because the majority Member controlling the time will not
yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same
result may be achieved by voting down the previous question
on the rule * * * When the motion for the previous question
is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led
the opposition to ordering the previous question. That
Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an
amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of
amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
The vote on the previous question on a rule does have
substantive policy implications. It is the one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and
``yes'' on the rule itself.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I do so to say that those who are attempting to defeat the previous
question here are in fact going to block our effort here which this
subcommittee has put together to clean up the corrupt and horrible
public housing that we have in this country. Let me conclude by
reminding my colleagues that defeating the previous question is an
exercise in futility because the minority wants to offer an amendment
that will be ruled out of order as nongermane to this rule. That is the
rules of this House. The fact of the matter is this is a vote without
substance.
The previous-question vote itself is simply a procedural vote to
close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The
vote has no substantive or policy implications whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record an explanation of the previous
question:
[[Page H4569]]
House Rules Committee
the previous question vote: what it means
House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part
that: There shall be a motion for the previous question,
which, being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if
a quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all
debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the
immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or
ordered.
In the case of a special rule or order of business
resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing
for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the
previous question is moved following the one hour of debate
allowed for under House Rules.
The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural
vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting
the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and
amendment on the legislation it would make in order.
Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 208, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 153]
YEAS--218
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--208
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--8
de la Garza
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Hostettler
Largent
Molinari
Seastrand
Smith (WA)
{time} 1614
Mr. MORAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CASTLE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The question is on
the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 153, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
personal explanation
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 153, I was unavoidably
late. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 426 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2406.
{time} 1615
in the Committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
2406) to repeal the United States Housing Act of 1937, deregulate the
public housing program and the program for rental housing assistance
for low-income families, and increase community control over such
programs, and for other purposes; with Mr. Gunderson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will each be recognized for
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are at the precipice of an important moment in terms
of our Nation's communities. Before we begin our debate today on the
Housing
[[Page H4570]]
Act of 1996, I would like to paint a picture for my colleagues. Imagine
a city block of tall buildings, formed concrete stained and crumbling
from decades of neglect. The buildings have no working elevators, no
lights in the hallways. The stairwells reek of human waste, and drug
paraphernalia can be found in the corners under stairs. No one stands
near the windows because they are afraid of stray bullets. Children's
playgrounds are nothing more than empty dirt and trash. Mothers do not
want their children to play out in the open.
There are no malls, no shopping malls, near this block, no banks, no
businesses, except for a few check cashing stores and an overpriced
convenience mart. Adults spend weekdays around the complex, because
they do not have jobs to go to. The police drive around the perimeter
of the block but will not go inside the complex at night without more
than one car.
We all recognize this image, Mr. Chairman. It is public housing. It
is in America. It is not just public housing in one city, it is public
housing in the cities and towns in which we live and throughout this
country.
Today we are about ending the charade that we are helping poor people
by condemning them to a life in some of the worst public housing in the
world. We begin the process of ending this failure and giving families
who live in these neighborhoods a chance, an opportunity, a chance to
leave public housing, to be self-sufficient, even to own a home.
Where did public housing go wrong for so many American families? Much
of the blame lies with policies that were meant to help people,
originating from this very Chamber. Decisions that seemed logical when
they were proposed years ago turned out to have far-reaching negative
consequences when they were enacted into law.
The Brooke amendment, which was originally meant to protect
vulnerable Americans from paying too much in rent, now perversely has
proven to be a barrier to get a job, because as it is now structured,
the Brooke amendment means that the same day you go to work your rent
goes up. It is a tax on work.
One-for-one replacement. These statutes were statutes that were
placed by the minority party over the last years which were originally
instituted to ensure that public housing would not be demolished
without having built new housing to accommodate the tenants. What is
the result? The result is that one-for-one replacement rules guarantee
that huge empty, vacant shells will remain standing in our Nation's
communities.
Rules governing Federal tenant preferences were designed to protect
tenants, but the practical effect of these far-reaching HUD-mandated
requirements has been to load up waiting lists with the poorest of the
poor and people whose social needs outweigh the ability of modern
welfare structures to accommodate them.
Income targeting provisions ensure that no one is well served by the
gigantic hulks of despair all too often associated with public housing.
Families and taxpayers have suffered. The costs associated with public
housing have risen dramatically over the last 10 or 15 years, at the
same time median incomes have fallen, a direct result of these
policies.
More of the very poor were being sheltered, but taxpayers are being
asked to pay more for decaying, often crime-ridden properties that trap
those very same poor people in perpetual poverty. But as I say, this is
not a financial equation. The real cost is not to the taxpayers, but to
the families and the children who are forced to live in squalor.
Mr. Chairman, we have a chance to make housing assistance work again,
and 2406 is the vehicle for this kind of change. The Housing Act of
1996 requires that the hulks of failure that characterize high-rise
public housing be vouchered out. The chronically failed and mismanaged
housing authorities that have wasted taxpayers' money will be cut off
completely, and local management groups, even tenants or nonprofits,
will be brought in to do the work that housing authorities have failed
to do.
This legislation starts moving these communities back to environments
where families are not trapped, where they have a hope and an
expectation of being self-sufficient again. It makes public housing
transitional, not by punishing long stays, but by establishing a
contract between a housing authority and the residents that clearly
lays out the rights and responsibilities of each.
It encourages entrepreneurship on the part of housing authorities and
tenants, letting them put money back into their community and
encouraging the kind of initiative that can turn around a neighborhood,
a family, and even a person's life.
This bill realizes that to be successful, we have to end the
Washington-based model that enforces inappropriate one-size-fits-all
policies that have represented the policies of the last 30 years in our
local communities. It repeals Federal tenant preferences and replaces
them with local preferences. It ends overly restrictive targeting and
gives local communities the power to set rents based on real needs,
rents that will help people return to the work force.
This legislation changes the whole way the Government looks at
housing assistance and is a step toward forging a new partnership, a
new relationship between citizens and Government, one where Government
can truly be a partner.
I am very proud to be here today before this Congress, Mr. Chairman,
to present the United States Housing Act of 1996, because I believe,
Mr. Chairman, this is a step toward hope for many of the people about
whom we care most. I look forward to this debate because here in this
House, the house of the American people, we have to face the reality of
the 20th century and the challenges of the 21st century. Here today is
where we define the future, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this bill really for the first time enacts into law the
fundamental and un--American principle of blaming the victim. That is
what this bill is all about.
We essentially have seen over the course of the last several years,
politician after politician walk before every housing monstrosity in
the United States, point to public housing, time and time again, and
say, ``This is an example of liberal Democratic politics at its worst.
This is an eyesore, an acute demonstration of why the Johnson era of
liberal Democratic spending on Government programs simply has been
outmoded.''
The truth of the matter is that public housing policy in this country
is the greatest unfulfilled dream that has ever been encompassed by
this body. What we have said is that we are going to house poor people.
But then we never gave the housing authorities anything close to the
resources that were necessary to provide the housing they were asked to
give to the people that are of such low income.
Then what we do is, after we starve those public housing authorities
and the individual public housing projects, we come along, take a
picture of ourselves in front of them, and say, ``This is a terrible
example of Government spending.'' What do we do? What is our solution
to this problem? It is to cut the funding.
Last year without a single hearing we cut, in order to solve the
problem of public housing, 25 percent of the budget of public housing.
Now what we are doing in this bill is coming back and saying, ``Look,
public housing does not work, so what we are going to do is essentially
allow and enact into law provisions which allow us to jack up the rents
on the people that exist in public housing, thereby throwing a lot of
poor people out of public housing, and, I might add, working families
out of public housing.''
This bill, more than anything else, hurts working families, the
working poor. People that earn the minimum wage are going to be
displaced by the actions taken in this bill.
What we are saying is that when you are in public housing, we are
going to knock you out; if you are in assisted housing, we are going to
knock you out; if you are elderly or disabled, you are at risk. Those
are the provisions that are hidden in the sneaky language that we are
not going to hear by the other side of the aisle.
What is important for us to recognize, Mr. Chairman, is yes, there
need
[[Page H4571]]
to be changes in how we handle public housing. I think Secretary
Cisneros and President Clinton deserve credit, as I want to provide
credit to Chairman Lazio, for the portions of this bill that allow us
to cut out badly run public housing authorities, to cut out badly run
public housing agencies, to get rid of the one-for-one public housing
criteria that was included in past bills, to deal with the Federal
preferences which have gotten us far too concentrated on serving just
the very, very poor.
{time} 1630
Maintaining the drug elimination grants, maintaining the Hope 6
program, these are all the positive aspects which I think Chairman
Lazio should be proud of and that I am proud to associate myself with.
But the trouble is that the bill goes too far. We end up eliminating
the Brooke amendment, which has been the most fundamental protection
for poor people in this country. We say as a protection to the poor
that we will not ask them to pay anything more than 30 percent of their
income in rent. Thirty percent of their income in rent is a lot of
money for ordinary families. So by eliminating that, certainly it
protects the housing authorities because they can jack up the rent.
So the poor people in the housing authorities have no place to go, so
we send them out on the street. Then what do we do? We turn around and
say that we are going to cut the homeless programs in this country by
another 25 percent. So not only do we go about actually creating
homelessness in this program, we then go and cut the very program that
is supposed to take care of them.
The people that we do not hear from in this bill are the people that
are going to be displaced by this bill. We have two amendments that we
need, that if we can see this body pass them today, I will recommend
that we vote in support of this bill.
First and foremost is Barney Frank's amendment to protect the Brooke
amendment. If we protect the Brooke amendment and do that with the
necessary targeting, so that we do not just throw out the poor and that
we do not throw out the working families, the working poor of this
country, then I tell Chairman Lazio right now that I would recommend
that the Democrats of this House of Representatives support the bill.
Without those fundamental protections, this is essentially flawed and
bad legislation. It will hurt working families. It will hurt the poor.
It will hurt senior citizens, and it will hurt the disabled.
Let us stand up for principle in this body. Let us stand up for what
is right in terms of not only public housing policy but the moral fiber
and the moral value that is associated with the United States of
America.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make one comment here. In terms of this bill,
there is some rhetoric involving the raising of rents. There is nothing
in this bill that raises the rents on a single person now in public or
assisted housing. Seniors are protected. The disabled are protected,
and the poorest of the poor are protected. What we are trying to do is
remove obstacles to work.
I also want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Kennedy], for his cooperation throughout the process. Thank you
very much, Joe Kennedy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2406 and want to
thank Mr. Lazio for his leadership on this bill. The Banking Committee,
the House, and indeed the American people, are indebted to the
gentleman from New York for the hard work and intellect he has put into
this major reform legislation.
Let me speak to several aspects of the bill.
The chief goal of the legislation is to expand housing choices for
low and moderate income people and to devolve power from Washington to
local communities.
The legislative intent is to move away from reliance on highrise
public housing projects and encourage the use of housing vouchers. It
is the assumption of the committee that it is cost effective, as well
as compassionate, to give low and moderate income people the ability to
get away from projects which too often are infested with crime and
drugs and move into communities where they can raise their families in
safer, cleaner environments and where they will have an enhanced
ability to improve their lives.
It is further the assumption of the committee that the people of the
Bostons and Indianapolises and Davenports of the Nation can be trusted
to more effectively and efficiently operate housing programs for the
people of these communities than can those in Washington who the
current law favors. Hence, the bill puts more power in the hands of
those who know their localities best--the residents and local leaders
who live in the communities affected.
H.R. 2406 is a prime example of commonsense reform. There is nothing
radical or extreme here. The committee has simply recognized that
government-built slums serve nobody's interest. What is needed is
decent support for decent people who can make their own choices and
control their own destinies.
I again congratulate Mr. Lazio for his leadership on this important
legislation, and the staff of the Housing and Community Opportunity
Subcommittee for the many hours they have put into this effort.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the former chairman of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2406 in part follows bipartisan
reforms adopted by the House in the last Congress, however, in part it
profoundly departs from what had been a bipartisan policy of assuring
that scarce Federal housing resources are used to help those who are in
the greatest need. The basic assumption of H.R. 2406 is that local
housing authorities should have the greatest possible leeway to spend
Federal dollars. I am skeptical of a bill that provides precious few
standards and guideposts to agencies that are dealing with the most
complex and vexing of economic and social problems.
The bill is designed to encourage housing authorities to raise rents
and to deny housing to people who cannot pay significant amounts of
money for housing. This would have two effects: It would make housing
authorities richer, and poor people poorer. It would increase the
number of homeless people, and it would add to the distress of people
who are already unable to meet their most basic needs. There is a
better way to deal with the financial problems of housing authorities.
H.R. 2406 contains some sensible reforms, most of which the House has
previously passed with overwhelming support. Unhappily, the bill also
contains many simplistic and ultimately unworkable provisions, which I
hope the amendment process will improve.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation returns decisionmaking authority to
the local level instead of a Washington bureaucracy, allowing public
housing authorities to provide clean, safe, healthy, and affordable
housing to needy persons and families in a more cost effective and
managerially sound manner. It is imperative, in my judgment, that we
reform the Nation's public housing programs to weed out those that have
chronic problems and to encourage local housing authorities to tailor
their programs to the specialized needs of their community.
I am particularly pleased that Chairman Lazio has included provisions
in the manager's amendment that deal with housing occupancy standards.
Last week I introduced a bill which has been included in the amendment
that would clarify that States should be able to set occupancy
standards and not HUD.
There is a national consensus that the maximum number of occupants
[[Page H4572]]
most housing can accommodate without triggering the negative effects of
crowding is two people per bedroom. The provision in the bill is a
necessary clarification to stop attempts by HUD to adopt unrealistic
occupancy policies. In recent years, HUD has pushed housing providers
to accept beyond two people per bedroom, a policy that would lead to
overcrowding, and take control of the apartment properties away from
their owners and managers.
The manager's amendment provision clarifies it in three ways: First,
HUD may not micromanage this issue by setting Federal occupancy
standards; second, that State occupancy standards are authoritative;
and third, that in the absence of the State standards, a two-person-
per-bedroom policy is assumed reasonable.
This provision is supported by a remarkably wide range of housing
provider groups, including all of the public housing associations as
well as homebuilders, private apartment owners, seniors housing,
section 8, and manufactured housing groups.
The bill overall will encourage mixed income populations instead of
segregating the poorest of the poor, will help end the cycle which has
perpetuated dependence on Federal support and disincentives to work.
Additionally, this bill imposes a death penalty on poorly run public
housing authorities with longstanding records of failure. The time is
overdue to change the Washington-knows-best attitude toward public
housing. Who else should know best how to serve residents in
communities than local housing providers who live and work in these
areas? Chairman Lazio and his staff have drafted a commendable bill,
and I encourage its support.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my
good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], who is himself an
innovator, developer of low-income housing in New York City.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2406, the
United States Housing Act. I would, however, like to commend my friend,
Mr. Lazio, and his staff on their leadership and outstanding efforts to
produce a housing bill that Members on both sides of the aisle could
support. Unfortunately, Mr. Lazio's bill has good intentions, but falls
short in its efforts to protect public housing's poorest families.
Mr. Chairman, the United States Housing Act, essentially closes the
door on poor public housing residents. The bill makes small efforts to
accommodate the poor by reserving 30 percent of public housing units
for families of four who are living on approximately $15,000 a year in
a city with high living standards like New York. Statistics show that
the average income of residents in public housing is $6,400 a year.
Simple math tells us that this type of housing policy does not provide
for dire housing needs of the poorest housing residents. In the absence
of such a policy, we will find more people on the streets.
Mr. Chairman, I am truly concerned that this bill will have a drastic
effect on the housing of the poor in New York. According to the
provisions included as a part of the manager's amendment to this bill,
the New York City Housing Authority, as a well-performing local housing
authority, would not be subject to any rent caps or targeting. Without
these rent caps and targeting provisions, there is no assurance that a
public housing authority will provide poor families who are unable to
pay higher rents with housing. Public housing was not designed to
accommodate those who can pay the most. Private rental housing is
designed for that. In a country with such a wealth of resources, poor
families should not have to go without shelter.
Mr. Chairman, there are 225,000 people currently on the waiting list
for public housing in New York. The housing need is great and the
opportunities are few. This bill provides us with no assurance that
poor and individuals like seniors and the disabled who have limited
income will be treated equitably in this process. Let's protect the
interests of these individuals. The Kennedy and the Frank/Gutierrez
amendment attempts to protect these individuals and I urge support for
each.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts].
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, the time is right for us to
replace an outdated Depression-era law that was written in 1937.
Instead of being rewritten to reflect modern housing needs and the
challenges associated with public housing entities, the 1937 Housing
Act had only been given quick legislative fixes which have resulted in
regulation based on regulation placing local housing authorities in a
stranglehold, unable to address problems at the community level.
The Great Society programs of the last 30 years, although well
intentioned, only exacerbate the downward spiral of our low-income
communities. By allowing government to replace the institutions that
give structure and order to our neighborhoods, the Great Society
programs have fractured these communities and placed unnecessary
obstacles in the way of faith, family, work, and community.
Big government is part of the problem--not the solution. We need to
promote an infrastructure where solutions to these prolems can come
from epople who have the same zip code as the people they are helping.
H.R. 2406, the United States Housing Act of 1996, does this.
This bill eliminates the existing 3,400 public housing authorities
and replaces each with a new local management housing authority [LMHA].
These local management housing authoriies will be allowed to make
decisions, within broad parameters, tailored to the specialized needs
of local communities.
H.R. 2406 puts power in the hands of local communities, residents,
and nonprofits, not Washington bureaucrats, by ending monopolies some
public housing authorities have over housing for low-income American
families. This bill ends the reliance on the flawed bureaucratic views
and policies of housing assistance: that more boutique programs and
more money means better living conditions. This bill addresses the
fundamental needs of people and communities.
This bill offers Federal resources to aid families and individuals
seeking affordable homes that are safe, clean, and healthy, and in
particular, assist responsible, deserving citizens who cannot provide
fully for themselves because of temporary circumstances or factors
beyond their control.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
{time} 1645
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise first to thank my friend, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for all of the work that he
is doing in this Nation on behalf of poor people and working people,
particularly paying attention to their housing needs. Really I thank
the gentleman from new York, Mr. Lazio, for the job he is doing, and I
agree with my friend, Mr. Kennedy, we could clean up this legislation
and, with the Kennedy-Gutierrez amendment, perhaps we could all support
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, for now I must rise in strong opposition to this bill.
H.R. 2406 completely restructures public and tenant-based housing in
ways that will have detrimental consequences for the very families they
are intended to serve. We all recognize there is a need for reform, but
this bill, H.R. 2406, goes too far. This bill will put poor families in
jeopardy of losing their housing because they will be unable to pay
higher rents. Applicants who have been on waiting lists for years, may
never get housing assistance under this bill because they are not in
the desired income range.
I am most concerned with the provisions in this bill that give
housing authorities broad authority to set minimum and maximum rent
without the protection of the Brooke amendment. Under H.R. 2406,
residents, regardless of their income or circumstances, can be charged
whatever rent housing authorities set. At a minimum, all residents will
pay $25 to $50 in rent. This will apply to residents with income as
well as those with no income at all.
For many families, this will mean choosing between shelter and food
or clothing or medicine. About two-thirds of those affected will be
families with children. These are families with the worst-case housing
needs. These are families with very little income, and in
[[Page H4573]]
many cases no income at all. These are the families that programs like
public and assisted housing are designed to help.
How can we bring this bill to the floor when we know that worst-case
housing needs reached an all-time high of 5.3 million in 1993, and that
number has remained high? Almost 2 million of those with worst-case
needs are working households, including many working-poor families with
children.
Are we going to just turn our backs on these families? That is
exactly what this bill does, and this is exactly why I cannot support
it, unless we have these amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I am not just here because I want to preserve something
that does not work. I am here because I know first hand about the needs
of poor people. I am here because I know first hand about the families
that live in these housing authorities. I did not visit them just 1
day. Every time I go home I make sure I spend time in public housing
authorities.
Certainly we have problems, but these problems are not created by the
people who need this housing. The problems sometimes are in management.
We do not need to kick them out of housing by charging them higher
rents. We need to support the ability for them to have a decent and
safe place to live.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to note on the issue of minimum rents, the
gentlewoman from California had noted that issue. Minimum rents are set
in this bill at $25 to $50 at the discretion of the local housing
authority, but there is a hardship exemption--safety valve--for those
people with a particular hardship or need.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State
of Delaware [Mr. Castle], the former Governor of that great State, and
a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Lazio for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Lazio and his staff for
their hard work, and for their commitment to improving public housing.
I would also like to thank the chairman for recognizing that public
housing authorities and programs should be evaluated on their
performance.
Mr. Chairman, I believe our Government has a responsibility to ensure
vulnerable populations have access to safe, affordable housing, but HUD
needs serious reform. H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act, reforms and
streamlines HUD from the top down. It empowers local authorities,
benefits public housing residents, and saves taxpayers' money.
Local authorities know their community's needs far better than a
Washington bureaucrat, which is why H.R. 2406 replaces the current
tangle of Federal strings with two funding grants for public housing.
If we are going to hold local officials responsible for the quality of
their community's public housing, they should have the power to
implement the solutions that fit their community's needs.
Delaware runs its public housing programs exceptionally well, and I
believe Delaware and other successful States should be rewarded. Under
H.R. 2406, 100 of the most successful local housing authorities will be
empowered to develop innovative programs to help move residents out of
public housing and into their own homes. This creates incentives for
housing authorities to ensure their facilities are fiscally sound,
physically safe, and efficiently run.
H.R. 2406 continues to help us achieve these worthy goals, and I am
proud to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage Chairman Lazio in a colloquy.
Well-run housing authorities, such as we have in Delaware, should be
rewarded for their success. With the help of the chairman, during the
markup of H.R. 2406, I successfully added an amendment requiring that
the performance of a housing authority should be taken into account
under the block grant allocation formula.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield,
that is correct.
Mr. CASTLE. I want to ensure that well-run housing authorities are
rewarded for running fiscally sound and physically safe housing
facilities. Mr. Chairman, will changes made in the funding process
reflect this goal?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Yes. The intent of this legislation is to
ensure that well-run housing authorities are not penalized for their
success. Rather, they are rewarded for operating efficiently, and they
are given appropriate levels of flexibility to reward that proven
success in delivering housing services to their constituency.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support this much-needed
legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out
that one of the rewards, the so-called rewards being referred to here,
is in fact, the elimination of the Brooke amendment. So what we are
saying is if you run a housing authority well, we are going to allow
you to in fact turn your back on some of the poorer people in this
country. We are going to allow you to turn your back on the amount of
rent that those individuals that you are going to bring into the
housing authority are going to be charged.
I do not think that that is the kind of reward system that we ought
to be putting into place. I think we ought to hold these housing
authorities to standards of performance that they in fact take care of
those individuals, and when they do not take care of these, we ought to
provide the power to the Secretary to usurp the local authority's power
and to take that and be able to get the authority back on its feet
through the appointment of an individual that has the power and
authority to make the proper decisions.
That is the kind of system that the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio], and myself and I am sure the gentleman from Delaware [Mr.
Castle], can agree on. It is this additional benefit of eliminating the
targeting to the poor, of eliminating the Brooke amendment, that
rewards these housing authorities in a way that perversely allows them
to turn their back on the very people that they are designed to serve.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman
from New York [Ms. Velazquez], who speaks eloquently on behalf of our
Nation's poor in the Subcommittee on Housing.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, before I give my opening statement, I
would like to remind Chairman Lazio that the minimum rent is not $25,
to $50. That is what the gentleman is proposing in his manager's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as the representative of one of this country's largest
public housing populations, I rise today to express my outrage to this
bill. Many of the provisions in this legislation threaten poor
families, the disabled, and seniors' most basic and human needs--safe
affordable housing.
Public housing in America began very differently than what it has
evolved into. During the 1930's, America made the commitment that
adequate housing was right, not just a privilege. To fulfill this
pledge, we undertook a program that aimed to provide affordable housing
for everyone who needed it.
Times have changed and over the years, the Housing Act of 1937 has
become antiquated and unresponsive. To address this Secretary Cisneros
has undertaken changes that now allow HUD to respond to public
housing's unique challenges.
Mr. Chairman, repealing the Housing Act of 1937 is not that sort of
change! H.R. 2406 represents a significant departure from our national
commitment to the poor and needy. Gone are such safety nets as income
targeting, and the Brooke amendment.
Even the majority leader from the other body and the Speaker of this
House have joined the bandwagon by calling public housing the last
bastion of socialism and that it should be abolished. What an outrage.
They should be ashamed, posturing simply for political gains at the
expense of this Nation's needy is disgraceful.
Decent and affordable housing is already out of reach for more than
the 5 million neediest households. Let's end this charade! Housing
legislation should ensure that poor people have a roof over their
heads, not push seniors, children, and poor families into the street. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this cruel and shameful legislation.
[[Page H4574]]
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I agree that we should end this charade, the charade
that we measure compassion by sheltering or warehousing poor people in
some of the worst slums in America that have been built by the Federal
Government. In State Street, Chicago, there are 10,000 people with an
unemployment rate that is virtually universal. If that is now we
measure compassion, then I am out of touch. If that is how some people
in this body measure compassion, that is why we are trying to break out
of this mold. That is why we are trying to end the Brooke amendment,
which penalizes work and is a disincentive to work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague,
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
(Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I thank Subcommittee Chairman Lazio and
Chairman Leach for bringing commonsense housing reform to the floor
today. For too long, housing authorities have been burdened by
excessive Federal regulations, bureaucracy, and paperwork. H.R. 2406
will deregulate public housing and given greater flexibility to well-
run housing agencies. We must no longer tolerate chronically bad public
housing authorities that have used taxpayers' dollars irresponsibly.
I also commend Mr. Lazio for his efforts to protect the most
vulnerable populations. Under the manager's amendment, we cap rents at
30 percent of income for the elderly, disabled, and the very poor. This
provision will protect a majority of current and prospective public
housing residents.
The U.S. Housing Act is not just a quick fix or an extreme solution.
It is a real solution which will end public housing as we know it and
take a step toward welfare reform.
I am fortunate to live in a district with good public housing
agencies which will continue to serve those who need affordable
housing. Whether it is the Everett Housing Authority or the Housing
Authority of Island County, they express the same message: give us
greater flexibility and less Federal interference. This is what
Americans are asking for--eliminate unneeded Federal bureaucracy and
transfer power and authority to State and local levels.
I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out the fact that in the case of the
Chicago Housing Authority, which does have over 50,000 residents and
where we do see enormous problems, it was Secretary Cisneros that went
out there and took the bull by the horns and began to make changes in
that housing authority. We do not need anything in this legislation to
fix what is wrong with the Chicago Housing Authority. The fact of the
matter is, the changes that we could make together and have agreement
on are very easy. The ones that repeal Brooke and repeal the targeting
are the ones that we have a problem with, and those portions of this
legislation are what are going to unhinge the promise of public
housing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Lazio and
Mr. Kennedy for addressing the issues facing our Nation's housing
providers and public and assisted housing residents.
I would also like to acknowledge Secretary Henry Cisneros for his
leadership and successful efforts to improve our Nation's public
housing programs.
The deregulation of the housing industry and the more efficient use
of scarce housing resources are important goals. This bill, however,
simply goes to far.
The repeal of the Brooke amendment and changes to current income
targeting laws in this bill will eliminate important safety nets,
causing the devastation of millions of families across the country.
With the repeal of the Brooke amendment, in my Los Angeles district
alone over 10,000 residents will no longer be protected from rents that
exceed 30 percent of their monthly income.
Furthermore, drastic cuts to income targeting in public and assisted
housing will drastically reduce the availability of housing for
thousands of families, many of whom are currently homeless or living
far below the poverty line.
Although the bill contains provisions that authorize HUD to review
the rent structure of large housing authorities if certain income
targets are not met or if a significant percent of tenants are paying
over 30 percent of their incomes in rent, the bill does not have the
guarantees of affordable and available housing that the Brooke
amendment and current targeting laws provide.
Mr. Chairman, today we have the opportunity to preserve the Brooke
and income targeting laws by voting for the amendments offered by Mr.
Frank, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Kennedy.
It is crucial that these amendments pass, if this bill is to
successfully meet the challenge of public housing: To prevent
homelessness and provide public and assisted housing to those in
greatest need.
{time} 1700
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich].
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to compliment the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for his thoughtful approach to
housing issues. The gentleman well knows housing issues are a major
issue in my district.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to compliment the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the ranking member. We have very great
philosophical differences, as the ranking member knows, but I know he
believes what he says and I respect that.
Mr. Chairman, the Brooke amendment, a tax on work, corrupt and inept
public housing authorities, no rights and responsibilities for tenants,
mixing of the elderly poor with drug addicts and alcoholics, the
consistent waste of taxpayer money, all in the name of compassion.
Well, what I am here to say today is that compassion is not always a
function of more Federal money, nor is compassion always a function of
more Federal control.
Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a first positive step in what I
hope will be a new era in Federal housing policy. I know we are going
to have lots of debate and lots of amendments on the floor this
evening, and I look forward to that very substantive debate.
I also look forward to a colloquy with the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Lazio], the chairman of my subcommittee. I look forward to that
colloquy because the chairman knows my concern about the extreme, ill-
advised, unprecedented, and dangerous policies being promulgated by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development on the folks in the
Baltimore metropolitan area these days.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], my good friend and an active
member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, in 1937 we made a commitment to provide
decent, affordable housing to our Nation's lower income citizens. That
is a commitment I am not willing to scrap.
Public housing can work. It has been a tremendous success in New York
City, where more than 225,000 New Yorkers are on the waiting list to
get into public housing. Not all public housing in this country is as
successful, and we need change. HUD is already taking steps to make
needed changes.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank the members on
both sides of the aisle for supporting the amendment I offered in
committee with my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker],
to allow HUD to review the long-term viability of the local housing
management plans. Taxpayers are entitled to meaningful review. This
amendment ensures it, and I thank Chairman Lazio from the great State
of New York for accepting my amendment.
[[Page H4575]]
But while we work to improve public housing, we must not abdicate our
commitment to our poorest public housing residents. The bill does just
that.
A 30-percent cap would be maintained for the elderly, disabled, and
the very poor, but would only apply to current residents. What about
the future residents who need housing? Even worse, within 3 years, the
300 best performing authorities would be completely exempt from even
these minimal requirements.
The current Brooke provision provides renters, landlords, and
appropriators with a standard. By abolishing the standard, I believe we
abolish the mission. The bottom line is we can fix the problems in
public housing without penalizing seniors and our poorest residents.
Let us make sure we stay focused on reforming the parts that do not
work, not throwing out the parts that do.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the comments of the
gentlewoman from New York with respect to so-called Brooke protection
which is still in place as a ceiling for current tenants and
prospectively for those poorest of the poor, the people at 30 percent
or below median income, which is almost 76 percent of the population.
But Brooke, for those people that are trying to get themselves up the
ladder and trying to work, has been a huge work disincentive. It is a
job killer and a disincentive for people to transition back into the
marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Opportunity.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
legislation before us today, House Resolution 2406. I wanted to mention
three or four specific items that I think thus far have not been
enumerated. They are very important provisions.
Mr. Chairman, we have one which creates home ownership opportunities,
that would clarify the home ownership opportunities offered under the
legislation and the ability of the housing authority and other low-
income housing providers to undertake the process of preparation and
sale of units to residents who are eligible for home ownership.
Second, we have a provision in here which clarifies and provides
guidance on the factors necessary to require conversion of public
housing assistance to vouchers, including some conditions and certain
situations that are specified under the law. I think that is very
important.
The financial assistance for severely distressed buildings with no
eventual useful life will be terminated and, therefore, converted to
housing voucher assistance.
There is a section here which is directed to voluntary vouchering out
of public housing. That should be important to local housing and
management authorities.
Mr. Chairman, let me move to two other items. We have one which we
might refer to as shopping incentives for assisted families. This
provision allows for shopping incentives for assisted families under a
choice-based housing which rewards the market-rate selection of rental
units that fall below the payment standard for that community.
Finally, a section which relates to homeless and surplus property
community participation and self-help housing. This will amend section
203 of the Federal Property Administrative Services Act by providing
communities with an opportunity to participate in the disposition of
significant surplus property.
Mr. Chairman, these are a few of the important provisions that
perhaps have not been mentioned, but they are important provisions that
make an advance in housing for people across the country.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], my friend and our newest
member of the subcommittee.
(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to emphatically
oppose the United States Housing Act of 1996 as it is currently
drafted. In its present form, H.R. unravels 60 years of Federal housing
policy by pulling the safety net out from under our Nation's most
vulnerable and, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, hits our working
poor particularly hard. Adequate and safe housing is a human right and
should not be considered by this body as a privilege.
Left completely on its own, contrary to what the other side of the
aisle would lead us to believe, the market has not and will not provide
safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for all Americans. The market
has a role which I respect and it plays that role well, but its role
does not under all circumstances represent the interests of all
Americans, especially the poor and low-income Americans.
As we consider this critical piece of legislation, we must be mindful
of some very dangerous implications implicit in this bill. First, we
must maintain the 30-percent income cap imposed by the Brooke amendment
for all public housing and rental-assisted tenants. This includes poor
and the working poor.
Second, we must continue to target housing assistance primarily for
the most vulnerable.
Third, we cannot impose minimum rents without any kind of hardship
exemption upon those without the resources to provide for their
families. This includes protecting innocent children and some 750,000
elderly who currently rely upon government assistance for their
survival.
Fourth, we must work to protect the role of those affected, the
residents themselves, in the development of the policies and procedures
which govern their day-to-day lives.
By leaving the cap on the poorest of the poor those below 30 percent
of median income and thus those below the poverty line, as provided for
in the manager's amendment, and lifting the cap for those above 30
percent, H.R. 2406 essentially increases the concentration of the
poorest of Americans in public housing and abandons the working poor,
allowing their rents to be lifted to compensate for dwindling Federal
support. The working poor will now be forced to disproportionately
spend their meager take-home pay on rent at the expense of other
household necessities.
While the objective of mixed-income communities is a laudable one,
for many reasons this legislation will further exacerbate the
affordable housing gap existing in our Nation. Without adequately
targeting low and very low-income Americans for assistance, this
legislation will drive the poor out of public assisted housing and into
overcrowded and unsafe housing, or force people onto the streets.
Mr. Chairman, the overriding problem with this and past legislative
efforts is that we never have ever provided sufficient funding and
resources to allow public housing residents to move beyond public
housing. We must be about the business of providing job training and
retraining, education, child care, and true opportunities to allow
public housing residents to move into private housing and private life.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation if we
do not rectify the very serious issues before us.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to emphatically oppose the U.S. Housing
Act of 1995 as it is currently drafted. In its present form, H.R. 2406
unravels 60 years of Federal housing policy by pulling the safety net
out from under our Nation's most vulnerable and despite rhetoric to the
contrary, hits our working poor particularly hard. Adequate and safe
housing as a human right, it should not be considered a privilege.
As civilization and economies develop, certain basics of the material
life--health care, education, food and shelter--should not be turned
over completely to market forces, to a ``survival of the fittest''
situation. In such a system, the few always wind up on top with the
best and most of everything, while the many end up on the bottom with
the least and worst of everything--in this case, housing.
Left completely on its own, the market will not provide safe,
sanitary, and affordable housing for all Americans. The market has a
role, which I respect, and it plays its role well. But its role does
not under all circumstances, represent the interests of all Americans,
especially poor and low-income Americans.
[[Page H4576]]
The government of, by, and for the people has an important role to
play in assuring that every American has safe, sanitary, and affordable
housing. This is why we initially passed public housing legislation in
1937, to provide affordable housing for all Americans--housing for
those that the market did not serve. Public housing was later expanded
to specifically include the poor, the elderly, and the disabled.
We should not treat housing like we do peanuts, soybeans, beer, and
cars--commodities to be produced, distributed, and sold privately in
the market place for profit. Need--the need for adequate and affordable
housing, is the basis for the Government's role in housing.
If the market addressed the need, then our dilemma would be of a
different nature, but it hasn't and it doesn't. Thus, as
representatives of all of the American people--not just those that can
survive in a private, ``survival of the fittest'' housing market--we
must assume our responsibility.
In the late 1960's a White House Conference on Housing recommended 26
million new housing starts over the decade of the 1970's, 6 million in
public housing and government-assisted housing--2.6 million housing
starts per year for 10 years, 600,000 in public or subsidized housing.
We have never reached the 2.6 million annual goal. Thus, after two-and-
one-half decades of failing to meet that goal, our Nation's people are
even more ill-housed than they were 25 years ago. And now some Members
of this Congress want to remove the Government's role in requiring that
tenants not pay disproportionate portions of their income to provide
their families housing above substandard conditions.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2406 will deny many of our Nation's neediest
parents the opportunity to raise their children in a climate where
their rental contributions do not preclude the provision of household
essentials--clothing, medicine, food, and other necessities we take for
granted.
As we consider this critical legislation, we must be mindful of some
very dangerous implications implicit in this bill. First, we must
maintain the 30 percent income cap imposed by the Brooke amendment of
1969 for all public housing and rental-assisted tenants, this including
the poor and the working poor. Second, we must continue to target
housing assistance primarily for our most vulnerable. Third, we cannot
impose minimum rents without any kind of hardship exemption upon those
without the resources to provide for their families--this includes
protecting innocent children and the some 750,000 elderly who currently
rely upon governmental assistance for their survival. And fourth, we
must work to protect the role of those most affected--the residents
themselves, in the development of the policies and procedures which
govern their day to day lives.
Named for its sponsor, Senator Edward Brooke, the Brooke amendment
was enacted into law in 1969 to guarantee that residents of public and
assisted housing would pay no more than 25 percent of their income for
rent. In 1981, the cap was lifted to 30 percent. The policies
represented in H.R. 2406 are going in the exact opposite direction. By
leaving the cap on the poorest of the poor--those below 30 percent of
median income and thus below the poverty line--as provided for in the
managers amendment--and lifting the cap for those above 30 percent--
H.R. 2406 essentially increases concentration of the poorest of
Americans in public housing and abandons the working poor--allowing
their rents to be lifted to compensate for dwindling federal support.
The working poor will now be forced to disproportionately spend their
meager take-home pay on rent at the expense of other household
necessities.
While the objective of mixed-income communities is a laudable one for
many reasons, this legislation will further exacerbate the affordable
housing gap existing in our Nation. Without adequately targeting low-
and very low-income Americans for assistance, this legislation will, in
effect, drive the poor out of public and assisted housing, and into
overcrowded and unsafe housing, or force people onto the streets.
Despite the reality that these provisions do not, on their own merit,
adequately provide for affordable housing, to make matters worse, the
300 best-managed authorities will be completely exempted from rent caps
and targeting protections.
Mr. Chairman, the overriding problem with this and past legislative
efforts is that we never provide sufficient funding and resources to
allow public housing residents to move beyond public housing. We must
be about the business of providing job training and retraining,
education, childcare, and true opportunities to allow public housing
residents to move into private housing and private life. I encourage my
colleagues to enact these kinds of empowerment initiatives to
effectuate this kind of societal transformation.
Faced with dwindling Federal resources, owners of tenant-assisted
housing and public housing authorities will be forced by market
realities to prefer tenants who are better able to pay higher rents to
make ends meet. After all, where does one go for housing if he or she
is making $7,800 a year on average--which is the case for those living
in public housing. In most communities, 30 percent of Area Median
Income is roughly equivalent to the poverty line. According to HUD
studies, it is these families that have the worst case housing needs--
meaning that they are most likely to pay 50 percent or more of their
income in rent each month or live in substandard housing. Over 70
percent--71.3 percent--of poor renter households living below the
Federal poverty line pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent,
whereas only 41 percent of all renter households have excessive rent
burdens.
I oppose the idea of minimum rent for those who cannot afford it. HUD
Secretary Henry Cisneros has already indicated that the recently
implemented $25 minimum rents are already causing hardships for roughly
175,000 families in public and assisted housing nationwide. In
Illinois, 2,338 families living in public housing; 1,377 households
that receive certificates and vouchers; and 749 families living in
section 8 housing; for a total of 4,464 families have already been
negatively effected with the addition of the $25 minimum. These are
people who are already straining to meet their families needs and who
are already sometimes choosing between food, medicine, and housing.
H.R. 2406 contains minimum rents of up to $50. In my State of
Illinois, that would mean an average yearly rental increase of $569, a
32-percent increase which would affect 19,100 public housing families.
It would mean an average yearly increase of $584, or a 23-percent
increase for the 5,100 elderly in Illinois.
It would mean an average yearly increase of $569 or a 19-percent
increase for 1,100 disabled people. It also would mean an average
yearly increase of $525, a 57-percent increase for 3,200 other poor
families. Finally, a $50 increase in the rent means an increase of
$575, or a 38-percent increase for 9,700 families with children.
Mr. Chairman, the legacy of this Congress need not be enshrined in a
nation which has given up on the least among us. I urge my colleagues
to oppose this legislation if we do not rectify these serious issues
before us.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller], a member of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I of course want to begin by commending the
chairman of the subcommittee for his leadership and sincerity to bring
about changes in bad policy and public housing. I also want to commend
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] the ranking Democrat
who, as the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, though we sometimes
disagree, we know he is sincere and appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, when we look at public housing today, we want to look
at it frankly and be honest about who suffers the most in public
housing today, and that is the little children. It is the children who
reside in public housing who are the victims of today's current policy.
Fortunately, under Chairman Lazio's leadership, we have legislation
now before us which brings about real solutions. I grew up in the
shadows of the Chicago Housing Authority, growing up in the suburbs in
a rural area to the southwest of Chicago. On the nightly news we saw
tragedy after tragedy that occurred as a result of current public
housing policies.
Thousands if not millions of dollars bled from the system by
politicians, lawyers, and consultants. Politicians wanting to keep
people concentrated for political purposes in certain neighborhoods.
And, of course, the State street corridor is the best example of a
problem where we have 10,000 residents, miles long, one block wide,
living in an area with 99 percent unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, current public housing policy is a failure. This
legislation provides real hope and real opportunity to those who are
living in public housing, opportunities for home ownership, and also
addresses the issue of section 8, an issue of great concern to the
south suburbs.
There is real accountability and, of course, real reform in section 8
in this bill. One problem we have in the south suburbs is, we have seen
a concentration of poverty moving from high-rise public housing
projects to section 8
[[Page H4577]]
residences, where 70 percent of all the section 8 users in Cooke County
area are in the south suburbs.
Mr. Chairman, it is not fair to poor people because they do not have
the opportunity to move up the economic ladder because there are no
jobs in this area. This legislation directs HUD to come up with a
solution that Congress can adopt.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation protects senior citizens. Current law
requires rent equal to 30 percent of income. This bill caps rent at no
more than 30 percent of income and provides the opportunity for senior
citizens to see their rent lowered. It is good legislation, it is real
reform and provides hope and opportunity, looks out for the poor, and
looks out for taxpayers. It is a good bill.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, everybody agrees that the government
cannot do everything. But some of us believe that in a civilized
society the government, which is all of us, has the responsibility to
make certain that every American enjoys a minimal level of decency.
Yes; the government should make certain that no child goes hungry. Yes;
the government should make certain that all children have access to
education.
And yes; relevant to today's debate, the government should make
certain that all people can live in adequate and decent housing. Yes;
we should be doing that.
Mr. Chairman, today throughout this country millions of working
people are spending 40, 50, 60 percent of their limited incomes on
housing. That means they have barely enough money to feed their
families, put aside a few dollars for education or health care needs.
This legislation would simply add to that problem. There are elderly
people today living on fixed incomes from Social Security who should
not be asked to pay 50 or 60 percent of their limited incomes on public
housing. This legislation would allow that to happen.
There are millions of working people today who are earning $6 or $7
an hour. They are trying to improve the lives of their kids. They are
trying to make it into the middle class. They should not be asked to
pay 50 or 6 percent of their limited incomes for public housing, which
is what this legislation would allow to happen.
Mr. Chairman, we have a housing crisis in America today and this bill
only takes a step backward.
{time} 1715
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], a member of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the manager's
amendment to H.R. 2406, the U.S. Housing Act of 1996. I would first
like to thank Chairman Lazio for incorporating this bipartisan measure
into the bill. I would also like to thank my colleague from Virginia,
Mr. Moran, for his dedication to this issue.
After meeting with neighborhood groups in Lansing, MI, and listening
to their concerns and suggestions, I believe this provision will take
another step forward in getting criminals out of Federal and federally
assisted housing.
This amendment builds on the ``One Strike and You're Out'' proposal
incorprated into the recently enacted Housing Opportunity Program
extension law. My amendment extends one strike to residents in
federally assisted housing, permitting the eviction of tenants from
Federal housing for criminal activity, including drug dealing and
violent gang activities, whether the criminal activity is done on or
off the premises.
This provision ensures that no activity engaged in by a tenant,
member of the tenant's household, guest, or other person under the
tenant's control, threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful
enjoyment of the premises by other tenants in the immediate vicinity.
Simply put, my amendment will rightfully kick criminal tenants out of
Federal housing, safeguarding the livelihood of law-abiding tenants.
With my amendment, local housing authorities and owners of federally
assisted housing are given the ability to require each adult member of
a federally assisted household to provide the owner with written
authorization to obtain their criminal records. Safeguards have been
placed in the language to ensure that the information remains
confidential, not misused or improperly disseminated, and destroyed
upon completion of the application. We have included civil recourse and
criminal penalties to be brought upon those who breach these
agreements.
Our Federal dollars in housing assistance are too valuable and too
scarce to go to criminals. The waiting list for housing assistance is
getting longer and longer. We should not allow criminals the privilege
of living in taxpayer-funded housing.
Mr. Chairman, most of these housing communities have playgrounds for
children to play on, but because of drug dealing and gang violence,
parents are too scared to allow their children to play outdoors.
Residents are scared to leave their apartments in fear of getting
caught in the crossfire. This is no way to live. This amendment, with
the backing of housing groups and HUD, goes forth in helping to make
public housing safer. Families living in public housing should be able
to feel safe in their homes and in their communities.
This bill accomplishes a great deal in making Federal and federally
assisted housing a safer, more pleasant place to live. I commend
Chairman Lazio for all of his hard work on this bill.
I encourage my colleagues to help make Federal housing and federally
assisted housing safer by voting ``yes'' on the manager's amendment,
and voting ``yes'' on final passage of this legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
(Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, we heard a few minutes ago a catalog of
special interest groups who support this legislation. I am much more
concerned with the people who oppose it. They are the people who are
affected by public and subsidized housing across this country.
There will be hundreds of thousands of them that will be affected by
the provisions of this legislation, particularly that which abandons
the Brooke amendment and also the basic principle of this legislation,
which abandons something that has been very basic in our society now
for almost 50 years: A commitment to decent housing to all Americans,
no matter what their particular economic circumstances might be at any
given moment.
The Brooke amendment specifically capped rents at 30 percent of a
person's income. The bill as it currently stands abandons that
principle, although it will be corrected to some extent by the
manager's amendment, if the manager's amendment is adopted in just a
few moments. But even if the manager's amendment is adopted, that
correction, although partial and in response to pleas from the minority
in this House and in conformance with an amendment that I introduced,
will not deal with the problems of people who come into subsidized
housing and public housing subsequently.
Over the course of the next several years, if this bill is adopted,
135,000 frail elderly people could be put out of their housing
circumstances; 17,000 disabled people could be put out of their housing
circumstances; they will suffer, their families will suffer. The
children of the frail, elderly, grandparents will suffer and their
grandchildren will suffer.
This is, Mr. Chairman, a very poor piece of legislation because it
turns its back on those among us who are most needy and most deserving,
people in their golden years who will be put out of the housing
circumstances that they depend upon to hold their lives together.
This is a very bad bill. We should defeat this bill and protect that
which was put here by a Republican Senator, Senator Brooke, passed by a
Republican Senate, and signed into law by a Republican President,
President Nixon.
This is no time to turn our backs upon poor elderly people and people
who are disabled.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise us of the
time remaining on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has 6 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has 4
minutes remaining.
[[Page H4578]]
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me just correct some misperceptions laying out here on the floor
with respect to the so-called Brooke amendment, which is a job killer.
There is a presumption here that, if we maintain the tie between salary
and rent as a percentage, that that is fine for working people. The
opposite is true. It is a job killer.
As long as the Federal Government continues to mandate the one-size-
fits-all rule that every community in the country must follow, so that
some person who is in an apartment, the day they go to work they
immediately pay more rent the day they go to work. Now, some people are
suggesting that we take care of that by making Brooke a ceiling. In
fact, the ceiling will become a floor, given the financial situation
that many housing authorities are in right now.
So people will go, instead of knowing that they have to pay $25 for a
particular unit, $50 for a particular unit, regardless of whether they
go to work and make more money, they will do, under the suggestion by
my friends from the minority, they will go back in time to where we
were before, which is a disincentive to work, where a person who wants
to go to work has to pay this additional tax on employment. That is
what we oppose, Mr. Chairman. That is why we urge adoption and support
for this bill, which is a prowork, profamily, procommunity bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the sponsor of the Brooke
amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the
gentleman from New York. He had an argument all set to make. There is
no amendment to make it against. So he is going to make it anyway.
We agree that requiring housing authorities to set a minimum rent of
30 percent is a mistake. Let me be fair to a man I voted for a couple
of times, Ed Brooke. Ed Brooke did not do that. Ronald Reagan did it
and Gramm-Latta did it. The Brooke amendment was never a floor on
rents. The Brooke amendment set a cap on rents, 25 percent. Ronald
Reagan came along and said, no, no, 25 percent is too low; we will make
it 30 percent, and we will make it both a floor and a ceiling.
Yes; if you say automatically that, if your income goes up, your rent
goes up, there is some disincentive. Our amendment does away with that.
We put a cap on of 30 percent but no minimum. And what does the
gentleman from New York say? I am astonished that he could not come up
with a better argument. He says, do not have a cap without a floor.
Because if you have a cap without a floor, here is what he just said,
the housing authorities hurting for money will go to the absolute
limit.
Well, if in fact the gentleman believes that the housing authorities
will raise the rents as high as they legally can, he has got the
problem, because at least in our case they are at a cap of 30 percent.
The gentleman from New York on the one hand says take the cap off what
housing authorities can charge working people. And then he says,
because if you give them a cap, housing authorities will go up to the
cap.
So he, astonishingly, argues that, if you put no limit on the housing
authorities, they will charge people less rent presumably than if you
limit them to 30 percent. As a matter of fact, it is the gentleman from
New York's amendment which has an absolute disincentive to work in
there. His manager's amendment is some manager's amendment. That is a
manager's amendment that is more comprehensive than most bills. It does
not say much for the bill they wrote.
His manager's amendment says, if you are making less than 30 percent
of the median, then your rent is capped at 30 percent. If you make more
than 30 percent of the median income, you are subject to no cap. In
other words, it is under the amendment of the gentleman from New York
that those who work as opposed to those who are on welfare are legally
disadvantaged. If you are on welfare and getting 30 percent of the
median or less, your rent is capped at 30 percent. If you go to work,
if you go off welfare and you are now making 50 or 60 percent of the
median income, there is no protective cap.
So in the gentleman's effort to preserve the right of housing
authorities to charge more money, he is the one who has created a
disincentive. Let us be very clear about this. The amendment we will be
offering will say, no, there is no minimum amount. The gentleman from
New York says, no, but there will be a ceiling and they will go up to
the ceiling, and the way to keep them from going up to the ceiling is
to move the ceiling to the sky. It is illogical.
Mr. Chairman, let me close by summarizing. As someone has noted, if
Congress truly wants to remove barriers that discourage public housing
residents from obtaining employment, the solution is to give housing
authorities the flexibility to set rents below 30 percent in certain
instances. Congress should not withhold operating subsidies from public
housing authorities and try to balance the budget by reaching deeper
into the pockets of our poorest people.
That is what Ed Brooke said. That is what Ed Brooke said today. Ed
Brooke is as right today as a compassionate Republican, the endangered
species, as he was 30 years ago.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], a member of the
Committee on the Budget.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we have to take the context of this bill
compared to what exists, not the fantasy of what we think exists. We go
into public housing areas all around the country. They are in
devastating shape.
One of the things I find most troubling, the most troubling thing is
that we have basically warehoused the poorest of the poor in one
particular area. And all in the name of doing God's work, all in the
name of good.
I happen to believe that one of the most serious problems that we
have in public housing is we do not have firemen and policemen living
in public housing. We do not have the kind of role models that you used
to have. And I just hope and pray that others realize there is another
side to the Brooke amendment, at least the ones that I am most
interested in.
I want a family that truly wants to stay in public housing to stay in
a little longer and not end up paying more than the market rent. Thirty
percent of income can sometimes be more than what someone would
logically pay for the kind of facility that they are living in. I want
kids to be able to say that their next door neighbor may be a fireman
or a polceman, may have a job, may be somebody that they really look up
to and aspire to be like.
And I just hope and pray that in terms of this debate that we do not
talk about the fantasy world of what we think exists but what truly
exists.
I have spent 9 years now in this Chamber investigating the Department
of HUD, both at the Federal level and on the local level. The area that
concerns me the most is that we simply have got to have a mixture of
income, again in public housing.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has 1
minute remaining, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Let me close by reiterating that the reason why we oppose this bill
has nothing to do with the reasons that my friend from Connecticut
mentioned. Nobody wants to warehouse the poor. Nobody wants to prevent
the Secretary of any administration from breaking up these large
monstrosities. Nobody wants to.
In fact, there are many changes that are contained, and I have
complimented Mr. Lazio on many of the provisions that are contained in
this bill that allow the Secretary and allow greater flexibility by
local housing authorities. That is not what the issue is.
The issues are two. The issues are, No. 1, the Brooke amendment,
which in no way can be interpreted as preventing, as Mr. Frank has
rewritten it, to create some disincentive for work. The existing Brooke
amendment does create a small disincentive for work, but the kinds of
protections against the poor and against the elderly and against the
disabled which are con-
[[Page H4579]]
tained in the Lazio bill end up forcing us to recognize that the only
people left that we are going to have in public housing whose rents can
be jacked up are the working poor. The net result of the legislation
that we are looking at is going to hurt working people more than anyone
else that is contained in our public protections of the poor.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Nobody wants a situation of a State Street, of a New Orleans or a
Detroit. I remember getting this small document from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development about the 40 largest public housing
authorities, places like Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit, New
Orleans.
Mr. Chairman, if your child went to school and came back with the
grades that these housing authorities have been coming back with for
not 1 year or 2 years or 5 years but for 17 straight years, you would
say, we are wasting our money in that school.
New Orleans scores 27 out of 100, Mr. Chairman, 27. Can you imagine
if your child came back and said, I got a 27 on my test scores of 17
years? Atlanta, 49; Pittsburgh 47; Chicago 44 out of 100. What we have
when we tolerate that failure year after year, when we sink hundreds of
millions, in many cases billions of taxpayer dollars into housing
authorities that are chronically mismanaged, chronically troubled and,
in many cases, corrupt, is to say to Americans in those projects, we do
not care about you. We do not care about the people living in that
housing authority.
{time} 1730
Mr. Chairman, we would rather protect the bureaucracy, we would
rather ignore the reality, we would rather say that politics is better
keeping it just the way it is so we can get past one last election.
This bill rejects that, Mr. Chairman. It is time that this body
rejects that same mentality. We are saying that work ethic is
important. We are saying, remove these disincentives to work. The
Brooke amendment, Mr. Chairman, is a job killer. People do not want to
pay 30 percent of their income in rent. They do not want to have a tax
on employment. They want to have rent that is place-based. They want to
be able to know when they go to a place that that rent is $15 a month,
or $20 a month, or $25 a month regardless of whether they get a job,
regardless of whether they have overtime and they make extra money, so
that they do not get that penalty because one bureaucrat in Washington
feels that one size fits all and everybody ought to be living under
that same rule.
This bill begins the process of communities deciding their own fate.
And what is wrong with that? What is extreme about that? Is it extreme,
Mr. Chairman, to give people the ability to use vouchers for home
ownership so that poor people can make their own choices? Is it extreme
to allow people in public housing developments to pull together and
encourage entrepreneurship by allowing them to sell some of their
services to residents in the area? I think not, Mr. Chairman.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, anytime there is legislation
underfoot affecting housing, it gets my attention. The U.S. Housing Act
(H.R. 2406) block grants Federal funding for public housing and low
income rental assistance. The bill repeals the Housing Act of 1937;
eliminated caps on rent paid by seniors and working families; and
eliminates targeted housing assistance.
The bill repeals the Brooke amendment which caps rent for tenants in
public and assisted housing at 30 percent of income. Mr. Speaker, 41
percent of residents in public and assisted housing are seniors or are
disabled, and the remainder are working families with children. We are
talking about severe impacts upon poor, hard working families who are
already paying too great of a percentage of their meager incomes for
rent.
Repeal of the Brooke amendment will force tenants in public housing--
whose income averages only $6,400 per year--to choose between shelter
and food, medicine and clothing, and could lead to greater
homelessness. In my district, the Seventh District of Chicago, this is
the last thing we need.
It is extremely important to me to provide more residents of the
Sevenh District with the social and economic opportunities and
incentives that will help strengthen all our neighborhoods and
communities.
It is of great concern to me that the needs and concerns of the
residents of Chicago Housing Authority developments are attended to by
HUD and by the Congress. I intend to work long and hard to facilitate
effective communication among all parties involved in this important
endeavor to make certain that they fully understand one another's
views.
To this end, I strongly support public housing enhancements. Not a
kick in the teeth. I encourage my colleagues to show a strong
commitment to fundamental renewal of our Nation's public housing
developments shown by both President Clinton and the Secretary of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], Henry Cisneros.
However, I am troubled that this same commitment is not embraced by
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Instead, this bill smacks
of negative, mean-spirited, insensitive determination to deny our
Nation's neediest citizens, decent affordable public housing.
In clear, plain English, let me state unequivocally that this Member
of Congress, representing all citizens in the Seventh District, that I
shall standfast in my determination to fight all efforts in the
Congress to decimate affordable public housing in the United States,
and I will continue working with my colleagues to protect the interests
of the undeserved in this regard.
It is outrageous that any Member of Congress would support attempts
to balance the Federal budget on the very poorest Americans. I ask my
colleagues to defeat H.R. 2406.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong
support of H.R. 2406, the United States Housing Act of 1996. Let me
take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Lazio on his innovative
effort to bring much needed reform to America's byzantine public
housing laws.
For too long, America's public housing residents have been forced to
live under a cumbersome system of rules that often fail to improve
their living standards or provide a better quality of life. Indeed,
many of America's public housing developments are rampant with crime
and unsafe for residents.
One of the results of this arcane system is that tenants are not
adequately represented on many large public housing authorities. In
fact, much of the public housing management throughout the country has
no tenant representation. Instead, these positions are often doled out
as political patronage positions, which further thwart the
accountability of these boards.
In an effort to remediate this chronic problem, I have worked closely
with Housing Subcommittee Chairman Rick Lazio to develop a legislative
proposal which ensures elected resident participation on public housing
boards.
My tenant empowerment provision forces these boards to be accountable
to its residents by enabling, for the first time, at least one tenant
to be democratically elected to any large local housing and management
board.
In order to ensure that public housing tenants are represented by
responsible individuals, my legislation establishes strict
qualifications for residents to be eligible to be elected to local
housing and management authorities. First, elected residents must
maintain their principal residence in a governed housing authority.
Second, they cannot have been convicted of any felony, and they cannot
reside in a house in which a convicted felon lives. Finally, eligible
individuals cannot have been convicted of a misdemeanor within 5 years
of the date of a public housing residents election.
To further ensure responsible governance of public housing by local
housing management authorities, my legislation requires the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development to develop guidelines which would
prevent conflicts of interest on the part of members of the board of
directors. Until board members are recused from decisions which may
otherwise create a conflict of interest, tenants will never be fairly
represented on the authorities.
I am confident that the provisions I have worked to secure, along
with the others found in H.R. 2406, will improve the living conditions
in many of today's public housing developments.
If you believe that America's public housing authorities should be
more accountable to the very tenants they exist to serve, I urge all
Members to vote ``aye'' on the manager's amendment and ``aye'' on final
passage of H.R. 2406.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this housing bill,
which would force thousands of Americans out on the street. This bill
signals the end to our Nation's commitment to providing housing
security for those in our communities, who are most in need. But now,
all of that is changing under the Republican leadership. This
leadership would rather put an end to housing security for our most
vulnerable. They would rather see these Americans, the elderly,
families, and children, out on the streets, in the subways, in the
[[Page H4580]]
parks, homeless. Big tax cuts for their wealthy friends are fine, but
ensuring affordable housing for the working poor is something our
colleagues on the other side just can't abide.
This bill repeals the Brooke amendment. The Brooke amendment, for the
past 25 years, has ensured that low-income families would have to pay
no more than 30 percent of their income on rent. This bill also
eliminates income targeting, which provides that the poorest Americans
are ensured housing assistance and are afforded decent housing along
with those of moderate income levels. Without this protection the
poorest Americans could be segregated away from healthy mixed income
neighborhoods where opportunities for advancement are greater. This
bill reneges on our Nation's promise that Americans who are most in
need of housing assistance can afford to receive it.
These protections have provided a critical safety net for those in
desperate need and have saved so many from homelessness and
destitution.
Mr. Chairman, even with the current protections of the Brooke
amendment homelessness and unacceptable living conditions continue to
plague America. There are more than 5 million American renter
households, not including the homeless, who have worst case housing
needs, paying more than half of their income for rent, living in
substandard housing, or in the most unfortunate cases, both.
This problem afflicts the elderly, working poor families, and others
who strive to make ends meet on the minimum wage--a minimum wage, if I
might add, which has not kept up with inflation, and has not been
raised since 1991, because of staunch Republican opposition.
Securing safe, affordable housing for those who remain poor despite
hard work, for children or for those who might be unable to make a
living on their own due to health or other reasons, is crucial to the
positive development of today's youth and families, the safety and
well-being of our elderly, and for our Nation's communities as a whole.
I have many constituents who have contacted me about their fears of
what this bill could mean to them. One constituent, who happens to be a
quadriplegic, informed me that should the Brooke amendment be repealed,
he surely would be out on the street, and I am further saddened to say
that there are many more who would be put in the same situation.
We need to ensure that affordable housing remains available. It is
the right thing to do and it is the smart thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this very damaging bill.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts for allowing me the opportunity to speak
on this most important issue. In listening to the debate on this issue,
it is clear to me that my colleagues in the majority truly believe in
their views on this issue. To some extent, I would agree with the
spirit of their views but not with the methods. In our efforts to
reform public housing we must be careful not to hurt the very people
that we are trying to help, the residents of public housing.
Under current law, the Brooke amendment was enacted in 1969 to
protect the most vulnerable residents of public housing from paying too
high a percentage of their income for rent. The amendment made public
and assisted housing affordable for very low-income families.
Typically, poor families who are not in public housing pay more than 30
percent of their income in rent. Currently, more than 5.3 million
families, who are not in public or assisted housing pay more than 50
percent of their income for rent. The limits set by the Brooke
amendment have made public and assisted housing more affordable for
very low-income families by preventing dramatic increases in rent.
Current law also addresses the earned income adjustments that allow
public housing authorities to encourage work through more flexible rent
structures. Further, rent ceilings allow public housing authorities to
price units competitively with the market and allow retention for mixed
occupancy. The Brooke amendment is a good amendment. It is sound public
policy.
But let's talk turkey. H.R. 2406 repeals the Brooke amendment and
hurts the people we are trying to help, by removing the limits placed
on rent charges. This is dichotomous at best. We are going to remove
the caps on rent and in the same breath deny them an increase in the
minimum wage. That equates to a back hand and a forehand slap to the
faces of the residents of public housing. I hear some of my colleagues
say that they value home ownership and that residents of public housing
will be allowed to purchase their units. Tell me: How will those
residents be able to afford the mortgages on those units without being
able to earn a decent livable wage.
Let's talk about this managers amendment. It seems to me that this
amendment undermines itself. While it attempts to maintain the spirit
of the Brooke amendment, it seeks to deregulate 300 of the best
performing local housing authorities over the next 3 years, for which
the rent is capped and resident targeting would no longer apply. That
provision would severely impact my constituency. I have nine, count
them, nine public housing projects in my district. Ujima Village in the
city of Compton happens to be one of the best run housing complexes
this Congresswoman has ever seen. To blanketly deregulate a housing
authority for performing well is poor public policy. Mr. Watt's
amendment is good public policy, Mr. Kennedy's amendment is good public
policy. This bill removes the goal of providing decent affordable
housing for our working poor. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
manager's amendment and oppose this draconian, extreme bill.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern
about what I see this bill is being used for. It has become a vehicle
for a major amendment to the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949. This act is within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, of which I am the ranking
minority member.
That amendment, as section 506, is designed to modify title V of the
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. Title V allows homeless
assistance providers a priority of consideration in applying to obtain
Federal surplus property for the homeless. And title V, too, is part of
the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight. Moreover, as chair of the Government Activities and
Transportation Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations I
was a principal author of title V.
Mr. Chairman, the provision, which will be offered as part of the
managers' amendment to H.R. 2406 was drafted without prior consultation
with GSA or the Department of Health and Human Services, which
administer property use for the homeless. Nor was there prior
consultation with the majority or minority staff of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight.
The result, Mr. Chairman, is that we will be dealing today with
language that not only contains major ambiguities, loopholes, and
omissions, but will reduce to arbitrary fractions the amount of vacant
Federal property that GSA may transfer and still realize compliance
with title V of McKinney.
We must ask, for example, why the language does not provide for input
from the Departments of Housing and Urban Development of Health and
Human Services. In other public-purpose transfer provisions of the
Federal Property Act, review and approval of proposals by other
affected agencies, such as Interior, Health and Human Services or
Treasury, are required.
We must ask why nonprofit organizations are the only entities
eligible for property under proposal? Surely local government entities
with responsibilities for housing and the homeless should be able to
become transferees, too.
Finally, we must anticipate that GSA may exercise its broad authority
under this amendment by taking all surplus land out of title V
availability while seeking a substitute transfer in the form of one of
the amendment's alternatives.
Mr. Chairman, if this provision becomes part of the House-passed
bill, I intend to take every opportunity I can to assure that both the
substantive and technical deficiencies of this provision are carefully
and fairly addressed by the committee of conference.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute
rule by titles, and the first two sections and each title shall be
considered read.
Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to
consider the amendment printed in the designated place in the
Congressional Record of May 7, 1996, if offered by the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio] or his designee. That amendment shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered as read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the
[[Page H4581]]
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment
and may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by
electronic device on any postponed question that immediately follows
another vote by electronic device without intervening business,
provided that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in
any series of questions shall not be less than 15 minutes.
amendment offered by mr. lazio of new york
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lazio of New York:
Page 7, lines 9 and 10, strike ``and become self-
sufficient; and'' and insert the following: ``, become self-
sufficient, and transition out of public housing and
federally assisted dwelling units;''.
Page 7, line 15, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 7, after line 15, insert the following:
(7) remedying troubled local housing and management
authorities and replacing or revitalizing severely distressed
public housing developments.
Page 10, line 23, after the comma insert ``as determined by
the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger
families,''.
Page 13, line 7, after the comma insert ``as determined by
the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger
families,''.
Page 14, line 3, strike ``or''.
Page 14, strike line 4 and insert the following:
(C) an entity authorized by State law to administer choice-
based housing assistance under title III; or
(D) an entity selected by the Secretary, pur-
Page 14, strike line 23 and all that follows through page
15, line 5, and insert the following:
ber who is an elected public housing resident member (as such
term is defined in paragraph (5)). If the board includes 2 or
more resident members, at least 1 such member shall be a
member of an assisted family under title III.
Page 15, line 7, strike ``a resident member'' and insert
``elected public housing resident members and resident
members''
Page 16, strike lines 3 through 6.
Page 16, line 7, strike ``(iv)'' and insert ``(iii)''.
Page 16, line 13, strike ``(v)'' and insert ``(iv)''.
Page 17, strike lines 4 through 10, and insert the
following new paragraph:
(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
following definitions shall apply:
(A) Elected public housing resident member.--The term
``elected public housing resident member'' means, with
respect to the local housing and management authority
involved, an individual who is a resident member of the board
of directors (or other similar governing body of the
authority) by reason of election to such position pursuant to
an election--
(i) in which eligibility for candidacy in such election is
limited to individuals who--
(I) maintain their principal residence in a dwelling unit
of public housing administered or assisted by the authority;
(II) have not been convicted of a felony and do not reside
in a household that includes an individual convicted of a
felony; and
(III) have not, during the 5-year period ending upon the
date of such election, been convicted of a misdemeanor;
(ii) in which only residents of dwelling units of public
housing administered by the authority may vote; and
(iii) that is conducted in accordance with standards and
procedures for such election, which shall be established by
the Secretary.
(B) Resident member.--The term ``resident member'' means a
member of the board of directors or other similar governing
body of a local housing and management authority who is a
resident of a public housing dwelling unit owned,
administered, or assisted by the authority or is a member of
an assisted family (as such term is defined in section 371)
assisted by the authority.
Page 17, line 18, insert ``AND MEDIAN INCOME'' before the
last period.
Page 17, line 19, strike ``In General'' and insert
``Adjusted Income''.
Page 19, line 1, after ``Minors'' insert ``, students, and
persons with disabilities''.
Page 19, line 5, before the period insert the following:
``, or who is 18 years of age or older and is a person with
disabilities''.
Page 20, after line 10, insert the following new
subsection:
(d) Median Income.--In determining median incomes (of
persons, families, or households) for an area or establishing
any ceilings or limits based on income under this Act, the
Secretary shall determine or establish area median incomes
and income ceilings and limits for Westchester and Rockland
Counties, in the State of New York, as if each such county
were an area not contained within the metropolitan
statistical area in which it is located. In determining such
area median incomes or establishing such income ceilings or
limits for the portion of such metropolitan statistical area
that does not include Westchester or Rockland Counties, the
Secretary shall determine or establish area median incomes
and income ceilings and limits as if such portion included
Westchester and Rockland Counties.
Page 20, strike line 11 and all that follows through page
21, line 22, and insert the following new section:
SEC. 105. OCCUPANCY LIMITATIONS BASED ON ILLEGAL DRUG
ACTIVITY AND ALCOHOL ABUSE.
(a) Ineligibility Because of Eviction for Drug-Related
Criminal Activity.--Any tenant evicted from housing assisted
under title II or title III by reason of drug-related
criminal activity (as such term is defined in section 102)
shall not be eligible for any housing assistance under title
II or title III during the 3-year period beginning on the
date of such eviction, unless the evicted tenant successfully
completes a rehabilitation program approved by the local
housing and management authority (which shall include a
waiver of this subsection if the circumstances leading to
eviction no longer exist).
(b) Ineligibility of Illegal Drug Users and Alcohol
Abusers.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a local housing and management authority shall establish
standards for occupancy in public housing dwelling units and
housing assistance under title II--
(A) that prohibit occupancy in any public housing dwelling
unit by, and housing assistance under title II for, any
person--
(i) who the local housing and management authority
determines is illegally using a controlled substance; or
(ii) if the local housing and management authority
determines that it has reasonable cause to believe that such
person's illegal use (or pattern of illegal use) of a
controlled substance, or abuse (or pattern of abuse) of
alcohol, may interfere with the health, safety, or right to
peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents of the
project; and
(B) that allow the local housing and management authority
to terminate the tenancy in any public housing unit of, and
the housing assistance under title II for, any person--
(i) who the local housing and management authority
determines is illegally using a controlled substance; or
(ii) whose illegal use of a controlled substance, or whose
abuse of alcohol, is determined by the local housing and
management authority to interfere with the health, safety, or
right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other
residents of the project.
(2) Consideration of rehabilitation.--In determining
whether, pursuant to paragraph (1), to deny occupancy or
assistance to any person based on a pattern of use of a
controlled substance or a pattern of abuse of alcohol, a
local housing and management authority may consider whether
such 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
abuse of alcohol (as applicable);
(B) has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully and is no
longer engaging in the illegal use of a controlled substance
or abuse 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
abuse of alcohol (as applicable).
(c) Other Screening.--A local housing and management
authority may deny occupancy as provided in section 642 of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.
Page 22, line 4, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 22, strike line 8 and all that follows through line
13, and insert the following:
member of the family shall contribute not less than 8 hours
of work per month within the community in which the family
resides. The requirement under this subsection shall be
incorporated in the terms of the tenant self-sufficiency
contract under subsection (b).
(b) Tenant Self-Sufficiency Contract.--
(1) Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection (c),
each local housing and management authority shall require, as
a condition of occupancy of a public housing dwelling unit by
a family and of providing housing assistance under title III
on behalf of a family, that each adult member of the family
who has custody of, or is responsible for, a minor living in
his or her care shall enter into a legally enforceable self-
sufficiency contract under this section with the authority.
(2) Contract terms.--The terms of a self-sufficiency
contract under this subsection shall be established pursuant
to consultation between the authority and the family and
shall include a plan for the resident's or family's residency
in housing assisted under this Act that provides--
(A) a date specific by which the resident or family will
graduate from or terminate tenancy in such housing;
(B) specific interim and final performance targets and
deadlines relating to self-sufficiency, which may relate to
education, school participation, substance and alcohol abuse
counseling, mental health support, jobs and skills training,
and any other factors the authority considers appropriate;
and
(C) any resources, services, and assistance relating to
self-sufficiency to be made available to the resident or
family.
[[Page H4582]]
(3) Incorporation into lease.--A self-sufficiency contract
under this subsection shall be incorporated by reference into
a lease under section 226 or 324, as applicable, and the
terms of such contract shall be terms of the lease for which
violation may result in--
(A) termination of tenancy, pursuant to section 226(4) or
325(a)(1), as applicable; or
(B) withholding of assistance under this Act.
The contract shall provide that the local housing and
management authority or the resident who is a party to the
contract may enforce the contract through an administrative
grievance procedure under section 110.
(4) Partnerships for self-sufficiency activities.--A local
housing and management authority may enter into such
agreements and form such partnerships as may be necessary,
with State and local agencies, nonprofit organizations,
academic institutions, and other entities who have experience
or expertise in providing services, activities, training, and
other assistance designed to facilitate low- and very-low
income families achieving self-sufficiency.
(5) Changed circumstances.--A self-sufficiency contract
under this subsection shall provide for modification in
writing and that the local housing and management authority
may for good cause or changed circumstances waive conditions
under the contract.
(6) Model contracts.--The Secretary shall, in consultation
with organizations and groups representing resident councils
and residents of housing assisted under this Act, develop a
model self-sufficiency contract for use under this
subsection. The Secretary shall provide local housing and
management authorities with technical assistance and advice
regarding such contracts.
Page 22, line 16, strike ``requirement under subsection
(a)'' and insert ``requirements under subsections (a) and
(b)(1)''.
Page 27, lines 19 and 20, strike ``section 110'' and insert
``section 111''.
Page 29, line 18, after ''welfare'' insert ``and other
appropriate''.
Page 29, line 20, after ``welfare agencies'' insert the
following: ``and other appropriate Federal, State, or local
government agencies or nongovernment agencies or entities''.
Page 29, line 25, strike ``requirements'' and all that
follows through ``ensure'' on page 30, line 1, and insert the
following: ``policies established by the authority that
increase or maintain''.
Page 30, line 7, strike ``local law'' and insert the
following: ``Federal, State, and local law''.
Page 34, line 8, strike ``or''.
Page 30, after line 8, insert the following new paragraph:
(13) Policies for loss of housing assistance.--A
description of policies of the authority requiring the loss
of housing assistance and tenancy under titles II and III,
pursuant to sections 222(e) and 321(g).
Page 34, line 12, strike the period and insert a semicolon.
Page 34, after line 12, insert the following new
paragraphs:
(4) the plan plainly fails to adequately identify the needs
of low-income families for housing assistance in the
jurisdiction of the authority;
(5) the plan plainly fails to adequately identify the
capital improvement needs for public housing developments in
the jurisdiction of the authority;
(6) the activities identified in the plan are plainly
inappropriate to address the needs identified in the plan; or
(7) the plan is inconsistent with the requirements of this
Act.
Page 36, line 24, after the semicolon insert ``or''.
Page 37, after line 17, insert the following new section:
SEC. 109. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Performance and Evaluation Report.--Each local housing
and management authority shall annually submit to the
Accreditation Board established under section 401, on a date
determined by such Board, a performance and evaluation report
concerning the use of funds made available under this Act.
The report of the local housing and management authority
shall include an assessment by the authority of the
relationship of such use of funds made available under this
Act, as well as the use of other funds, to the needs
identified in the local housing management plan and to the
purposes of this Act. The local housing and management
authority shall certify that the report was available for
review and comment by affected tenants prior to its
submission to the Board.
(b) Review of LHMA's.--The Accreditation Board established
under section 401 shall, at least on an annual basis, make
such reviews as may be necessary or appropriate to determine
whether each local housing and management authority receiving
assistance under this section--
(1) has carried out its activities under this Act in a
timely manner and in accordance with its local housing
management plan;
(2) has a continuing capacity to carry out its local
housing management plan in a timely manner; and
(3) has satisfied, or has made reasonable progress towards
satisfying, such performance standards as shall be prescribed
by the Board.
(c) Records.--Each local housing and management authority
shall collect, maintain, and submit to the Accreditation
Board established under section 401 such data and other
program records as the Board may require, in such form and in
accordance with such schedule as the Board may establish.
Page 37, line 18, strike ``SEC. 109.'' and insert ``SEC.
110.''.
Page 38, line 6, strike ``SEC. 110.'' and insert ``SEC.
111.''.
Page 38, lines 10 and 11, strike ``and assisted families
under title III''.
Page 38, line 16, after ``impartial party'' insert
``(including appropriate employees of the local housing and
management authority)''.
Page 39, strike lines 13 through 17 and insert the
following new subsection:
(c) Inapplicability to Choice-Based Rental Housing
Assistance.--This section may not be construed to require any
local housing and management authority to establish or
implement an administrative grievance procedure with respect
to assisted families under title III.
Page 39, line 18, strike ``SEC. 111.'' and insert ``SEC.
112.''.
Page 40, line 18, strike ``SEC. 112.'' and insert ``SEC.
113.''.
Page 39, lines 22 and 23, strike ``to provide incremental
housing assistance under title III'' and insert ``for use''.
Page 40, line 2, after ``subsection (a)'' insert ``or
appropriated or otherwise made available for use under this
section''.
Page 40, strike lines 12 through 17 and insert the
following:
(4) providing technical assistance, training, and
electronic information systems for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, local housing and management
authorities, residents, resident councils, and resident
management corporations to improve management of such
authorities, except that the provision of assistance under
this paragraph may not involve expenditure of amounts
retained under subsection (a) for travel;
(5)(A) providing technical assistance, directly or
indirectly, for local housing and management authorities,
residents, resident councils, resident management
corporations, and nonprofit and other entities in connection
with implementation of a homeownership program under section
251, except that grants under this paragraph may not exceed
$100,000; and (B) establishing a public housing homeownership
program data base; and
(6) needs related to the Secretary's actions regarding
troubled local housing and management authorities under this
Act.
Housing needs under this subsection may be met through the
provision of assistance in accordance with title II or title
III, or both.
Page 42, line 4, after ``who'' insert ``(A)''.
Page 42, line 6, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
Page 42, line 7, strike ``or production''.
Page 42, line 8, before the period insert the following:
``, and (C) is not a member of a bargaining unit represented
by a union that has a collective bargaining agreement with
the local housing and management authority''.
Page 42, after line 8, insert the following:
(3) Residents in training programs.--Any individuals
participating in a job training program or other program
designed to promote economic self-sufficiency.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the terms
``operation'' and ``production'' have the meanings given the
term in section 273.
Page 42, line 9, strike ``SEC. 113.'' and insert ``SEC.
114.''.
Page 43, after line 4, insert the following new section:
SEC. 114. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS.
None of the funds made available to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to carry out this Act, which
are obligated to State or local governments, local housing
and management authorities, housing finance agencies, or
other public or quasi-public housing agencies, shall be used
to indemnify contractors or subcontractors of the government
or agency against costs associated with judgments of
infringement of intellectual property rights.
Page 43, line 5, strike ``SEC. 114.'' and insert ``SEC.
115.''.
Page 45, strike line 22 and insert the following:
SEC. 202. GRANT AUTHORITY, AMOUNT, AND ELIGIBILITY.
Page 46, after line 2, insert the following new subsection:
(b) Performance Funds.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish 2 funds for
the provision of grants to eligible local housing and
management authorities under this title, as follows:
(A) Capital fund.--A capital fund to provide capital and
management improvements to public housing developments.
(B) Operating fund.--An operating fund for public housing
operations.
(2) Flexibility of funding.--A local housing and management
authority may use up to 10 percent of the amounts from a
grant under this title that are allocated and provided from
the capital fund for activities that are eligible under
section 203(a)(2) to be funded with amounts from the
operating fund.
(c) Amount of Grants.--The amount of the grant under this
title for a local housing and management authority for a
fiscal year shall be the amount of the allocation for the
authority determined under section 204, except as otherwise
provided in this title and subtitle B of title IV.
Page 46, line 3, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 46, line 19, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
[[Page H4583]]
Page 47, line 3, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 47, strike lines 7 through 11.
Page 47, line 12, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
Page 48, line 22, strike ``not''.
Page 49, line 12, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 49, line 20, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
Page 50, strike line 4 and all that follows through page
54, line 5, and insert the following new subsection:
(a) Eligible Activities.--Except as provided in subsection
(b) and in section 202(b)(2), grant amounts allocated and
provided from the capital fund and grant amounts allocated
and provided from the operating fund may only be used only
for the following activities:
(1) Capital Fund Activities.--Grant amounts from the
capital fund may be used for--
(A) the production and modernization of public housing
developments, including the redesign, reconstruction, and
reconfiguration of public housing sites and buildings and the
production of mixed-income developments;
(B) vacancy reduction;
(C) addressing deferred maintenance needs and the
replacement of dwelling equipment;
(D) planned code compliance;
(E) management improvements;
(F) demolition and replacement under section 261;
(G) tenant relocation;
(H) capital expenditures to facilitate programs to improve
the economic empowerment and self-sufficiency of public
housing tenants; and
(I) capital expenditures to improve the security and safety
of residents.
(2) Operating Fund Activities.--Grant amounts from the
operating fund may be used for--
(A) procedures and systems to maintain and ensure the
efficient management and operation of public housing units;
(B) activities to ensure a program of routine preventative
maintenance;
(C) anti-crime and anti-drug activities, including the
costs of providing adequate security for public housing
tenants;
(D) activities related to the provision of services,
including service coordinators for elderly persons or persons
with disabilities;
(E) activities to provide for management and participation
in the management of public housing by public housing
tenants;
(F) the costs associated with the operation and management
of mixed-income developments;
(G) the costs of insurance;
(H) the energy costs associated with public housing units,
with an emphasis on energy conservation;
(I) the costs of administering a public housing work
program under section 106, including the costs of any related
insurance needs; and
(J) activities in connection with a homeownership program
for public housing residents under subtitle D, including
providing financing or assistance for purchasing housing, or
the provision of financial assistance to resident management
corporations or resident councils to obtain training,
technical assistance, and educational assistance to promote
homeownership opportunities.
Page 54, line 11, after ``title III'' insert a comma.
Page 54, strike lines 16 through 25 and insert the
following:
sufficient evidence to the Secretary that the building or
buildings--
(A) are on the same or contiguous sites;
(B) consist of more than 300 dwelling units;
(C) have a vacancy rate of at least 10 percent for dwelling
units not in funded, on-schedule modernization programs;
(D) are identified as distressed housing for which the
local housing and management authority cannot assure the
long-term viability as public housing through reasonable
revitalization, density reduction, or achievement of a
broader range of household income; and
(E) have an estimate cost of continued operation and
modernization as public housing that exceeds the cost of
providing choice-based rental assistance under title III for
all families in occupancy, based on appropriate indicators of
cost (such as the percentage of the total development cost
required for modernization).
Local housing and management agencies shall identify
properties that meet the definition of subparagraphs (A)
through (E).
Page 55, line 3, strike ``formula'' and insert
``formulas''.
Page 55, line 6, strike ``incremental''.
Page 55, strike line 7 and all that follows through
``assistance'' on line 10.
Page 56, line 14, after ``and'' insert ``take''.
Page 58, line 10, strike ``formula'' and insert
``formulas''.
Page 58, line 12, strike ``formula'' and insert
``formulas''.
Page 58, strike line 15 and all that follows through line
22, and insert the following new subsection:
(c) Extension of Deadlines.--The Secretary may, for a local
housing and management authority, extend any deadline
established pursuant to this section or a local housing
management plan for up to an additional 5 years if the
Secretary makes a determination that the deadline is
impracticable.
Page 59, line 11, strike ``BLOCK''.
Page 59, line 13, strike ``section 111'' and insert
``section 112''.
Page 59, line 24, strike ``a formula described in'' and
insert ``the formulas described in paragraphs (1) and (2)
of''.;
Page 60, lines 1 and 2, strike ``formula'' and insert
``formulas''.
Page 60, strike line 10 and all that follows through line
23 and insert the following:
(c) Permanent Allocation Formulas for Capital and Operating
Funds.--
(1) Establishment of Capital Fund Formula.--The formula
under this paragraph shall provide for allocating assistance
under the capital fund for a fiscal year. The formula may
take into account such factors as--
(A) the number of public housing dwelling units owned or
operated by the local housing and management authority, the
characteristics and locations of the developments, and the
characteristics of the families served and to be served
(including the incomes of the families);
(B) the need of the local housing and management authority
to carry out rehabilitation and modernization activities, and
reconstruction, production, and demolition activities related
to public housing dwelling units owned or operated by the
local housing and management authority, including backlog and
projected future needs of the authority;
(C) the cost of constructing and rehabilitating property in
the area; and
(D) the need of the local housing and management authority
to carry out activities that provide a safe and secure
environment in public housing units owned or operated by the
local housing and management authority.
(2) Establishment of Operating Fund Formula.--The formula
under this paragraph shall provide for allocating assistance
under the operating fund for a fiscal year. The formula may
take into account such factors as--
(A) standards for the costs of operating and reasonable
projections of income, taking into account the
characteristics and locations of the public housing
developments and characteristics of the families served and
to be served (including the incomes of the families), or the
costs of providing comparable services as determined in
accordance with criteria or a formula representing the
operations of a prototype well-managed public housing
development;
(B) the number of public housing dwelling units owned or
operated by the local housing and management authority; and
(C) the need of the local housing and management authority
to carry out anti-crime and anti-drug activities, including
providing adequate security for public housing residents.
Page 60, line 24, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
Page 60, line 25, strike ``formula'', and insert
``formulas''.
Page 61, line 4, strike ``formula'', and insert
``formulas''.
Page 61, line 6, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
Page 61, line 9, strike ``formula'', and insert
``formulas''.
Page 61, line 10, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
Page 62, line 10, after ``costs'' insert the following:
``and other necessary costs (such as costs necessary for the
protection of persons and property)''.
Page 62, after line 16, insert the following new
subparagraph:
(D) Increases in income.--The Secretary may revise the
formula referred to in subparagraph (B) to provide an
incentive to encourage local housing and management
authorities to increase nonrental income and to increase
rental income attributable to their units by encouraging
occupancy by families with a broad range of incomes,
including families whose incomes have increased while in
occupancy and newly admitted families. Any such incentive
shall provide that the local housing and management authority
shall derive the full benefit of an increase in nonrental
income, and such increase shall not directly result in a
decrease in amounts provided to the authority under this
title.
Page 63, after line 13, insert the following new
subsection:
(e) Eligibility of Units Acquired From Proceeds of Sales
Under Demolition or Disposition Plan.--If a local housing and
management authority uses proceeds from the sale of units
under a homeownership program in accordance with section 251
to acquire additional units to be sold to low-income
families, the additional units shall be counted as public
housing for purposes of determining the amount of the
allocation to the authority under this section until sale by
the authority, but in any case no longer than 5 years.
Page 69, line 21, strike ``25 percent'' and insert ``30
percent''.
Page 69, line 23, strike the period insert the following:
``, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for
smaller and larger families. The Secretary may establish
income ceiling higher or lower than 30 percent of the area
median income on the basis of the Secretary's findings that
such variations are necessary because of unusually high or
low family incomes.''.
Page 71, after line 11, insert the following new
subsection:
(e) Loss of Assistance for Termination of Tenancy.--A local
housing and management authority shall, consistent with
policies described in the local housing management plan of
the authority, establish policies
[[Page H4584]]
providing that a family residing in a public housing dwelling
unit whose tenancy is terminated for serious violations of
the terms or conditions of the lease shall--
(1) lose any right to continued occupancy in public housing
under this title; and
(2) immediately become ineligible for admission to public
housing under this title or for housing assistance under
title III--
(A) in the case of a termination due to drug-related
criminal activity, for a period of not less than 3 years from
the date of the termination; or
(B) for other terminations, for a reasonable period of time
as determined period of time as determined by the local
housing and management authority.
Page 71, line 22, strike the period and all that follows
through ``sources'' in line 24.
Page 72, strike line 11 and all that follows through page
74, line 20, and insert the following new subsection:
(b) Availability of Criminal Records.--A local housing and
management authority may request and obtain records regarding
the criminal convictions of applicants for, or tenants of,
public housing as provided in section 646 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992.
Page 76, strike line 2 and all that follows through page
77, line 14, and insert the following:
(a) Rental Contribution by Resident.--
(1) In general.--A family shall pay as monthly rent for a
dwelling unit in public housing the amount that the local
housing and management authority determines is appropriate
with respect to the family and the unit, which shall be--
(A) based upon factors determined by the authority, which
may include the adjusted income of the resident, type and
size of dwelling unit, operating and other expenses of the
authority, or any other factors that the authority considers
appropriate; and
(B) an amount that is not less than the minimum monthly
rental amount under subsection (b)(1) nor more than any
maximum monthly rental amount established for the dwelling
unit pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
In determining the amount of the rent charged under this
paragraph for a dwelling unit, a local housing and management
authority shall take into consideration the characteristics
of the population served by the authority, the goals of the
local housing management plan for the authority, and the
goals under the comprehensive housing affordability strategy
under section 105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (or any consolidated plan
incorporating such strategy) for the applicable jurisdiction.
(2) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the amount paid for monthly rent for a dwelling
unit in public housing may not exceed 30 percent of the
family's adjusted monthly income for any family who--
(A) upon the date of the enactment of this Act, is residing
in any dwelling unit in public housing and--
(i) is an elderly family; or
(ii) is a disabled family; or
(B) whose income does not exceed 30 percent of the median
income for the area (as determined by the Secretary with
adjustments for smaller and larger families).
(b) Allowable Rents.--
(1) Minimum rental.--Each local housing and management
authority shall establish, for each dwelling unit in public
housing owned or administered by the authority, a minimum
monthly rental contribution toward the rent (which rent shall
include any amount allowed for utilities), which--
(A) may not be less than $25, nor more than $50; and
(B) may be increased annually by the authority, except that
no such annual increase may exceed 10 percent of the amount
of the minimum monthly rental contribution in effect for the
preceding year.
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a local housing and
management authority may, in its sole discretion, grant an
exemption in whole or in part from payment of the minimum
monthly rental contribution established under this paragraph
to any family unable to pay such amount because of severe
financial hardships. Severe financial hardships may include
situations where the family is awaiting an eligibility
determination for a Federal, State, or local assistance
program, where the family would be evicted as a result of
imposition of the minimum rent, and other situations as may
be determined by the authority.
Page 82, line 14, before the semicolon, insert ``on or off
such premises''.
Page 83, strike line 1 and all that follows through page
89, line 15, and insert the following new section:
SEC. 227. DESIGNATED HOUSING FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED
FAMILIES
(a) Authority To Provide Designated Housing.--
(1) In general.--Subject only to provisions of this section
and notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local
housing and management authority for which the information
required under subsection (d) is in effect may provide public
housing developments (or portions of developments) 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 developments (or portions of
developments) that are designated for occupancy as provided
in paragraph (1), the local housing and management authority
may make units in such developments (or portions) available
only to the types of families for whom the development is
designated.
(3) Eligibility of near-elderly families.--If a local
housing and management authority determines that there are
insufficient numbers of elderly families to fill all the
units in a development (or portion of a development)
designated under paragraph (1) for occupancy by only elderly
families, the authority may provide that near-elderly
families may occupy dwelling units in the development (or
portion).
(b) Standards Regarding Evictions.--Except as provided in
section 105(b)(1)(B), any tenant who is lawfully residing in
a dwelling unit in a public housing development may not be
evicted or otherwise required to vacate such unit because of
the designation of the development (or portion of a
development) pursuant to this section or because of any
action taken by the Secretary or any local housing and
management authority pursuant to this section.
(c) Relocation Assistance.--A local housing and management
authority that designates any existing development or
building, or portion thereof, for occupancy as provided under
subsection (a)(1) shall provide, to each person and family
who agrees to be relocated in connection with such
designation--
(1) notice of the designation and an explanation of
available relocation benefits, as soon as is practicable for
the authority and the person or family;
(2) access to comparable housing (including appropriate
services and design features), which may include choice-based
rental housing assistance under title III, at a rental rate
paid by the tenant 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 Inclusions in Local Housing Management Plan.--
A local housing and management authority may designate a
development (or portion of a development) for occupancy under
subsection (a)(1) only if the authority, as part of the
authority's local housing management plan--
(1) establishes that the designation of the development 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 development (or portion of a development) to be
designated;
(B) the types of tenants for which the development is to be
designated;
(C) any supportive services to be provided to tenants of
the designated development (or portion);
(D) how the design and related facilities (as such term is
defined in section 202(d)(8) of the Housing Act of 1959) of
the development accommodate the special environmental needs
of the intended occupants; and
(E) any plans to secure additional resources or housing
assistance to provide assistance to families that may have
been housed if occupancy in the development were not
restricted pursuant to this section.
For purposes of this subsection, the term `supportive
services' means services designed to meet the special needs
of residents. Notwithstanding section 108, the Secretary may
approve a local housing management plan without approving the
portion of the plan covering designation of a development
pursuant to this section.
(e) Effectiveness.--
(1) Initial 5-year effectiveness.--The information required
under subsection (d) shall be in effect for purposes of this
section during the 5-year period that begins upon
notification under section 108(a) of the local housing and
management authority that the information complies with the
requirements under section 107 and this section.
(2) Renewal.--Upon the expiration of the 5-year period
under paragraph (1) or any 2-year period under this
paragraph, an authority may extend the effectiveness of the
designation and information for an additional 2-year period
(that begins upon such expiration) by submitting to the
Secretary any information needed to update the information.
The Secretary may not limit the number of times a local
housing and management authority extends the effectiveness of
a designation and information under this paragraph.
(3) Treatment of existing plans.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, a local housing and management
authority shall be considered to have submitted the
information required under this section if the authority has
submitted to the Secretary an application and allocation plan
under section 7 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as
in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act) that
has not been approved or disapproved before such date of
enactment.
(4) Transition provision.--Any application and allocation
plan approved under section 7 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (as in effect before the date of the enactment of
this Act) before such date of enactment shall be considered
to be the information required to be submitted under this
section and that is in effect for purposes of this section
for the 5-year period beginning upon such approval.
[[Page H4585]]
(g) Inapplicability of Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970.--No resident
of a public housing development 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 development or building, or
portion thereof, for occupancy as provided under subsection
(a) of this section.
(h) Use of Amounts.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to
section 10(b) of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-120) may also be used for choice-
based rental housing assistance under title III for local
housing and management authorities to implement this section.
Page 89, after line 23, insert the following new
subsection:
(b) Accounting System for Rental Collections and Costs.--
(1) Establishment.--Each local housing and management
authority that receives grant amounts under this title shall
establish and maintain a system of accounting for rental
collections and costs (including administrative, utility,
maintenance, repair, and other operating costs) for each
project and operating cost center (as determined by the
Secretary).
(2) Access to records.--Each local housing and management
authority shall make available to the general public the
information required pursuant to paragraph (1) regarding
collections and costs.
(3) Exemption.--The Secretary may permit authorities owning
or operating fewer than 500 dwelling units to comply with the
requirements of this subsection by accounting on an
authority-wide basis.
Page 89, line 24, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 90, strike lines 13 through 16 and insert the
following:
dwellings, with such applicable
Page 90, lines 20 and 21, strike the period ``subparagraph
(A)'' and insert ``paragraph (1)''.
Page 91, strike ``and'' in line 12 and all that follows
through line 16 and insert a period.
Page 92, strike lines 4 through 11, and insert the
following:
Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968
(12 U.S.C. 1701u) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``public and Indian housing agencies'' and
inserting ``local housing and management authorities and
recipients of grants under the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996''; and
(ii) by striking ``development assistance'' and all that
follows through the end and inserting ``assistance provided
under title II of the United States Housing Act of 1996 and
used for the housing production, operation, or capital
needs.''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``managed by the
public or Indian housing agency'' and inserting ``assisted by
the local housing and management authority or the recipient
of a grant under the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act of 1996''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``public and Indian housing agencies'' and
inserting ``local housing and management authorities and
recipients of grants under the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996''; and
(ii) by striking ``development assistance'' and all that
follows through ``section 14 of that Act'' and inserting
``assistance provided under title II of the United States
Housing Act of 1996 and used for the housing production,
operation, or capital needs''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``operated by the
public or Indian housing agency'' and inserting ``assisted by
the local housing and management authority or the recipient
of a grant under the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act of 1996''.
Page 93, line 3, insert ``on a regular basis'' before the
period.
Page 97, line 8, strike ``is''.
Page 108, line 16, after the period insert the following:
``In addition, the Secretary may provide financial assistance
to resident management corporations or resident councils for
activities sponsored by resident organizations for economic
uplift, such as job training, economic development, security,
and other self-sufficiency activities beyond those related to
the management of public housing. The Secretary may require
resident councils or resident management corporations to
utilize local housing and management authorities or other
qualified organizations as contract administrators with
respect to financial assistance provided under this
paragraph.
Page 109, after line 17, insert the following new
paragraph:
(6) Technical assistance and clearinghouse.--The Secretary
may use up to 10 percent of the amount made available
pursuant to paragraph (4)--
(A) to provide technical assistance, directly or by grant
or contract, and
(B) to receive, collect, process, assemble, and disseminate
information,
in connection with activities under this subsection.
Page 110, line 19, after the period the following:
An authority may transfer a unit only pursuant to a
homeownership program approved by the Secretary.
Notwithstanding section 108, the Secretary may approve a
local housing management plan without approving the portion
of the plan regarding a homeownership program pursuant to
this section.
Page 111, line 5, insert after ``sales'' the following:
``by purchasing units for resale to low-income families''.
Page 111, line 16, after the period insert the following:
In the case of purchase by an entity for resale to low-income
families, the entity shall sell the units to low-income
families within 5 years from the date of its acquisition of
the units. The entity shall use any net proceeds from the
resale and from managing the units, as determined in
accordance with guidelines of the Secretary, for housing
purposes, such as funding resident organizations and reserves
for capital replacements.
Page 113, line 9, after ``propriate'' insert ``(whether the
family purchases directly from the authority or from another
entity)''.
Page 115, line 4, after the period insert the following new
sentence:
Notwithstanding section 108, the Secretary may approve a
local housing management plan without approving the portion
of the plan covering demolition or disposition pursuant to
this section.
Page 127, line 19, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
Page 127, line 21, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
Page 127, strike line 22 and all that follows through page
128, line 2, and insert the following:
The Secretary shall give preference in selection to any local
housing and management authority that has been awarded a
planning grant under section 24(c) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the date of the
enactment of this Act).
Page 129, line 4, before the period insert the following:
``or to one or more other entities capable of proceeding
expeditiously in the same locality in carrying out the
revitalization plan of the original grantee''.
Page 129, line 9, after ``troubled'' insert ``or
dysfunctional''.
Page 133, line 5, strike lines 4 and 5 and insert the
following:
under this section $480,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1996, 1997, and 1998''.
Page 133, line 17, strike ``1996'' and insert ``1998''.
Page 133, after line 17, insert the following new section:
SEC. 263. VOLUNTARY VOUCHER SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC HOUSING.
(a) In General.--A local housing and management authority
may convert any public housing development (or portion
thereof) owned and operated by the authority to a system of
choice-based rental housing assistance under title III, in
accordance with this section.
(b) Assessment and Plan Requirement.--In converting under
this section to a choice-based rental housing assistance
system, the local housing and management authority shall
develop a conversion assessment and plan under this
subsection, in consultation with the appropriate public
officials and with significant participation by the residents
of the development (or portion thereof), which assessment and
plan shall--
(1) be consistent with and part of the local housing
management plan for the authority;
(2) describe the conversion and future use or disposition
of the public housing development, including an impact
analysis on the affected community;
(3) include a cost analysis that demonstrates whether or
not the cost (both on a net present value basis and in terms
of new budget authority requirements) of providing choice-
based rental housing assistance under title III for the same
families in substantially similar dwellings over the same
period of time is less expensive than continuing public
housing assistance in the public housing development proposed
for conversion for the remaining useful life of the
development; and
(4) identify the actions, if any, that the local housing
and management authority will take with regard to converting
any public housing development or developments (or portions
thereof) of the authority to a system of choice-based rental
housing assistance under title III.
(c) Streamlined Assessment and Plan.--At the discretion of
the Secretary or at the request of a local housing and
management authority, the Secretary may waive any or all of
the requirements of subsection (b) or otherwise require a
streamlined assessment with respect to any public housing
development or class of public housing developments.
(d) Implementation of Conversion Plan.--
(1) In general.--A local housing and management authority
may implement a conversion plan only if the conversion
assessment under this section demonstrates that the
conversion--
(A) will not be more expensive than continuing to operate
the public housing development (or portion thereof) as public
housing; and
(B) will principally benefit the residents of the public
housing development (or portion thereof) to be converted, the
local housing and management authority, and the community.
(2) Disapproval.--The Secretary shall disapprove a
conversion plan only if the plan is
[[Page H4586]]
plainly inconsistent with the conversion assessment under
subsection (b) or there is reliable information and data
available to the Secretary that contradicts that conversion
assessment.
(e) Other Requirements.--To the extent approved by the
Secretary, the funds used by the local housing and management
authority to provide choice-based rental housing assistance
under title III shall be added to the housing assistance
payment contract administered by the local housing and
management authority or any entity administering the contract
on behalf of the local housing and management authority.
(f) Savings Provision.--This section does not affect any
contract or other agreement entered into under section 22 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as such section
existed immediately before the enactment of this Act).
Page 135, line 18, strike ``section 202(b)'' and insert
``section 202(d)''.
Page 138, strike line 5 and all that follows through line 7
and insert the following:
There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under
this title, the following amounts:
(1) Capital Fund.--For the allocations from the capital
fund for grants, $2,500,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000; and
(2) Operating Fund.--For the allocations from the operating
fund for grants, $2,800,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.
Page 141, line 7, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
Page 141, line 10, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.
Page 140, line 21, after ``title'' insert the following:
``pursuant to the formula established under section 304(a)''.
Page 141, lines 16 and 17, strike ``subsection (c) and
section 109'' and insert ``subsections (b)(3) and (c), and
section 112''.
Page 143, line 19, after ``including'' insert the
following: ``funding for the headquarters reserve fund under
section 112,''.
Page 143, line 25, after ``displacement'' insert ``from
public or assisted housing''.
Page 144, line 9, strike ``loan'' and insert ``portfolio''.
Page 148, line 22, strike ``the Secretary'' and all that
follows through page 149, line 21, and insert the following:
``the Secretary shall take such steps as may be necessary to
ensure that the local housing and management authority that
provides the services for a family receives all or part of
the administrative fee under this section (as
appropriate).''.
Page 152, after line 2, insert the following new
subsection:
(b) Income Targeting.--Of the families initially assisted
under this title by a local housing and management authority
in any year, not less than 50 percent shall be families whose
incomes do not exceed 60 percent of the area median income,
as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for smaller
and larger families. The Secretary may establish income
ceiling higher or lower than 30 percent of the area median
income on the basis of the Secretary's findings that such
variations are necessary because of unusually high or low
family incomes.
Page 152, line 3, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 152, line 18, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 153, strike line 11 and all that follows through line
25 on page 155, and insert the following new subsection:
(d) Portability of Housing Assistance.--
(1) National portability.--An eligible family that is
selected to receive or is receiving assistance under this
title may rent any eligible dwelling unit in any area where a
program is being administered under this title.
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a local housing and
management authority may require that any family not living
within the jurisdiction of the local housing and management
authority at the time the family applies for assistance from
the authority shall, during the 12-month period beginning on
the date of initial receipt of housing assistance made
available on behalf of the family from that authority, lease
and occupy an eligible dwelling unit located within the
jurisdiction served by the authority. The authority for the
jurisdiction into which the family moves shall have the
responsibility for administering assistance for the family.
(2) Source of funding for a family that moves.--For a
family that has moved into the jurisdiction of a local
housing and management authority and that, at the time of the
move, has been selected to receive, or is receiving,
assistance provided by another authority, the authority for
the jurisdiction into which the family has moved may, in its
discretion, cover the cost of assisting the family under its
contract with the Secretary or through reimbursement from the
other authority under that authority's contract.
(3) Authority to deny assistance to certain families who
move.--A family may not receive housing assistance as
provided under this subsection if the family has moved from a
dwelling unit in violation of the lease for the dwelling
unit.
(4) Funding allocations.--In providing assistance amounts
under this title for local housing and management authorities
for any fiscal year, the Secretary may give consideration to
any reduction or increase in the number of resident families
under the program of an authority in the preceding fiscal
year as a result of this subsection.
Page 156, line 3, strike ``may, to the extent such policies
are'' and insert ``shall, consistent with the policies''.
Page 156, lines 4 and 5, strike ``and included in the lease
for a dwelling unit''.
Page 156, strike lines 11 through 14 and insert the
following new paragraph:
(2) immediately become ineligible for housing assistance
under this title or for admission to public housing under
title II--
(A) in the case of a termination due to drug-related
criminal activity, for a period of not less than 3 years from
the date of the termination; and
(B) for other terminations, for a reasonable period of time
as determined by the local housing and management authority.
Page 156, line 15, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 156, after line 24, insert the following new
subsections:
(i) Denial of Assistance to Criminal Offenders.--In making
assistance under this title available on behalf of eligible
families, a local housing and management authority may deny
the provision of such assistance in the same manner, for the
same period, and subject to the same conditions that an owner
of federally assisted housing may deny occupancy in such
housing under subsections (b) and (c) of section 642 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.
(j) Availability of Criminal Records.--A local housing and
management authority may request and obtain records regarding
the criminal convictions of applicants for housing assistance
under this title and assisted families under this title to
the same extent an owner of federally assisted housing may
obtain such records regarding an applicant for or tenant of
federally assisted housing under section 646 of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1992.
Page 157, strike line 2 and all that follows through page
158, line 8, and insert the following new subsections:
(a) Amount.--
(1) In general.--An assisted family shall contribute on a
monthly basis for the rental of an assisted dwelling unit an
amount that the local housing and management authority
determines is appropriate with respect to the family and the
unit, but shall not be less than the minimum monthly rental
contribution determined under subsection (b).
(2) Exceptions for certain current residents.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the amount paid by an assisted
family for monthly rent for an assisted dwelling unit, may
not exceed 30 percent of the family's adjusted monthly income
for any family who--
(A) upon the date of the enactment of this Act, is an
assisted family and--
(i) is an elderly family; or
(ii) is a disabled family; or
(B) whose income does not exceed 30 percent of the median
income for the area (as determined by the Secretary with
adjustments for smaller and larger families).
Any amount payable under paragraph (3) shall be in addition
to the amount payable under this paragraph.
(3) Excess rental amount.--In any case in which the monthly
rent charged for a dwelling unit pursuant to the housing
assistance payments contract exceeds the applicable payment
standard (established under section 353) for the dwelling
unit, the assisted family residing in the unit shall
contribute (in addition to the amount of the monthly rent
contribution otherwise determined under paragraph (1) or (2)
of this subsection for such family) such entire excess rental
amount.
(b) Minimum Monthly Rental Contribution.--
(1) In General.--The local housing and management authority
shall determine the amount of the minimum monthly rental
contribution of an assisted family (which rent shall include
any amount allowed for utilities), which--
(A) shall be based upon factors including the adjusted
income of the family and any other factors that the authority
considers appropriate;
(B) shall be not less than $25, nor more than $50; and
(C) may be increased annually by the authority, except that
no such annual increase may exceed 10 percent of the amount
of the minimum monthly contribution in effect for the
preceding year.
(2) Hardship exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a
local housing and management authority may, in its sole
discretion, grant an exemption in whole or in part from
payment of the minimum monthly rental contribution
established under this paragraph to any assisted family
unable to pay such amount because of severe financial
hardships. Severe financial hardships may include situations
where the family is awaiting an eligibility determination for
a Federal, State, or local assistance program, where the
family would be evicted as a result of imposition of the
minimum rent, and other situations as may be determined by
the authority.
Page 161, line 21, strike ``section 325'' and insert ``this
title''.
Page 162, line 19, before the period, insert ``on or off
such premises''.
Page 163, strike lines 9 through 16 and insert the
following new paragraph:
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a local
housing and management authority--
(A) may not enter into a housing assistance payments
contract (or renew an existing contract) covering a dwelling
unit that is
[[Page H4587]]
owned by an owner who is debarred, suspended, or subject to
limited denial of participation under part 24 of title 24,
Code of Federal Regulations;
(B) may prohibit, or authorize the termination or
suspension of, payment of housing assistance under a housing
assistance payments contract in effect at the time such
debarment, suspension, or limited denial of participation
takes effect.
If the local housing and management authority takes action
under subparagraph (B), the authority shall take such actions
as may be necessary to protect assisted families who are
affected by the action, which may include the provision of
additional assistance under this title to such families.
Page 163, strike line 23 and all that follows through page
164, line 2.
Page 164, line 8, before the period insert ``and any
applicable law''.
Page 165, line 17, strike ``subsection (b)'' and insert
``subsection (c)''.
Page 166, strike lines 9 through 22 and insert the
following new paragraph:
(2) Expeditious inspection.--Inspections of dwelling units
under this subsection shall be made before the expiration of
the 15-day period beginning upon a request by the resident or
landlord to the local housing and management authority. The
performance of the authority in meeting the 15-day inspection
deadline shall be taken into account in assessing the
performance of the authority.
Page 167, line 14, strike ``The authority'' and all that
follows through line 19 and insert the following new
sentence: ``The authority shall retain the records of the
inspection for a reasonable time and shall make the records
available upon request to the Secretary and the Inspector
General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
the Housing Foundation and Accreditation Board established
under title IV, and any auditor conducting an audit under
section 432.''.
Page 168, line 18, before ``income'' insert ``sufficient''.
Page 170, line 18, after ``dwelling units'' insert the
``(other than public housing)''.
Page 170, line 22, strike ``or the owner''.
Page 171, strike line 15 and all that follows through page
172, line 11, and insert the following new section:
SEC. 352. AMOUNT OF MONTHLY ASSISTANCE PAYMENT.
(a) Units Having Gross Rent Exceeding Payment Standard.--In
the case of a dwelling unit bearing a gross rent that exceeds
the payment standard established under section 353 for a
dwelling unit of the applicable size and located in the
market area in which such assisted dwelling unit is located--
(1) the amount by which such payment standard exceeds the
amount of the resident contribution determined in accordance
with section 322(a)(1); or
(2) in the case only of families described in paragraph (2)
of section 322(a), the amount by which such payment standard
exceeds the lesser of (i) the resident contribution
determined in accordance with section 322(a)(1), or (ii) 30
percent of the family's adjusted monthly income.
(b) Shopping Incentive for Units Having Gross Rent Not
Exceeding Payment Standard.--In the case of an assisted
family renting an eligible dwelling unit bearing a gross rent
that does not exceed the payment standard established under
section 353 for a dwelling unit of the applicable size and
located in the market area in which such assisted dwelling
unit is located, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) Amount of monthly assistance payment.--The amount of
the monthly assistance payment for housing assistance under
this title on behalf of the assisted family shall be the
amount by which the gross rent for the dwelling unit exceeds
the amount of the resident contribution.
(2) Escrow of shopping incentive savings.--An amount equal
to 50 percent of the difference between payment standard and
the gross rent for the dwelling unit shall be placed in an
interest bearing escrow account on behalf of such family on a
monthly basis by the local housing and management authority.
Amounts in the escrow account shall be made available to the
assisted family on an annual basis.
(3) Deficit reduction.--The local housing and management
authority making housing assistance payments on behalf of
such assisted family in a fiscal year shall reserve from
amounts made available to the authority for assistance
payments for such fiscal year an amount equal to the amount
described in paragraph (2). At the end of each fiscal year,
the Secretary shall recapture any such amounts reserved by
local housing and management authorities and such amounts
shall be covered into the General Fund of the Treasury of the
United States.
For purposes of this section, in the case of a family
receiving homeownership assistance under section 329, the
term ``gross rent'' shall mean the homeownership costs to the
family as determined in accordance with guidelines of the
Secretary.
Page 173, line 3, strike ``large''.
Page 173, strike ``For purposes'' in line 15 and all that
follows through line 19.
Page 174, line 5, after ``unit'' insert ``(with respect to
initial contract rents and any rent revisions)''.
Page 179, line 25, strike ``section 110'' and insert
``section 111''.
Page 182, line 17, strike ``2'' and insert ``at least 2,
but not more than 4''.
Page 183, after line 15, insert the following new
subparagraph:
(E) At least 1 individual who has extensive experience in
auditing participants in government programs.
Page 186, after line 2, insert the following new paragraph:
(3) Improvement of independent audits.--Providing for the
development of effective means for conducting comprehensive
financial and performance audits of local housing and
management authorities under section 432 and, to the extent
provided in such section, providing for the conducting of
such audits.
Page 186, line 3, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
Page 186, strike lines 6 through 8 and insert the
following:
grants under title II for the operation, maintenance, and
production of public housing and amounts for housing
assistance under title III, ensuring that financial and
performance audits under section 432
Page 186, line 12, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
Page 187, after line 13, insert the following new
subsection:
(c) Assistance From National Center for Housing
Management.--
(1) In general.--During the period referred to in
subsection (a), the National Center for Housing Management
established by Executive Order 11668 (42 U.S.C. 3531 note)
shall, to the extent agreed to by the Center, provide the
Board with ongoing assistance and advice relating to the
following matters:
(A) Organizing the structure of the Board and its
operations.
(B) Establishing performance standards and guidelines under
section 431(a).
Such Center may, at the request of the Board, provide
assistance and advice with respect to matters not described
in paragraphs (1) and (2) and after the expiration of the
period referred to in subsection (a).
(2) Assistance.--The assistance provided by such Center
shall include staff and logistical support for the Board and
such operational and managerial activities as are necessary
to assist the Board to carry out its functions during the
period referred to in subsection (a).
Page 188, after line 22, insert the following new
paragraph:
(4) HUD inspector general.--The Inspector General of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development shall serve the
Board as a principal adviser with respect to all aspects of
annual financial and performance audits of local housing and
management authorities under section 432. The Inspector
General may advise the Board with respect to other activities
and functions of the Board.
Page 189, line 4 and 5, strike ``research or surveys'' and
insert ``evaluations under section 404(b), audits of local
housing and management authorities as provided under section
432, research, and surveys''.
Page 189, line 6, before the period insert the following:
``, and may enter into contracts with the National Center for
Housing Management to conduct the functions assigned to the
Center under this title''.
Page 190, line 5, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
Page 190, line 6, before the period insert ``, and
conducting audits of authorities under section 432''.
Page 190, after line 13, insert the following new
subsection:
(a) Report on Coordination With HUD Functions.--Not later
than the expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Board shall submit a
report to the Congress that--
(1) identifies and describes the processes, procedures, and
activities of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
which may duplicate functions of the Board, and makes
recommendations regarding activities of the Department that
may no longer be necessary as a result of improved auditing
of authorities pursuant to this title;
(2) makes recommendations for any changes to Federal law
necessary to improve auditing of local housing and management
authorities; and
(3) makes recommendations regarding the review and
evaluation functions currently performed by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development that may be more efficiently
performed by the Board and should be performed by the Board,
and those that should continue to be performed by the
Department.
Page 190, line 14, before ``The'' insert ``(b) Annual
Reports.--''.
Page 190, after line 23, insert the following new section:
SEC. 408. GAO AUDIT.
The activities and transactions of the Board shall be
subject to audit by the Comptroller General of the United
States under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed
by the Comptroller General. The representatives of the
General Accounting Office shall have access for the purpose
of audit and examination to any books, documents, papers, and
records of the Board that are necessary to facilitate an
audit.
Page 196, strike line 10 and all that follows through page
198, line 25, and insert the following new section:
SEC. 432. FINANCIAL AND PERFORMANCE AUDITS.
(a) Requirement.--A financial and performance audit under
this section shall be conducted for each local housing and
management authority for each fiscal year that
[[Page H4588]]
the authority receives grant amounts under this Act, as
provided under one of the following paragraphs:
(1) Lhma provides for audit.--If neither the Secretary nor
the Board takes action under paragraph (2) or (3), the
Secretary shall require the local housing and management
authority to have the audit conducted. The Secretary may
prescribe that such audits be conducted pursuant to
guidelines set forth by the Department.
(2) Secretary requests board to provide for audit.--The
Secretary may request the Board to contract directly with an
auditor to have the audit conducted for the authority.
(3) Board provides for audit.--The Board may notify the
Secretary that it will contract directly with an auditor to
have the audit conducted for the authority.
(b) Other Audits.--Pursuant to risk assessment strategies
designed to ensure the integrity of the programs for
assistance under this Act, which shall be established by the
Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development in consultation with the Board, the Inspector
General may request the Board to conduct audits under this
subsection of local housing and management authorities. Such
audits may be in addition to, or in place of, audits under
subsection (a), as the Board shall provide.
(c) Submission of Results.--
(1) Submission to secretary and board.--The results of any
audit conducted under this subsection shall be submitted to
the local housing and management authority, the Secretary,
and the Board.
(2) Submission to local officials.--
(A) Requirement.--A local housing and management authority
shall submit each audit conducted under this section to any
local elected official or officials responsible for
appointing the members of the board of directors (or other
similar governing body) of the local housing and management
authority for review and comment. Any such comments shall be
submitted, together with the audit, to the Secretary and the
Board and the Secretary and the Board shall consider such
comments in reviewing the audit.
(B) Timing.--An audit shall be submitted to local officials
as provided in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the case of an audit conducted under subsection
(a)(1), not later than 60 days before the local housing and
management authority submits the audit to the Secretary and
the Board; or
(ii) in the case of an audit under paragraph (2) or (3) of
subsection (a) or under subsection (b), not later than 60
days after the authority receives the audit.
(d) Procedures.-- The requirements for financial and
performance audits under this section shall--
(1) be established by the Board, in consultation with the
Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development;
(2) provide for the audit to be conducted by an independent
auditor selected--
(A) in the case of an audit under subsection (a)(1), by the
authority; and
(B) in the case of an audit under paragraph (2) or (3) of
subsection (a) or under subsection (b), by the Board;
(3) authorize the auditor to obtain information from a
local housing and management authority, to access any books,
documents, papers, and records of an authority that are
pertinent to this Act and assistance received pursuant to
this Act, and to review any reports of an authority to the
Secretary;
(4) impose sufficient requirements for obtaining
information so that the audits are useful to the Board in
evaluating local housing and management authorities; and
(5) include procedures for testing the reliability of
internal financial controls of local housing and management
authorities.
(e) Purpose.--Audits under this section shall be designed
to--
(1) evaluate the financial performance and soundness and
management performance of the local housing and management
authority board of directors (or other similar governing
body) and the authority management officials and staff;
(2) assess the compliance of an authority with all aspects
of the standards and guidelines established under section
431(a)(1);
(3) provide information to the Secretary and the Board
regarding the financial performance and management of the
authority and to determine whether a review under section
225(d) or 353(c) is required; and
(4) identify potential problems in the operations,
management, functioning of a local housing and management
authority at a time before such problems result in serious
and complicated deficiencies.
(f) Inapplicability of Single Audit Act.--Notwithstanding
the first sentence of section 7503(a) of title 31, United
States Code, an audit conducted in accordance with chapter 75
of such title shall not exempt any local housing and
management authority from conducting an audit under this
section. Audits under this section shall not be subject to
the requirements for audits under such chapter. An audit
under this section for a local housing and management
authority for a fiscal year shall be considered to satisfy
any requirements under such chapter for such fiscal year.
(g) Withholding of Amounts for Costs of Audit.--
(1) Lhma responsible for audit.--If the Secretary requires
a local housing and management authority to have an audit
under this section conducted pursuant to subsection (a)(1)
and determines that the authority has failed to take the
actions required to submit an audit under this section for a
fiscal year, the Secretary may--
(A) arrange for, and pay the costs of, the audit and
withhold, from the total allocation for any fiscal year
otherwise payable to the authority under this Act, amounts
sufficient to pay for the reasonable costs of conducting an
acceptable audit (including, if appropriate, the reasonable
costs of accounting services necessary to place the
authority's books and records in condition that permits an
audit); or
(B) request the Board to conduct the audit pursuant to
subsection (a)(2) and withhold amounts pursuant to paragraph
(2) of this subsection.
(2) Board responsible for audit.--If the Board is
responsible for an audit for a local housing and management
authority pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a),
subsection (b), or paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, the
Secretary shall--
(A) withhold, from the total allocation for any fiscal year
otherwise payable to the authority under this Act, amounts
sufficient to pay for the audit, but in no case more than the
reasonable cost of conducting an acceptable audit (including,
if appropriate, the reasonable costs of accounting services
necessary to place the authority's books and records in
condition that permits an audit); and
(B) transfer such amounts to the Board.
Page 201, line 21, strike ``to prepare''.
Page 201, line 23, after ``housing'' insert ``or
functions''.
Page 202, lines 1 and 2, strike ``to prepare''.
Page 203, lines 17 and 18, strike ``the expiration'' and
all that follows through ``437(b)(2)'' on line 19, and insert
the following: ``such period, the Secretary shall take the
action authorized under subsection (b)(2) or (b)(5) of
section 438''.
Page 203, line 19, strike ``437(b)(2)'' and insert
``438(b)(2) or (b)(5)''.
Page 207, line 16, strike ``section 435'' and insert
``section 436''.
Page 209, line 9, strike ``if'' and all that follows
through the comma on line 12.
Page 210, line 9, before the semicolon insert ``, but only
after efforts to renegotiate such contracts have failed''.
Page 210, line 19, after ``laws'' insert the following:
``relating to civil service requirements, employee rights,
procurement, or financial or administrative controls''.
Page 210, line 20, strike ``receiver'' and insert
``Secretary''.
Page 212, line 24, strike ``(D'' and insert ``(D)''.
Page 212, line 25, after ``laws'' insert the following:
``relating to civil service requirements, employee rights,
procurement, or financial or administrative controls''.
Page 213, after line 23, insert the following new
subsection:
(g) Effectiveness.--The provisions of this section shall
apply with respect to actions taken before, on, or after the
effective date of this Act and shall apply to any receivers
appointed for a public housing agency before the date of
enactment of this Act.
Page 215, line 7, strike ``for the first year beginning
after the date of enactment of this Act''.
Page 216, line 2, strike ``section 438(b)'' and insert
``section 439(b)''.
Page 217, line 7, strike ``section 432'' and insert
``section 433''.
Page 217, line 9, strike ``and 436'' and insert ``436, and
438''.
Page 218, strike lines 19 through 22 (and redesignate
subsequent paragraphs accordingly).
Page 226, after line 9, insert the following new
subsection:
(f) Conversion of Project-Based Assistance to Choice-Based
Rental Assistance.--
(1) Section 8 project-based contracts.--Upon the request of
the owner of a multifamily housing project for which project-
based assistance is provided under a contract entered into
under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as
in effect before the enactment of this Act), notwithstanding
the termination date of such contract the Secretary shall
provide for a reduction in the number of dwelling units
assisted under the contract, which may not exceed 40 percent
of the units in the project and shall be subject to the
requirements in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection.
(2) Section 236 contracts.--Upon the request of the owner
of a multifamily housing project for which assistance is
provided under a contract for interest reduction payments
under section 236 of the National Housing Act,
notwithstanding the termination date of such contract the
Secretary shall provide for a reduction in the number of
dwelling units assisted under the contract, which may not
exceed 40 percent of the units in the project. The amount of
the interest reduction payments made on behalf of the owner
shall be reduced by a fraction for which the numerator is the
aggregate basic rent for the units which are no longer
assisted under the contract for interest reduction payments
and the denominator is the aggregate basic rents for all
units in the project. The requirements of section 236(g) of
the National Housing Act shall not apply to rental charges
collected with respect to dwelling units for which assistance
in terminated under this paragraph. Such reduction shall be
subject to the requirements in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this
subsection.
(3) Eligible units.--A unit may be removed from coverage by
a contract pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) only--
(A) upon the vacancy of the unit; and
[[Page H4589]]
(B) in the case of--
(i) units assisted under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, if the contract rent for the unit is not
less than the applicable fair market rental established
pursuant to section 8(c) of such Act for the area in which
the unit is located; or
(ii) units assisted under an interest reduction contract
under section 236 of the National Housing Act, if the
reduction in the amount of interest reduction payments on a
monthly basis is less than the aggregate amount of fair
market rents established pursuant to section 8(c) of such Act
for the number and type of units which are removed from
coverage by the contract.
(4) Recapture.--Any budget authority that becomes available
to a local housing and management authority or the Secretary
pursuant to this section shall be used to provide choice-
based rental assistance under title III, during the term
covered by such contract.
Page 231, line 24, after the period insert the following
new sentence: ``The plan shall be developed with the
participation of residents and appropriate law enforcement
officials.''.
Page 240, after the matter following line 17, insert the
following new subsection:
(i) Treatment of NOFA.--The cap limiting assistance under
the Notice of Funding Availability issued by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development in the Federal Register of
April 8, 1996, shall not apply to a local housing and
management authority within an area designated as a high
intensity drug trafficking area under section 1005(c) of the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1504(c).
At the end of title V of the bill, insert the following new
sections:
SEC. 504. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PROJECTS.
Rehabilitation activities undertaken by Pennrose Properties
in connection with 40 dwelling units for senior citizens in
the Providence Square development located in New Brunswick,
New Jersey, are hereby deemed to have been conducted pursuant
to the approval of and an agreement with the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development under clauses (i) and (ii) of
the third sentence of section 8(d)(2)(A) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the date of the
enactment of this Act).
SEC. 505. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ASSISTANCE.
(a) Eligibility of Metropolitan Cities.--Section 102(a)(4)
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5302(a)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking the second sentence and inserting the
following new sentence: ``Any city that was classified as a
metropolitan city for at least 1 year after September 30,
1989, pursuant to the first sentence of this paragraph, shall
remain classified as a metropolitan city by reason of this
sentence until the first year for which data from the 2000
Decennial Census is available for use for purposes of
allocating amounts this title.''; and
(2) by striking the fifth sentence and inserting the
following new sentence: ``Notwithstanding that the population
of a unit of general local government was included, after
September 30, 1989, with the population of an urban county
for purposes of qualifying for assistance under section 106,
the unit of general local government may apply for assistance
under section 106 as a metropolitan city if the unit meets
the requirements of the second sentence of this paragraph.''.
(b) Public Services Limitation.--Section 105(a)(8) of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5305(a)(8)) is amended by striking ``through 1997'' and
inserting ``through 1998''.
SEC. 506. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY FOR
HOUSING USE.
Section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(r)(1) Under such regulations as the Administrator may
prescribe, and with the written consent of appropriate local
governmental authorities, the Administrator may transfer to
any nonprofit organization which exists for the primary
purpose of providing housing or housing assistance for
homeless individuals or families, such surplus real property,
including buildings, fixtures, and equipment situated
thereon, as is needed for housing use.
``(2) Under such regulations as the Administrator may
prescribe, and with the written consent of appropriate local
governmental authorities, the Administrator may transfer to
any nonprofit organization which exists for the primary
purpose of providing housing or housing assistance for low-
income individuals or families such surplus real property,
including buildings, fixtures, and equipment situated
thereon, as is needed for housing use.
``(3) In making transfers under this subsection, the
Administrator shall take such action, which shall include
grant agreements with an organization receiving a grant, as
may be necessary to ensure that--
``(A) assistance provided under this subsection is used to
facilitate and encourage homeownership opportunities through
the construction of self-help housing, under terms which
require that the person receiving the assistance contribute a
significant amount of labor toward the construction; and
``(B) the dwellings constructed with property transferred
under this subsection shall be quality dwellings that comply
with local building and safety codes and standards and shall
be available at prices below the prevailing market prices.
``(4)(A) Where the Administrator has transferred a
significant portion of a surplus real property, including
buildings, fixtures, and equipment situated thereon, under
paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection, the transfer of the
entire property shall be deemed to be in compliance with
title V of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 11411 et seq.).
``(B) For the purpose of this paragraph, the term `a
significant portion of a surplus real property' means a
portion of surplus real property--
``(i) which constitutes at least 5 acres of total acreage;
``(ii) whose fair market value exceeds $100,000; or
``(iii) whose fair market value exceeds 15 percent of the
surplus property's fair market value.
``(5) The provisions of this section shall not apply to
buildings and property at military installations that are
approved for closure under the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law
101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) and shall not supersede the
provisions of section 2(e) of the Base Closure Community
Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 (10 U.S.C.
2687 note).''.
SEC. 507. RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE.
The last sentence of section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949
(42 U.S.C. 1490) is amended by inserting before the period
the following: ``, and the city of Altus, Oklahoma, shall be
considered a rural area for purposes of this title until the
receipt of data from the decennial census in the year 2000''.
SEC. 508. TREATMENT OF OCCUPANCY STANDARDS.
(a) National Standard Prohibited.--The Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development shall not directly or indirectly
establish a national occupancy standard.
(b) State Standard.--If a State establishes an occupancy
standard--
(1) such standard shall be presumed reasonable for purposes
of any laws administered by the Secretary; and
(2) the Secretary shall not suspend, withdraw, or deny
certification of any State or local public agency based in
whole or in part on that State occupancy standard or its
operation.
(c) Absence of State Standard.--If a State fails to
establish an occupancy standard, an occupancy standard of 2
persons per bedroom established by a housing provider shall
be presumed reasonable for the purposes of any laws
administered by the Secretary.
(d) Definition.--
(1) General rule.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
term ``occupancy standard'' means a law, regulation, or
housing provider policy that establishes a limit on the
number of residents a housing provider can properly manage in
a dwelling for any 1 or more of the following purposes--
(A) providing a decent home and services for each resident;
(B) enhancing the livability of a dwelling for all
residents, including the dwelling for each particular
resident; and
(C) avoiding undue physical deterioration of the dwelling
and property.
(2) Exception.--The term ``occupancy standard'' does not
include a Federal, State, or local restriction regarding the
maximum number of persons permitted to occupy a dwelling for
the sole purpose of protecting the health and safety of the
residents of a dwelling, including building and housing code
provisions.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect January
1, 1996.
SEC. 509. IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN.
(a) Implementation.--Within 120 days after the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall implement the Ida Barbour Revitalization Plan of the
City of Portsmouth, Virginia, in a manner consistent with
existing limitations under law. The Secretary shall consider
and make any waivers to existing regulations consistent with
such plan to enable timely implementation of such plan.
(b) Report.--Such city shall submit a report to the
Secretary on progress in implementing the plan not later than
1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act and
annually thereafter through the year 2000. The report shall
include quantifiable measures revealing the increase in
homeowners, employment, tax base, voucher allocation,
leverage ratio of funds, impact on and compliance with the
city's consolidated plan, identification of regulatory and
statutory obstacles which have or are causing unnecessary
delays in the plan's successful implementation or are
contributing to unnecessary costs associated with the
revitalization, and any other information as the Secretary
considers appropriate.
SEC. 510. INCOME ELIGIBILITY FOR HOME AND CDBG PROGRAMS.
(a) Home Investment Partnerships.--The Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act is amended as follows:
(1) Definitions.--In section 104(10) (42 U.S.C.
12704(10))--
(A) by striking ``income ceilings higher or lower'' and
inserting ``an income ceiling higher'';
(B) by striking ``variations are'' and inserting
``variation is''; and
(C) by striking ``high or''.
(2) Income targeting.--In section 214(1)(A) (42 U.S.C.
12744(1)(A))--
[[Page H4590]]
(A) by striking ``income ceilings higher or lower'' and
inserting ``an income ceiling higher'';
(B) by striking ``variations are'' and inserting
``variation is''; and
(C) by striking ``high or''.
(3) Rent limits.--In section 215(a)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C.
12745(a)(1)(A))--
(A) by striking ``income ceilings higher or lower'' and
inserting ``an income ceiling higher'';
(B) by striking ``variations are'' and inserting
``variation is''; and
(C) by striking ``high or''.
(b) CDBG.--Section 102(a)(20) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(20)) is amended by
striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) The Secretary may--
``(i) with respect to any reference in subparagraph (A) to
50 percent of the median income of the area involved,
establish percentages of median income for any area that are
higher or lower than 50 percent if the Secretary finds such
variations to be necessary because of unusually high or low
family incomes in such area; and
``(ii) with respect to any reference in subparagraph (A) to
80 percent of the median income of the area involved,
establish a percentage of median income for any area that is
higher than 80 percent if the Secretary finds such variation
to be necessary because of unusually low family incomes in
such area.''.
SEC. 511. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SECTION 236 PROGRAM.
Section 236(f)(1) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1715z-1) (as amended by section 405(d)(1) of The Balanced
Budget Downpayment Act, I, and by section 228(a) of The
Balanced Budget Downpayment Act, II) is amended--
(1) in the second sentence, by striking ``the lower of
(i)'';
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``(ii) the fair
market rental established under section 8(c) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 for the market area in which the
housing is located, or (iii) the actual rent (as determined
by the Secretary) paid for a comparable unit in comparable
unassisted housing in the market area in which the housing
assisted under this section is located,''; and
(3) by inserting after the second sentence the following:
``However, in the case of a project which contains more than
5,000 units, is subject to an interest reduction payments
contract, and is financed under a State or local program, the
Secretary may reduce the rental charge ceiling, but in no
case shall the rent be below basic rent. For plans of action
approved for capital grants under the Low-Income Housing
Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 or the
provisions of the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation
Act of 1987, the rental charge for each dwelling unit shall
be at the basic rental charge or such greater amount, not
exceeding the lower of (i) the fair market rental charge
determined pursuant to this paragraph, or (ii) the actual
rent paid for a comparable unit in comparable unassisted
housing in the market area in which the housing is located,
as represents 30 percent of the tenant's adjusted income, but
in no case shall the rent be below basic rent.''.
SEC. 512. PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF GOLD CLAUSES.
Section 5118(d)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``This paragraph shall continue to apply to any obligations
issued on or before October 27, 1977, notwithstanding any
assignment and/or novation of such obligations after such
date, unless all parties to the assignment and/or novation
specifically agree to include a gold clause in the new
agreement.''.
SEC. 513. MOVING TO WORK DEMONSTRATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this demonstration under this
section is to give local housing and management authorities
and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development the
flexibility to design and test various approaches for
providing and administering housing assistance that--
(1) reduce cost and achieve greater cost effectiveness in
Federal expenditures;
(2) give incentives to families with children where the
head of household is working, seeking work, or preparing for
work by participating in job training, educational programs,
or programs that assist people to obtain employment and
become economically self-sufficient; and
(3) increase housing choices for low-income families.
(b) Program Authority.--
(1) Selection of participants.--The Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development shall conduct a demonstration program
under this section beginning in fiscal year 1997 under which
local housing and management authorities (including Indian
housing authorities) administering the public or Indian
housing program and the choice-based rental assistance
program under title III of this Act shall be selected by the
Secretary to participate. In first year of the demonstration,
the Secretary shall select 100 local housing and management
authorities to participate. In each of the next 2 year of the
demonstration, the Secretary shall select 100 additional
local housing and management authorities per year to
participate. During the first year of the demonstration, the
Secretary shall select for participation any authority that
complies with the requirement under subsection (d) and owns
or administers more than 99,999 dwelling units of public
housing.
(2) Training.--The Secretary, in consultation with
representatives of public housing interests, shall provide
training and technical assistance during the demonstration
and conduct detailed evaluations of up to 30 such agencies in
an effort to identify replicable program models promoting the
purpose of the demonstration.
(3) Use of housing assistance.--Under the demonstration,
notwithstanding any provision of this Act, an authority may
combine operating assistance provided under section 9 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the
date of the enactment of this Act), modernization assistance
provided under section 14 of such Act, assistance provided
under section 8 of such Act for the certificate and voucher
programs, assistance for pubic housing provided under title
II of this Act, and choice-based rental assistance provided
under title III of this Act, to provide housing assistance
for low-income families and services to facilitate the
transition to work on such terms and conditions as the
authority may propose.
(c) Application.--An application to participate in the
demonstration--
(1) shall request authority to combine assistance refereed
to in subsection (b)(3);
(2) shall be submitted only after the local housing and
management authority provides for citizen participation
through a public hearing and, if appropriate, other means;
(3) shall include a plan developed by the authority that
takes into account comments from the public hearing and any
other public comments on the proposed program, and comments
from current and prospective residents who would be affected,
and that includes criteria for--
(A) establishing a reasonable rent policy, which shall be
designed to encourage employment and self-sufficiency by
participating families, consistent with the purpose of this
demonstration, such as by excluding some or all of a family's
earned income for purposes of determining rent; and
(B) assuring that housing assisted under the demonstration
program meets housing quality standards established or
approved by the Secretary; and
(4) may request assistance for training and technical
assistance to assist with design of the demonstration and to
participate in a detailed evaluation.
(d) Selection Criteria.--In selecting among applications,
the Secretary shall take into account the potential of each
authority to plan and carry out a program under the
demonstration and other appropriate factors as reasonably
determined by the Secretary. An authority shall be eligible
to participate in any fiscal year only if the most recent
score for the authority under the public housing management
assessment program under section 6(j) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the date of the
enactment of this Act) is 90 or greater.
(e) Applicability of Certain Provisions.--
(1) Section 261 of this Act shall continue to apply to
public housing notwithstanding any use of the housing under
this demonstration.
(2) Section 113 of this Act shall apply to housing assisted
under the demonstration, other than housing assisted solely
due to occupancy by families receiving tenant-based
assistance.
(f) Effect on Program Allocations.--The amount of
assistance received under titles II and III by a local
housing and management authority participating in the
demonstration under this section shall not be diminished by
its participation.
(g) Records, Reports, and Audits.--
(1) Keeping of records.--Each authority shall keep such
records as the Secretary may prescribe as reasonably
necessary to disclose the amounts and the disposition of
amounts under this demonstration, to ensure compliance with
the requirements of this section, and to measure performance.
(2) Reports.--Each authority shall submit to the Secretary
a report, or series of reports, in a form and at a time
specified by the Secretary. Each report shall--
(A) document the use of funds made available under this
section;
(B) provide such data as the Secretary may request to
assist the Secretary in assessing the demonstration; and
(C) describe and analyze the effect of assisted activities
in addressing the objectives of this part.
(3) Access to documents by the secretary.--The Secretary
shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination to
any books, documents, papers, and records that are pertinent
to assistance in connection with, and the requirements of,
this section.
(4) Access to documents by the comptroller general.--The
Comptroller General of the United States, or any of the duly
authorized representatives of the Comptroller General, shall
have access for the purpose of audit and examination to any
books, documents, papers, and records that are pertinent to
assistance in connection with, and the requirements of, this
section.
(h) Evaluation and Report.--
(1) Consultation with lhma and family representatives.--In
making assessments throughout the demonstration, the
Secretary shall consult with representatives of local housing
and management authorities and residents.
(2) Report to congress.--Not later than 180 days after the
end of the third year of the
[[Page H4591]]
demonstration, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a
report evaluating the programs carried out under the
demonstration. The report shall also include findings and
recommendations for any appropriate legislative action.
SEC. 514. OCCUPANCY SCREENING AND EVICTIONS FROM FEDERALLY
ASSISTED HOUSING.
(a) Occupancy Screening.--Section 642 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13602)--
(1) by inserting ``(a) General Criteria.--'' before ``In'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(b) Authority to Deny Occupancy for Criminal Offenders.--
In selecting tenants for occupancy of dwelling units in
federally assisted housing, if the owner of such housing
determines that an applicant for occupancy in the housing or
any member of the applicant's household is or was, during the
preceding 3 years, engaged in any activity described in
paragraph (2)(C) of section 645, the owner may--
``(1) deny such applicant occupancy and consider the
applicant (for purposes of any waiting list) as not having
applied for such occupancy ; and
``(2) after the expiration of the 3-year period beginning
upon such activity, require the applicant, as a condition of
occupancy in the housing or application for occupancy in the
housing, to submit to the owner evidence sufficient (as the
Secretary shall by regulation provide) to ensure that the
individual or individuals in the applicant's household who
engaged in criminal activity for which denial was made under
paragraph (1) have not engaged in any criminal activity
during such 3-year period.
``(c) Authority to Require Access to Criminal Records.--An
owner of federally assisted housing may require, as a
condition of providing occupancy in a dwelling unit in such
housing to an applicant for occupancy and the members of the
applicant's household, that each adult member of the
household provide the owner with a signed, written
authorization for the owner to obtain records described in
section 646(a) regarding such member of the household from
the National Crime Information Center, police departments,
and other law enforcement agencies.
``(d) Definition.--For purposes of subsections (b) and (c),
the term `federally assisted housing' has the meaning given
the term by this title, except that the term does not include
housing that only meets the requirements of section
683(2)(E).''.
(b) Termination of Tenancy.--Subtitle C of title VI of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 645. TERMINATION OF TENANCY.
``Each lease for a dwelling unit in federally assisted
housing (as such term is defined in section 642(d)) shall
provide that--
``(1) the owner may 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; and
``(2) 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--
``(A) threatens the health or safety of, or right to
peaceful enjoyment of the premises by, other tenants or
employees of the owner or other manager of the housing,
``(B) 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
``(C) is criminal activity (including drug-related criminal
activity) on or off the premises, shall be cause for
termination of tenancy.''.
(c) Availability of Criminal Records for Tenant Screening
and Eviction.--Subtitle C of title VI of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13601 et seq.)
is amended adding after section 645 (as added by subsection
(b) of this section) the following new section:
``SEC. 646. AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Provision of information.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law other than paragraph (2), upon the request
of an owner of federally assisted housing, the National Crime
Information Center, a police department, and any other law
enforcement agency shall provide to the owner of federally
assisted housing information regarding the criminal
conviction records of an adult applicant for, or tenants of,
the federally assisted housing for purposes of applicant
screening, lease enforcement, and eviction, but only if the
owner requests such information and presents to such Center,
department, or agency with a written authorization, signed by
such applicant, for the release of such information to such
owner.
``(2) Exception.--The information provided under paragraph
(1) may not include any information regarding any criminal
conviction of an applicant or resident for any act (or
failure to act) for which the applicant or resident was not
treated as an adult under the laws of the convicting
jurisdiction.
``(b) Confidentiality.--An owner receiving information
under this section may use such information only for the
purposes provided in this section and such information may
not be disclosed to any person who is not an officer or
employee of the owner. The Secretary shall, by regulation,
establish procedures necessary to ensure that information
provided under this section to an owner is used, and
confidentiality of such information is maintained, as
required under this section.
``(c) Opportunity to Dispute.--Before an adverse action is
taken with regard to assistance for federally assisted
housing on the basis of a criminal record, the owner shall
provide the tenant or applicant with a copy of the criminal
record and an opportunity to dispute the accuracy and
relevance of that record.
``(d) Fee.--An owner of federally assisted housing may be
charged a reasonable fee for information provided under
subsection (a).
``(e) Records Management.--Each owner of federally assisted
housing that receives criminal record information under this
section shall establish and implement a system of records
management that ensures that any criminal record received by
the owner is--
``(1) maintained confidentially;
``(2) not misused or improperly disseminated; and
``(3) destroyed, once the purpose for which the record was
requested has been accomplished.
``(f) Penalty.--Any person who knowingly and willfully
requests or obtains any information concerning an applicant
for, or resident of, federally assisted housing pursuant to
the authority under this section under false pretenses, or
any person who knowingly and willfully discloses any such
information in any manner to any individual not entitled
under any law to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and fined not more than $5,000. The term `person' as used in
this subsection shall include an officer or employee of any
local housing and management authority.
``(g) Civil action.--Any applicant for, or resident of,
federally assisted housing affected by (1) a negligent or
knowing disclosure of information referred to in this section
about such person by an officer or employee of any owner,
which disclosure is not authorized by this section, or (2)
any other negligent or knowing action that is inconsistent
with this section, may bring a civil action for damages and
such other relief as may be appropriate against any owner
responsible for such unauthorized action. The district court
of the United States in the district in which the affected
applicant or resident resides, in which such unauthorized
action occurred, or in which the officer or employee alleged
to be responsible for any such unauthorized action resides,
shall have jurisdiction in such matters. Appropriate relief
that may be ordered by such district courts shall include
reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs.
``(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
``(1) Adult.--The term `adult' means a person who is 18
years of age or older, or who has been convicted of a crime
as an adult under any Federal, State, or tribal law.
``(2) Federally assisted housing.--The term `federally
assisted housing' has the meaning given the term by this
title, except that the term does not include housing that
only meets the requirements of section 683(2)(E).''.
(d) Definitions.--Section 683 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13643) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section 3(b) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937'' and inserting ``section
102 of the United States Housing Act of 1996'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before the semicolon
at the end the following; ``(as in effect before the
enactment of the United States Housing Act of 1996)'';
(C) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(D) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(H) for purposes only of subsections (b) and (c) of
sections 642, and section 645 and 646, housing assisted under
section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949.'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``public housing agency''
and inserting ``local housing and management authority''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Drug-related criminal activity.--The term `drug-
related criminal activity' means the illegal manufacture,
sale, distribution, use, or possession with intent to
manufacture, sell, distribute, or use, of a controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled
Substances Act).''.
At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:
TITLE VI--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS COST
SEC. 601. ESTABLISHMENT.
There is established a commission to be known as the
National Commission on Housing Assistance Programs Cost (in
this title referred to as the ``Commission'').
SEC. 602. MEMBERSHIP.
(a) Appointment.--The Commission shall be composed of 9
members, who shall be appointed not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act. The members shall be
as follows:
(1) 3 members to be appointed by the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development;
(2) 3 members appointed by the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity
and Community Development of the Committee
[[Page H4592]]
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate; and
(3) 3 members appointed by the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services of the House of Representatives and the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives.
(b) Qualifications.--The 3 members of the Commission
appointed under each of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of
subsection (a)--
(1) shall all be experts in the field of accounting,
economics, cost analysis, finance, or management; and
(2) shall include--
(A) 1 individual who is an elected public official at the
State or local level;
(B) 1 individual who is a distinguished academic engaged in
teaching or research;
(C) 1 individual who is a business leader, financial
officer, management or accounting expert.
In selecting members of the Commission for appointment, the
individuals appointing shall ensure that the members selected
can analyze the Federal assisted housing programs (as such
term is defined in section 604(a)) on an objective basis and
that no member of the Commission has a personal financial or
business interest in any such program.
SEC. 603. ORGANIZATION.
(a) Chairperson.--The Commission shall elect a chairperson
from among members of the Commission.
(b) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business,
but a lesser number may hold hearings.
(c) Voting.--Each member of the Commission shall be
entitled to 1 vote, which shall be equal to the vote of every
other member of the Commission.
(d) Vacancies.--Any vacancy on the Commission shall not
affect its powers, but shall be filled in the manner in which
the original appointment was made.
(e) Prohibition on Additional Pay.--Members of the
Commission shall serve without compensation.
(f) Travel Expenses.--Each member shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
SEC. 604. FUNCTIONS.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall --
(1) analyze the full cost to the Federal Government, public
housing agencies, State and local governments, and other
parties, per assisted household, of the Federal assisted
housing programs, and shall conduct the analysis on a
nationwide and regional basis and in a manner such that
accurate per unit cost comparisons may be made between
Federal assisted housing programs; and
(2) estimate the future liability that will be borne by
taxpayers as a result of activities under the Federal
assisted housing programs before the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Federal assisted housing programs'' means--
(1) the public housing program under the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the date of the
enactment of this Act);
(2) the public housing program under title II of this Act;
(3) the certificate program for rental assistance under
section 8(b)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as
in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act);
(4) the voucher program for rental assistance under section
8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect
before the date of the enactment of this Act);
(5) the programs for project-based assistance under section
8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect
before the date of the enactment of this Act);
(6) the rental assistance payments program under section
521(a)(2)(A) of the Housing Act of 1949;
(7) the program for housing for the elderly under section
202 of the Housing Act of 1959;
(8) the program for housing for persons with disabilities
under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act;
(9) the program for financing housing by a loan or mortgage
insured under section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act
that bears interest at a rate determined under the proviso of
section 221(d)(5) of such Act;
(10) the program under section 236 of the National Housing
Act;
(11) the program for constructed or substantial
rehabilitation under section 8(b)(2) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as in effect before October 1, 1983; and
(12) any other program for housing assistance administered
by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or the
Secretary of Agriculture, under which occupancy in the
housing assisted or housing assistance provided is based on
income, as the Commission may determine.
(c) Final Report.--Not later than 18 months after the
Commission is established pursuant to section 602(a), the
Commission shall submit to the Secretary and to the Congress
a final report which shall contain the results of the
analysis and estimates required under subsection (a).
(c) Limitation.--The Commission may not make any
recommendations regarding Federal housing policy.
SEC. 605. POWERS.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission may, for the purpose of
carrying out this title, hold such hearings and sit and act
at such times and places as the Commission may find
advisable.
(b) Rules and Regulations.--The Commission may adopt such
rules and regulations as may be necessary to establish its
procedures and to govern the manner of its operations,
organization and personnel.
(c) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
(1) Information.--The Commission may request from any
department or agency of the United States, and such
department or agency shall provide to the Commission in a
timely fashion, such data and information as the Commission
may require for carrying out this title, including--
(A) local housing management plans submitted to the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under section 107;
(B) block grant contracts under title II;
(C) contracts under section 302 for assistance amounts
under title III; and
(D) audits submitted to the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development under section 403.
(2) Administrative support.--The General Services
Administration shall provide to the Commission, on a
reimbursable basis, such administrative support services as
the Commission may request.
(3) Personnel details and technical assistance.--Upon the
request of the chairperson of the Commission, the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development shall, to the extent
possible and subject to the discretion of the Secretary--
(A) detail any of the personnel of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, on a nonreimbursable basis, to
assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under this
title; and
(B) provide the Commission with technical assistance in
carrying out its duties under this title.
(d) Information From Local Housing and Management
Authorities.--The Commission shall have access, for the
purpose of carrying out its functions under this title, to
any books, documents, papers, and records of a local housing
and management authority that are pertinent to this Act and
assistance received pursuant to this Act.
(e) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as other
Federal agencies.
(f) Contracting.--The Commission may, to the extent and in
such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts, enter
into contracts necessary to carry out its duties under this
title.
(g) Staff.--
(1) Executive director.--The Commission shall appoint an
executive director of the Commission who shall be compensated
at a rate fixed by the Commission, but which shall not exceed
the rate established for level V of the Executive Schedule
under title 5, United States Code.
(2) Personnel.--In addition to the executive director, the
Commission may appoint and fix the compensation of such
personnel as it deems advisable, in accordance with the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments to the competitive service, and the provisions
of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title,
relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
(3) Limitation.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be effective
only to the extent and in such amounts as are provided in
appropriations Acts.
(4) Selection criteria.--In appointing an executive
director and staff, the Commission shall ensure that the
individuals appointed can conduct any functions they may have
regarding the Federal assisted housing programs (as such term
is defined in section 604(a)) on an objective basis and that
no such individual has a personal financial or business
interest in any such program.
(h) Advisory Committee.--The Commission shall be considered
an advisory committee within the meaning of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
SEC. 606. FUNDING.
Of any amounts made available for policy, research, and
development activities of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, there shall be available for carrying out this
title $750,000, for fiscal year 1997. Any such amounts so
appropriated shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 607. SUNSET.
The Commission shall terminate upon the expiration of the
18-month period beginning upon the date that the Commission
is established pursuant to section 602(a).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
Does the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] rise in
opposition?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts will be recognized for
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
[[Page H4593]]
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], who has been exceptionally
important, a great advocate for people in need in public assisted
housing.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman from New York very much for
including my bill in the manager's amendment.
We call it ``one strike and you are out, part two,'' because what it
does is to extend the provisions that were cast earlier and President
Clinton signed into law with a great deal of support from the White
House to enable us to evict drug and alcohol abusers and those that are
engaged in criminal activity from all types of federally subsidized
housing.
Fot too long, drug dealers and other criminals have found a haven in
low-income housing projects, and although the 1990 act makes some
progress in the public housing area, it did not apply to all subsidized
housing.
This manager's amendment closes the most egregious loophole in public
housing. It grants public housing authorities and private owners of
Section 8 properties new powers to screen and evict problem tenants.
As my colleagues know, there are 1.4 million public housing units,
while there are 2.1 million section 8 publicly assisted housing units,
and the fact is that residents of project 8, section 8 and FHA-insured
multifamily housing have had virtually no protection from drug dealers
that live next door and threaten their health and safety on a daily
basis. They deserve equal protection under the law.
Mr. Chairman, what we are going to do with this legislation is to see
to it that drug dealers will be subject to eviction from public housing
whenever they deal their drugs and wherever they deal their drugs, but
it will also enable managers of section 8 properties to effectively
screen prospective tenants before those tenants are involved in drug
dealing or criminal activity. It is a lot easier if we can keep them
out of subsidized housing than waiting until they commit crimes.
Section 8 managers will be able to conduct criminal background checks
and match an applicant's name against information from the National
Crime Information Center.
We have got a long waiting list of people that deserve subsidized
housing and very much need it. We cannot afford to be giving housing
units to people who terrorize their neighbors. This manager's amendment
will put an end to that practice.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the manager's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is not that I oppose everything in the manager's
amendment, and there are a number of provisions within it that I would
support. I do believe, however, there are provisions that are contained
in the amendment which simply are wholesale changes in existing law
which I was unaware were even included in this as of 9 o'clock last
evening. Those range from an exemption to the Brooke amendment for over
300 public housing authorities, including the specifically mentioned,
for some reason, which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] has
informed me from New York City that the mayor of New York was
completely unaware of providing for, regardless of whether or not the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] which
would maintain the Brooke amendment as it is currently constituted into
current law, regardless of whether or not the Frank of Massachusetts
amendment passes.
This would exempt 300 public housing authorities that meet certain
criteria that I do not know. Those public housing authorities would be
able to wholesale throw out tremendous numbers of poor people simply
because they have attained some standard by which the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio] believes means they are doing a good job.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the
manager's amendment, which we did not get much time to look at, instead
did an excellent job of analyzing it, the manager's amendment does two
things. First of all, it does a revised version of the Brooke
amendment, and then it exempts people from its own revised version. So
the amendment, in fact, contains both the revision and an exemption
from its own revision as I understand it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, it is always good to have
the gentleman from Massachusetts around to explain things.
But the truth of the matter is that, in addition to the Brooke
amendment changes that I think are very detrimental to the vulnerable
people, and particularly to the working poor of this country, the bill
also contains some kind of self-sufficiency contract which I have come
to know as the PIP, the personal improvement program.
Now, that personal improvement plan is evidently supposed to be filed
by every resident of public housing to be then; I guess maybe the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] is going to review each one of
these PIP's, and once those PIP's are reviewed and they pass whatever
standard Mr. Lazio has in mind, then we are going to determine whether
or not the individual in public housing has actually achieved the goals
that they have set out. If they have not achieved those goals, then
they can be thrown out of public housing.
Mr. Chairman, I have not heard anything so patently ridiculous in all
the years that I have served in the Congress of the United States. What
are we doing? We are turning ourselves into some sort of big-brother
organization which determines whether or not, and I would like to see
every Member of this House submit a PIP and see whether or not they
could adhere to all the standards that we set for ourselves, I would
like to see every member of the Housing Committee set those standards
for themselves, before we start asking people in public housing to set
those standards.
Third, there is some provision that got in here. Evidently somebody
in the Congress has a particular interest in some GSA surplus property.
Evidently that particular individual is concerned about having homeless
people come next door because of a provision which says that when there
is excess GSA property, that should go to homeless organizations as a
first choice. That is going to be changed without ever having a hearing
about it, without ever deciding what is good for it. That is going to
be changed to allow this particular individual to have some kind of
other organizations move in next to his particular home.
Now, I do not know that this is an appropriate place for us to be
providing specific provisions like that for particular Members of
Congress. I personally am outraged that those kinds of provisions are
snuck into a manager's amendment, never discussed with me. As I
understand the way the manager's amendment is supposed to work, is
these are supposed to be technical and conforming changes that the two
of us negotiate and agree upon that create a consensus as to where we
can improve the bill. That was not done in this case.
And I recognize that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has had
a very difficult job, and I once again want to compliment him on a
number of provisions that are contained in this bill. I say to the
gentleman, Rick, there are many provisions that I think are important
changes that give local housing authorities the kind of flexibility
that both of us believe that they need in order to get rid of some of
these terrible housing projects and to allow the Secretary to get rid
of very badly run public housing authorities. But we go too far in
eliminating Brooke, we go too far in vouchering out, we go too far in
these PIP programs, and we go too far in providing for individual
Member of Congress' own backyard.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I know we all want the same things, but we all have not
done the same things to help people who are the poorest of the poor who
are living in public housing. It was not this majority that imposed the
one-for-one requirement which said that we cannot demolish the most
dilapidated buildings in public housing, and we force
[[Page H4594]]
communities to live in the shadows of crime, many cases crime-ridden
structures with broken windows that are falling apart. It was not this
majority who said frankly that there should be no home ownership
opportunities for people that will have vouchers, but we are beginning
the process of moving in the other direction, and this amendment does
it.
Mr. Chairman, there cannot be any larger philosophical divide between
the gentleman from Massachusetts and the other side of the aisle than
the self-sufficiency, the tenant self-sufficiency contract.
In our amendment, Mr. Chairman, we say that somebody who comes into
public housing enters into a contract with those people who are
supervising that housing authority. Now, that may, in fact, be a not-
for-profit, it may be for a for-profit, it may be the housing
authority, but we say the tenant enters into a contract which says
these are the things that I will do to transition myself back into the
marketplace, these are the things that I will take advantage of, be it
worker training or educational possibilities.
We can no longer say that it is a one-way street, that we are going
to give people the opportunity to live in public assisted housing and
expect them to do nothing in return, including improving their own lot
when there are opportunities for that to happen.
This is not punitive, and, in fact, there is an escape valve here to
say if someone has changed circumstances, contrary to what the
gentleman would say, that that would be taken into consideration.
Nobody would be thrown out because of this, but it begins the process
of having people think about what they need to do to transition back
into the marketplace.
We create a number of home ownership opportunities in this
legislation, Mr. Chairman, including the possibility that a resident in
public housing can purchase their own unit. Yes, we give that person
the opportunity to do that. We value home ownership.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I understood that we had
5 minutes per side. When I heard the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Moran], I just assumed that we have gone over, well over, the 5-minute
allocation if we take into account Mr. Moran.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia utilized 2 minutes. There
were 3 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York is utilizing his
3 minutes at this point.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I hope the gentleman is as generous
with the 3 minutes with our side.
The CHAIRMAN. All indications are that they are being totally fair.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. In this amendment Mr. Chairman, we protect
seniors, we protect the disabled, we protect the poorest of the poor,
and we remove the job-killing Brooke amendment. We allow an out for
minimum rents for people who have hardship exemptions, but we believe
that everybody should pay something, whether it is $25 or $30 or $35.
We target our resources so that people who use vouchers, half of all
the people who use vouchers, will be people who make under 60 percent
of median income, again the poorest of the poor. We say that 30 percent
of the units in public housing must go to people who have incomes below
30 percent of median income. Again, we insure that there are units for
the poorest of the poor, but we also say, Mr. Chairman, that we need to
create an environment of hope with role models where people can
transition back to the marketplace where they can make their own
choices for housing.
I ask for support for this amendment.
{time} 1745
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``United
States Housing Act of 1996''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Declaration of policy to renew American neighborhoods.
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 101. Statement of purpose.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Organization of local housing and management authorities.
Sec. 104. Determination of adjusted income.
Sec. 105. Limitation on admission of drug or alcohol abusers to
assisted housing.
Sec. 106. Community work and family self-sufficiency requirement.
Sec. 107. Local housing management plans.
Sec. 108. Review of plans.
Sec. 109. Pet ownership.
Sec. 110. Administrative grievance procedure.
Sec. 111. Headquarters reserve fund.
Sec. 112. Labor standards.
Sec. 113. Nondiscrimination.
Sec. 114. Effective date and regulations.
TITLE II--PUBLIC HOUSING
Subtitle A--Block Grants
Sec. 201. Block grant contracts.
Sec. 202. Block grant authority and amount.
Sec. 203. Eligible and required activities.
Sec. 204. Determination of block grant allocation.
Sec. 205. Sanctions for improper use of amounts.
Subtitle B--Admissions and Occupancy Requirements
Sec. 221. Low-income housing requirement.
Sec. 222. Family eligibility.
Sec. 223. Preferences for occupancy.
Sec. 224. Admission procedures.
Sec. 225. Family rental payment.
Sec. 226. Lease requirements.
Sec. 227. Designated housing for elderly and disabled families.
Subtitle C--Management
Sec. 231. Management procedures.
Sec. 232. Housing quality requirements.
Sec. 233. Employment of residents.
Sec. 234. Resident councils and resident management corporations.
Sec. 235. Management by resident management corporation.
Sec. 236. Transfer of management of certain housing to independent
manager at request of residents.
Sec. 237. Resident opportunity program.
Subtitle D--Homeownership
Sec. 251. Resident homeownership programs.
Subtitle E--Disposition, Demolition, and Revitalization of Developments
Sec. 261. Requirements for demolition and disposition of developments.
Sec. 262. Demolition, site revitalization, replacement housing, and
choice-based assistance grants for developments.
Subtitle F--General Provisions
Sec. 271. Conversion to block grant assistance.
Sec. 272. Payment of non-Federal share.
Sec. 273. Definitions.
Sec. 274. Authorization of appropriations for block grants.
Sec. 275. Authorization of appropriations for operation safe home.
TITLE III--CHOICE-BASED RENTAL HOUSING AND HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE FOR
LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
Subtitle A--Allocation
Sec. 301. Authority to provide housing assistance amounts.
Sec. 302. Contracts with LHMA's.
Sec. 303. Eligibility of LHMA's for assistance amounts.
Sec. 304. Allocation of amounts.
Sec. 305. Administrative fees.
Sec. 306. Authorizations of appropriations.
Sec. 307. Conversion of section 8 assistance.
Subtitle B--Choice-Based Housing Assistance for Eligible Families
Sec. 321. Eligible families and preferences for assistance.
Sec. 322. Resident contribution.
Sec. 323. Rental indicators.
Sec. 324. Lease terms.
Sec. 325. Termination of tenancy.
Sec. 326. Eligible owners.
Sec. 327. Selection of dwelling units.
Sec. 328. Eligible dwelling units.
Sec. 329. Homeownership option.
Subtitle C--Payment of Housing Assistance on Behalf of Assisted
Families
Sec. 351. Housing assistance payments contracts.
Sec. 352. Amount of monthly assistance payment.
Sec. 353. Payment standards.
Sec. 354. Reasonable rents.
Sec. 355. Prohibition of assistance for vacant rental units.
Subtitle D--General and Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 372. Definitions.
Sec. 372. Rental assistance fraud recoveries.
Sec. 373. Study regarding geographic concentration of assisted
families.
TITLE IV--ACCREDITATION AND OVERSIGHT OF LOCAL HOUSING AND MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITIES
Subtitle A--Housing Foundation and Accreditation Board
Sec. 401. Establishment.
Sec. 402. Membership.
[[Page H4595]]
Sec. 403. Functions.
Sec. 404. Initial establishment of standards and procedures for LHMA
compliance.
Sec. 405. Powers.
Sec. 406. Fees.
Sec. Reports.
Subtitle B--Accreditation and Oversight Standards and Procedures.
Sec. 431. Establishment of performance benchmarks and accreditation
procedures.
Sec. 432. Annual financial and performance audit.
Sec. 433. Accreditation.
Sec. 434. Classification by performance category.
Sec. 435. Performance agreements for authorities at risk of becoming
troubled.
Sec. 436. Performance agreements and CDBG sanctions for troubled
LHMA's.
Sec. 437. Option to demand conveyance of title to, or possession of,
public housing.
Sec. 438. Removal of ineffective LHMA's.
Sec. 439. Mandatory takeover of chronically troubled PHA's.
Sec. 440. Treatment of troubled PHA's
Sec. 441. Maintenance of and access to records.
Sec. 442. Annual reports regarding troubled LHMA's.
Sec. 443. Applicability to resident management corporations.
Sec. 444. Inapplicability to Indian housing.
TITLE V--REPEALS AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
Sec. 501. Repeals.
Sec. 502. Conforming and technical provisions.
Sec. 503. Amendments to Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination
Act of 1990.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY TO RENEW AMERICAN
NEIGHBORHOODS.
The Congress hereby declares that--
(1) the Federal Government has a responsibility to promote
the general welfare of the Nation--
(A) by using Federal resources to aid families and
individuals seeking affordable homes that are safe, clean,
and healthy and, in particular, assisting responsible,
deserving citizens who cannot provide fully for themselves
because of temporary circumstances or factors beyond their
control;
(B) by working to ensure a thriving national economy and a
strong private housing market; and
(C) by developing effective partnerships among the Federal
Government, State and local governments, and private entities
that allow government to accept responsibility for fostering
the development of a healthy marketplace and allow families
to prosper without government involvement in their day-to-day
activities;
(2) the Federal Government cannot through its direct action
or involvement provide for the housing of every American
citizen, or even a majority of its citizens, but it is the
responsibility of the Government to promote and protect the
independent and collective actions of private citizens to
develop housing and strengthen their own neighborhoods;
(3) the Federal Government should act only where there is a
serious need that private citizens or groups cannot or are
not addressing responsibly; and
(4) housing is a fundamental and necessary component of
bringing true opportunity to people and communities in need,
but providing physical structures to house low-income
families will not be itself pull generations up from poverty.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
amendment no. 43 offered by mr. watt of north carolina
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 43 offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina:
Page 5, strike line 20 and all that follows through page 6,
line 2, and insert the following new paragraphs:
(2) it is a goal of our Nation that all citizens have
decent and affordable housing;
(3) our Nation should promote the goal of providing decent
and affordable housing for all citizens through the efforts
and encouragement of Federal, State, and local governments
and by promoting and protecting the independent and
collective actions of private citizens, organizations, and
the private sector to develop housing and strengthen their
own neighborhoods;
Page 6, line 3, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
Page 6, line 3, strike ``should act only'' and insert ``has
a responsibility to act''.
Page 6, line 6, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to try to frame what
this debate is about through the process of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the characterization that the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio],
made about this bill being a dramatic change in housing policy in this
country. I want to make sure that my colleagues understand just how
dramatic that change is. I want to spend a minute or two talking about
the historical housing policy of this country.
Mr. Chairman, the Housing Act that we are repealing under this bill
today is the Housing Act of 1937. It started with a declaration of
policy which says that it will be our policy as a government to try to
remedy the unsafe and unsanitary housing conditions and the acute
shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for families of lower
income. That statement of Federal housing policy was changed in 1949,
almost 50 years ago.
In 1949, the housing policy was changed to state that it would be the
policy of our Government to try to assure the realization as soon as
feasible of the goal of a decent home and a suitable living environment
for every American family. From that goal statement has come the term
that has controlled the Federal housing policy of our country to
provide decent and affordable housing to every American citizen for the
last 50 years.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues are going to say the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt], is making much ado about nothing. But I want
everybody to understand what his bill says the policy of the Federal
Government for housing should be. This is what the bill says in the
very beginning of the bill: ``The Federal Government cannot, through
its direct action or involvement, provide for the housing of every
American citizen, or even a majority of its citizens;'' a dramatic
departure, a dramatic departure from the goal of providing decent and
affordable housing for every American citizen.
When we talk about this being a dramatic change in policy, it says it
from the very beginning of this bill, it is a dramatic change in
policy, because we are conceding as a Nation that we no longer even
have as a goal providing decent housing for our citizens. The bill
itself says we do not even have that as a goal anymore.
My amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply changes that policy statement. It
does not do anything to the substance of the bill, but it is an
abomination. We should be ashamed of ourselves as a Congress to say to
the American people that we are abandoning the goal, the dream of
providing decent and affordable housing to every American citizen in
our country.
Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues are willing to support that, what it
says to me is that they are the extreme that everybody has worried
about. They are defining as a policy, do anything that is okay. Mr.
Chairman, this is serious, serious business, because we are about
making a major reversal in the goals and objectives and desires of our
Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this simple amendment.
It simply restores the objective in this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it simply says our Nation
should promote the goal of providing decent and affordable housing for
all citizens through the efforts and encouragement of Federal, State,
and local governments, and by promoting and protecting the independent
and collective actions of private citizens, organizations, and the
private sector to develop housing and strengthen their own
neighborhoods, a simple goal statement.
Mr. Chairman, that is what this Government should be about. Please
support this simple amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just mentioned that we ought to be
ashamed. He is right. Some of us ought to be ashamed. We ought to be
ashamed for tolerating this failure, not for the last year or two, but
for 20 years. That is something to be ashamed of.
Mr. Chairman, this is the state of public housing in this Nation. Are
we proud of that, or is that something we are ashamed of? This body
under the last majority did nothing about it.
[[Page H4596]]
They did not take this building down. It could not even take this
building down, because the last majority said you cannot take this
building down because of the fact that you have no money, unless you
build another one in its place. These are buildings. So this hulk has
scarred this neighborhood for years in New Orleans. This is New
Orleans. The one I was referring to, they received a 27 score out of
100, the bottom of the barrel of the top 40 housing authorities in the
Nation. That is the failure we have been tolerating.
Part of the reason we have been tolerating that is because we have
deluded ourselves that this is somehow compassionate. Is that
compassionate, I ask the Chairman? Is that compassionate? I would say,
Mr. Chairman, it is compassionate when we begin to form partnerships,
when people in communities understand what is going on; not when HUD
comes in and throws a couple million dollars into an area and says,
gee, we have done something important.
They have not done something important, Mr. Chairman, when they have
not addressed issues like the other problems the neighborhood has,
including economic development and job creation, having mixed incomes,
ensuring that you have an environment where people can transition back
into the marketplace. This is what we ought to be ashamed of, not the
language that is in this bill, that we ought to be proud of.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman to
explain to me, if this is the kind of housing that we have with a goal
of providing decent and affordable housing, what kind of housing does
the gentleman think we will have if we have no goal, and we do not even
have a policy statement on the issue?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, under this
bill we will not have buildings and hulks like that in neighborhoods
anymore, scarring our communities. They will come down, and the people
in those places that we purport to have compassion for will be given
vouchers so they can make choices on their own and move to a decent
place, so children can be raised in a decent place, not being raised in
an area where children cannot play outside because there is nowhere for
them to play. That is how certain people in this Chamber measure
compassion. I reject that, and this bill rejects that.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will continue to yield,
I would ask the gentleman, is my statement of purposes and goal as an
American inconsistent with what you are saying? Why would the gentleman
not incorporate my amendment into his manager's amendment as a
statement of goal?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would
first of all not suggest that the gentleman in any of his ideas or
opinions on the floor of this House, who I have a great deal of respect
for, is un-American in any way. I want to make that clear.
Second of all, I respectfully disagree with the gentleman. I think we
have hit the mark on this. This is the right statement of purpose. We
do talk about the fact that the Federal Government cannot do it alone.
I would tell the gentleman, we cannot do it alone. We are meeting the
needs of only one out of every four people who are otherwise eligible
for affordable housing in this country. Let me tell the Members, of the
one in four who are lucky enough to be in the lottery to get public
housing, they are living in conditions where they cannot get themselves
out, they cannot revert back to a good environment, their children
cannot be raised in an environment where they can get a good quality of
education and get a good job.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, I see no statement of that objective in this bill
anywhere, Mr. Chairman. When the gentleman says that the Federal
Government will not provide for the housing of every American citizen
or even a majority of its citizens, the gentleman is abandoning the
goal that we have set for 50 years in this country, and that is an
extreme measure on the gentleman's part, just like the rest of his
party.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the only
thing that is extreme is some of the things that are being said and the
way some people here are measuring compassion, which is to concentrate
poverty and condemn people to another 40 years of terrible
circumstances.
In the statement of purpose, I would say to the gentleman, it says,
and I read from page 5:
The Federal Government has a responsibility to promote the
general welfare of the Nation by using Federal resources to
aid families and individuals seeking affordable homes that
are safe, clean, and healthy.
What is radical or extreme about that? I know that is the mantra from
the other side of the aisle, when analysis will not do, but I will tell
the Chairman that in fact we have hit the mark on this. We are going to
break the mold. We are not going to tolerate failure anymore. We are
going to give people a decent place to live.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with some of the rhetoric that we have
just heard from the other side and the picture that the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio] held up. The truth of the matter is that if we
look at what has actually occurred in terms of housing legislation, a
change in the one-for-one rule, which is what Chairman Lazio identified
in his earlier remarks, prevents the demolition of the very housing
project that he was identifying, was passed by a Democratic Congress in
1994. I served on the committee that passed that legislation. It passed
the House of Representatives. It was defeated by Phil Gramm in the U.S.
Senate in the last dying days of the Congress, because he did not want
to give a victory to the Democrats running the House of Representatives
in the Senate of the United States. That is the truth of how one-for-
one died.
Mr. Chairman, if we look at what has already been provided the
Secretary, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has, by the
end of this year, demolished 24,000 units of public housing. It was
Jack Kemp that stood up and said that he did not want to be the
Secretary of Demolition. The truth of the matter is that there is
flexibility built into the law.
I support and many of my friends, a lot of others here, the gentleman
from Massachusetts, Barney Frank, and a lot of us, support the ability
of getting rid of the really badly run housing and taking authority
away from the really bad housing authorities.
{time} 1800
What we are talking about is the language of the Watt amendment,
which says that we should have a goal of providing affordable housing
for the people of this country.
It is amazing to me to sit here in the Congress of the United States
and say to one another that we believe that we cannot accomplish those
goals. Of course this is a Nation of goals. That is how we built
ourselves up. We are not going to attain it next year, but we can
certainly lay ourselves out goals that we can all fight for and have
the drive and the energy to try and hope one day that we can
accomplish.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I just want to make it absolutely clear that the statement of
purpose, the goals for which I am substituting in this amendment
contemplate partnerships, public and private. It contemplates
everything that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has said is
important to him. But it makes explicit also that we are not abandoning
the goal that we have had for housing in this country, not even public
housing, just housing in general, decent and affordable housing.
We have had that goal for 50 years, and all of a sudden these new
breed come in here and they think there is something magic about their
new philosophy and we ought to abandon everything, which is just
extreme.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt]. I think it is fundamentally a good amendment. I
think that in 1949 and in 1996 we obviously agree that the Federal
Government has
[[Page H4597]]
never made the commitment to provide all of the housing for low-income
Americans, and the fact is that we should not abandon that goal.
I would say that the difficulty in reaching that goal today has been
greatly increased by the disparities of incomes that exist in our
society. Today we simply have more economic casualties than we have had
before, in terms of people not making it in terms of affordable
housing. We need to do something about that.
I think that the idea that the gentleman from New York has expressed
with regard to partnerships and communities working together is good,
and I think that the changes we talked about, one-to-one replacement,
one-to-one replacement was a good idea, but what has failed here is
that local communities did not have the resources.
Once we built public housing or assisted housing and put it in place,
we wanted local communities to keep that commitment. That is what that
was all about. I do not think that anyone ever intended that we would
have buildings standing that basically were vacant, that were causing
and attracting problems. But the fact is that some years ago that issue
was recognized as a problem. It has been addressed, and so I do not
think it is a bad thing.
I would certainly concur with the amendment of the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt] to keep in place the goal of safe and
sanitary housing, to keep in place the 1937 and 1949 goals that have
been consistently a part of every commitment made by this Congress in
terms of safe and affordable housing for people.
I might just add that in the context of this authorization and
housing preamble debate, very often it was referred to that local
housing management authorities that are designated under this bill for
significant responsibilities were somehow going to solve all the
problems. Well, it is local housing authorities, frankly, Mr. Chairman,
that have indeed been the problem, the failure or inability of some
local housing and redevelopment authorities.
In this bill, with the accreditation and the troubled projects, what
happened with the troubled projects--the local housing authorities that
cannot make it, that do not get accredited, that in fact are not being
operated properly--is that HUD has to take them over. That is basically
and fundamentally what this bill does. It passes those problems back to
HUD.
The issue that somehow the change here, if we have capable and local
housing authorities, they are going to operate correctly, they are
going to be able to accept these responsibilities, in fact, Mr.
Chairman and the chairman of our subcommittee, I wanted to just point
out to my colleagues that St. Paul, the district I represent, has just
been recognized as having the No. 1 housing authority in the Nation,
St. Paul, MN.
So the fact is that very often I think we are painting a picture here
of the 3,400 housing authorities that do not function very well. Well,
I would invite any of my colleagues to come to my district in St. Paul,
MN and take a look at the thousands of people that are being housed in
real quality public housing and in quality senior citizen high-rises
that are serving people well.
The problem in my community is not the public housing. It is the
private housing, the overcrowding that is associated with the private
multifamily dwellings in my area.
So I would just point out to you that the effect of what this bill
does in your proposal is that it does not necessarily take that problem
away from HUD. In fact, it specifically directs and gives them
tremendous responsibility as they have today to try to deal with those
problems where we have troubled housing projects, and we have many of
them in the country.
I would suggest that many of the changes made to the bill have some
value, but some of them are very, very problematic in the sense that we
are talking about income levels and the rent changes and the
concentration of poverty that has occurred in public housing.
After all, it was the early 1980's under then-President Reagan when
there was an insistence upon focusing in public housing the poorest of
the poor. Up until that particular point we did not have that serry a
concentration, but it was exactly that particular point in time and
that came about for a variety of reasons.
One of them was the increase in the incidence of homelessness,
deinstitutionalization. Others were the insistence that we only ought
to be serving the lowest income persons in public housing because, as I
said earlier in my statements on the floor, there are 1.3 million
families in public housing but there are 13 million that qualify for it
in 1996. We are only dealing with 10 percent.
So naturally anyone who would suggest that the Federal Government can
take of the entire problem is out of touch with the numbers and where
the responsibility lies. But the Federal Government has a key role, an
important role. I think maintaining and embracing the goals of the 1937
or 1949 law are simply a core value of what the American people believe
in terms of the Federal Government. Not that we can do it alone, but we
certainly should not abandon that particular goal expressed in the
basic public housing charter for this and other concerns.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to express my deep concern regarding the
direction in which the public and assisted housing policy and
legislation before the House is going. At a time when 5.3 million
American renters have worst case housing needs, the very purpose of
H.R. 2406 alters a long-standing goal of housing policy in this
Nation--section 2 of the Housing Act of 1949 states:
The Congress hereby declares that the general welfare and
security of the Nation and the health and living standards of
its people require housing production and related community
development sufficient to remedy the serious housing
shortage, the elimination of substandard and other inadequate
housing through the clearance of slums and blighted areas,
and the realization as soon as feasible of the goal of a
decent home and a suitable living environment for every
American family.
Several laws since 1949 have reaffirmed the national goal that every
American be able to afford a decent home in a suitable environment. The
measure we consider today proposes to change that goal, that
commitment.
While this bill does state that the Federal Government has a
responsibility to promote the general welfare and to use its resources
to aid families seeking affordable homes, section 2 goes on to state
clearly that the Federal Government ``cannot * * * provide for the
housing of every American citizen, or even a majority of its
citizens''. Is this a stroke of candor--a ``can't do'' statement, or is
it a lack of will--a ``won't do'' policy?
This legislation does make some positive changes to public housing
and federally assisted housing programs. And I would hasten to point
out I'm in favor of fixing what is broken in public housing policy. I
hear and understand the concerns that public housing authorities have
that inadequate subsidies and rigid policies cause them to seek more
flexibility; that we need more of an income mix of families in public
housing; that we must encourage, not discourage, work. However, on the
main this measure takes a theme and frankly makes it extreme. It
weakens the basic safety net that the Federal Government has provided
through the conduit of public and private Federally assisted housing to
a point that I think is critically wrong.
In the late 1970's and the early 1980's, our laws and policies turned
a trickle of housing and social problems into a waterfall in terms of
homelessness in this country the with deinstitutionalization of
disabled persons without the promised funding and support--and
homelessness that has occurred because of the housing cost increases in
almost every area of our Nation.
Unless the policy path in this bill changes, unless we limit the
percentage of income that tenants--families, seniors, and the
disabled--pay to no more than 30 percent, unless we restore meaningful
income targeting to low and very-low income people along with adequate
Federal subsidies that make that possible, I believe that in ten years
or so, we will look back at the U.S. Housing Act of 1996 as another
policy which drove American families onto the streets and byways across
this Nation. These small changes in rent and targeting have a
significant impact on people and families in public housing and on
section 8. People will be vulnerable and will be pushed into an
indefensible situation of homelessness. We can and should do better
than this measure.
Mr. Chairman, today amendments will be offered by several Members to
improve this bill--and I urge my colleague to give careful
consideration and support the Frank-Gutierrez amendment restoring the
Brooke protections and the Kennedy amendments on targeting. I will
offer an amendment myself that will halt the termination of the current
successful drug elimination program in public and assisted housing by
extending the program as revised to address all criminal prevention
activities in
[[Page H4598]]
and around public and assisted housing--a good amendment which helps
retain existing public housing's livability.
Mr. Chairman, unless this bill is modified to reflect the reality of
housing needs and the undeniable necessity of a strong Federal
commitment to housing, I would have to urge my colleagues to oppose
H.R. 2406.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting argument, but I think we would
all agree that the public housing situation in the United States needs
to be addressed, and I hope before it is done we can sort through these
amendments and make sure that we are indeed addressing those things
which are good and agreeing upon that so we can come up with a good
piece of legislation.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the
chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that there are some people who want to
hang on to a failed past and who are unwilling to admit that the
policies that have largely been promulgated in this body have led to
that failure.
Mr. Chairman, it was not, as I say, this majority who imposed the
one-for-one requirement which has assured over the many years that
hulks of buildings, in many cases completely vacant, drug-infested and
crime-infested, cannot come down.
There were 40 years in which the Democratic Party was in control of
this House, Mr. Chairman, 40 years. Part of those years, back 15 years
ago, the one-for-one provision was inserted. In none of those years
afterward was it repealed, even though we knew it was a failure.
It was the last majority, to correct the record, Mr. Chairman, that
imposed Federal preferences that have led to the concentration of the
poorest of the poor, that have trapped people in poverty, that have
denied them the ability to have role models, that have eliminated the
possibility of mixed income, and that in fact have created an
environment where it is impossible to transition back into the
marketplace.
It was the last majority, Mr. Chairman, not this majority, in sum,
that helped create the mess that we are in now. We are now in the
process of moving past the past and reclaiming our heritage, at the
same time moving toward the 21st century.
We are moving forward because we believe in giving hope and we
believe in giving opportunity to people and we believe in giving
choices to people. We believe in giving them the opportunity to buy
their own home. We believe in the opportunity for them to have
entrepreneurial activity and keep the fruits of their labor. We believe
in that element of freedom. We believe in local control. We believe in
partnerships.
We are here to say that the day in which the Federal Government can
do it all is over. We are here to say that we are not going to turn our
back on millions of Americans who are trapped in these public and
subsidized housing projects because it is politically feasible to do
that.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just want to know whether
the gentleman has read my amendment or not.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I have.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Because this amendment acknowledges
everything the gentleman has said. I do not understand why he is
fighting this amendment. This amendment should have been in the
manager's amendment. Surely you are not saying that setting a goal of
providing decent and affordable housing to the American people should
not be something that ought to be in every housing bill that we have.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and I yield to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], so that he may respond.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. What I am saying is that the gentleman's attempt to strike
out language which basically deletes the fact that the Federal
Government cannot do it all, which is exactly the language that you are
striking out, goes to the heart of this mission. The mission is to
build community partnerships, not for HUD, not for this Congress to
impose this one-size-fits-all, centralized Washington-based model so
that somebody in Albuquerque has to live by the same rules as somebody
in Babylon, NY, some resident in New York City has to live by the same
rules of some people down in Louisiana or Florida.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I will yield, yes.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is focusing
on what I struck out of the bill, but he needs to focus on what I put
back in the bill, because I put a lot of his very language back in the
bill. We are encouraging the obtaining of this goal by encouragement of
the Federal, State and local governments, by promoting and protecting
the independent and collective actions of private citizens,
organizations and the private sector, the very same things the
gentleman has said.
I did not take these things out and not put them back in. They are in
this amendment, and I am encouraging the gentleman to read my amendment
and agree to it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] dug
himself a hole he did not have to dig. His speech was a great speech,
but it had nothing to do with the amendment of the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt].
As I understand the Watt amendment, it says very simply, ``It is a
goal of our Nation that all citizens have decent and affordable
housing.'' Am I correct?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] spoke of
demolition of housing, the role of the private sector. He spoke about a
lot of things, but he did not speak about the Watt amendment. The
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] did not tell us how we can
achieve the goal. He did not explicitly tell us the role of the private
sector or the public sector. All that he said is that ``It is a goal of
our Nation that all citizens have decent and affordable housing.''
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that increasingly we are becoming a
divided nation. On one hand, we have CEO's of major corporations who
are making 200 times what their workers are making. We have people at
the top who are seeing incomes that have never been seen in the history
of this country. We are seeing a growing divide between the rich and
the poor.
We can have a whole lot of differences regarding the role of
government, but I would hope that every Member of this body agrees that
all Americans should have decent and affordable housing. That is not a
radical statement. It does not say how that housing should be built.
Mr. Chairman, there is something wrong in this country when we are
building more jail units than we are building affordable housing units.
There is something wrong when hundreds and hundreds of thousands of
people are sleeping out in the streets. There is something wrong when
millions of Americans are spending 50 or 60 or 70 percent of their
limited incomes on housing and, therefore, not having enough money to
provide food or clothing or educational opportunity for their children.
{time} 1815
All that the Watt amendment says is, ``It is a goal of our Nation
that all citizens have decent and affordable housing.''
Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] to tell us not about demolition, not about how we should build
housing, what is your objection to the sentence, ``It is a goal of our
Nation that all citizens have decent and affordable housing''?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
[[Page H4599]]
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that
we have in our statement of purpose almost the same language that says
by using Federal resources to aid families and individuals seeking
affordable homes that are safe, clean, and healthy. My objection is
with what is stricken, which basically says that the Federal Government
cannot through its direct action or involvement provide for the housing
of every American citizen. We cannot. We need partnership. It is not
what is inserted, it is stricken.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, will the gentleman
accept the words that have been inserted?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Not if the point is that we are going to
strike the lines that are stricken in the Watt amendment, 6, 7, 8, and
9.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would simply conclude by stating that I
think the Watt amendment is simple and straightforward. What it says is
that in the United States of America, we should not have children
sleeping out on the streets, we should not have people paying 50 or 60
percent of their income for rent. I would strongly support the Watt
amendment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. There is a major inconsistency between my
amendment and what is in the bill. I just want to make people aware of
that. The bill says the Federal Government cannot through its action
provide for the housing of every American citizen or even a majority of
the citizens. All I am trying to do is put the goal back in the bill
that we have had as national housing policy for 50 years.
So it is that language that I want taken out of the bill. I put all
of the rest of the language back in of the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio]. So if you want to agree to this, stand up and tell us, or stand
up and tell the American people that you do not support that as a goal
of the Federal housing policy of this country.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the subcommittee for
his honesty in removing the goal of providing affordable and decent
housing for Americans as the goal of our housing policy. It is an
honest statement of what this bill would do.
This bill guts that purpose, and it is commendably honest that the
Republican sponsors of this bill state that they want to abandon that
purpose, which we have had since 1937, for the last 60 years, as our
goal. We have fallen short of that goal to a large extent because for
the last 16 years or so, 20 in fact, we have been putting very little
money into the construction of new public housing. We have built, as
the gentleman from Vermont mentioned, more jail cells than public
housing units in the last 15 years.
So I support the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] because I do not think we ought to be abandoning as a goal
providing affordable and decent housing for Americans, though I do
think it is honest, commendably honest, of the Republican leadership to
state that that is what they are doing by removing that goal from the
Housing Act, because that is what the provisions of the bill do.
Let us look at the provisions of the bill for a moment. The gentleman
from New York said, you have to get rid of the one-for-one rule which
does not permit us to demolish eyesores and terrible housing. It would
permit us to demolish that terrible housing if we were building
replacement housing, if we were building housing for low income people.
The fact is that under the Republican Presidents of 12 years, you
keep talking about Democratic Congresses for 40 years, but do not
forget about Republican Presidents for 24 of those 40 years, and
Republican Senate for I forget how many of those 40 years. This House
is not the House of Commons. We do not rule the country alone. Under
the last 16 years of Republican Presidents, or 12 years, for the last
20 years roughly, we have not been putting much money into the
construction of low income housing. We should. Of course, if you look
at our budget projections for the next seven years, we are not going
to. But we should. We should return to our goal of providing decent
housing.
But this bill, again, is honest. It recognizes we are not going to do
it. What does it do? It recognizes the fact we are going to cut, the
appropriators are cutting the subsidies to public housing agencies.
That is going to cause a big deficit in their budget. We will solve
that problem. And what do we do? Abolish the Brooke amendment. Let us
solve the deficits of the housing authorities budgets caused by great
reductions in Federal aid by saying triple your rent.
But wait a minute, these people who are earning less than 30 percent
of median income cannot afford to pay that, cannot possibly afford to
pay the rent increases that would be necessary to balance the housing
authorities' budgets after we have cut the aid. That is okay. Remove
the targeting requirements. Kick them out on the street and let them be
homeless, and we will move in a higher group of people, low income, but
higher income than before, that can pay the rents. It is a nice
solution. It all melds together, cut the budgets, kick out the people,
move in higher income people. Great idea if your only goal is saving
some money. But if your goal is to provide safe, affordable, decent
housing, it does not work. That is why it is commendably honest to
eliminate that goal.
Let me say one other thing. This bill is an insult. It contains a
provision in the manager's amendment that insults hard working people,
hard working people whose only deficiency, whose only character
deficit, whose only crime, is that they are making the minimum wage or
perhaps one and a half or two times the minimum wage. We are going to
tell them they have to have a personal improvement plan? There is
something wrong with them? We are going to judge, maybe the
subcommittee is going to judge or the housing authority is going to
judge their morals and character?
Simply because they do not make enough money? Even though they may
work one or two jobs? I will tell you how to have a personal
improvement plan. Double the minimum wage. That will give you personal
improvement for a lot of these people. It will improve their living
conditions. It will solve the deficit problem to a large extent of our
housing authorities. It will not insult working people by telling them
there is something wrong with them because they do not make enough
money and we have to tell them you have to have a personal improvement
plan.
So, again, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman
from North Carolina.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, so again I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]
because it does not abandon the goal. It would stop the abandonment of
the goal, at least as a statement of providing affordable housing for
our people. But I commend the honesty of the Republican leadership in
stating that that is no longer going to be our goal, because this bill
certainly says it will not be.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous professional respect and
personal affection for the chairman of the subcommittee from the State
of New York, but I think he is simply off base in not accepting and
indeed embracing this amendment.
It is a rather simple amendment. It does not prescribe a housing
program, it just articulates what ought to be a personal goal of every
American, it seems to me, and a national goal too, and that is that
somehow we will attempt to provide shelter for the homeless in American
society.
The chairman of the subcommittee said he had no difficulty with that,
it was simply what he wanted to point out we cannot do it for
everybody. He
[[Page H4600]]
wanted to take a negative stance, if you will. I do not know if we
should be quibbling about that.
I would remind the gentleman that there are certain statements in the
Bible, and the Bible says that we should feed the hungry. It does not
say even though we cannot feed all the hungry we would like to. And the
Bible tells us that we ought to clothe those who are without clothes,
even though it does not say we cannot do it for all that we would like
to. And it also tells us that we should be sheltering the homeless, and
it does not say even though it is impossible to give shelter to every
single homeless person. No. it is an articulation of goals, if you
will. It establishes a vision.
The amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] is one
that should be accepted by acclamation.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to voice my strong opposition to the
amendment offered by my colleague from North Carolina, and especially
to rise in strong opposition to the remarks of the gentleman who
preceded me in the well of this House, for not only has the gentleman
chosen to misinterpret the intent of the new majority, I believe
perhaps in his own words he has expressed, quite frankly, the
alternative to what he purported in standing up in support of the
amendment. Because he said, let every American find housing, not
empower the government to decree to every American that it shall be the
government that will provide that housing; that it shall be the
government in a centralized authority that shall provide that housing.
Indeed, my friends on the other side confuse compassion, for it is
the opposition of compassion to try and claim that it is the sole
domain of government or the basic purpose of government to control the
masses, to decree where they live, and thereby somehow the government
controls this.
Even to the use of Holy Scriptures, I would remind those who check
Holy Scriptures, nowhere in the verses cited is there any mention that
it shall be the government which shall stand to take these actions, it
shall be the government which will display its compassion through
decreeing to citizens what type of structure they should live in, that
it shall be the government that shall decree what is charity.
Mr. Chairman, the true measure of compassion is people working with
their heads and their hearts to provide not only for themselves, but
for others. It is not the mission of government to take on more and
more responsibility. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the government that my
friends believe should be big enough to give all that they want will
then be powerful enough to take away all that they have.
So I stand here in the name of true compassion to say it is by
empowerment, to say it is not the goal of government to house every
American, but instead it is the goal of government to empower every
individual to have the opportunity to live up to the potential each
individual has. Yes, with a helping hand that is a safety net, but not
with a program that decrees greater and greater and greater and greater
dependency. There is nothing compassionate in that equation. It is only
enslavement of the working class.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona performed us a service. We
may be able to save time for the rest of the evening, because no cliche
was left unuttered, and a lot of remarks people might have wanted to
make, they will not have to make.
{time} 1830
It was an interesting speech; not particularly relevant to the topic
which, with the permission of the body, I will return to.
Mr. Chairman, the question is, Should we accept the amendment of the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]? Now, in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment, and I must say, I wonder who the staff members
were that advised the gentleman from New York to fight this amendment
rather than take it to committee. I would not put that person in for a
bonus next year. But the question we have is: Do we retreat statutorily
from even trying to provide housing?
Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on the history offered by the
gentleman from New York. I am sorry the gentleman is not here. I asked
him to yield and he would not yield. The gentleman talked about all the
terrible things that the Democrats did in housing. Well, what thing has
he been complaining about the most? The gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] has been denouncing the Brooke amendment as a job killer.
Now, why does the gentleman so vigorously denounce a Republican who
had the most distinguished record on housing of any Republican, and
even any Member of this body? Why does the gentleman from New York
continue denouncing Senator Brooke as a man who forced a job killing
amendment? Because he said the Brooke amendment not only put a limit on
what could be charged, but it put a floor on there and, therefore, it
is a killer.
But, Mr. Chairman, in Ed Brooke's amendment that language did not
exist. Senator Brooke did not do that. Do my colleagues know who put
the job killing part on the Brooke amendment? Ronald Reagan and
everybody who voted for Gramm-Latta. The gentleman is denouncing the
Democrats for the Reagan budget of 1981, which many of the Republicans
here voted for. That is the job killer.
Mr. Chairman, I cite that as an example of the lack of correspondence
between the history, as narrated by the gentleman from New York, and
reality. The gentleman simply is making it up. It is creative, it is
interesting, but it is not congruent with the facts, which is, I think
as clearly as one can say it under the rules of the House.
Let us look at where we are on this. How do they defend the poor? By
allowing the housing authorities to raise rents beyond any limit. I
believe it is very creative. The Republicans, not all Republicans, not
Senator Brooke and not many of my friends on the other side, but here
is their problem: They want to build the B-2 bomber and they want to
build star wars and a lot of other things, so they have to cut funds
for housing.
How Mr. Chairman, do we pretend that cutting the funds to maintain
and operate public housing and provide security and combat drugs in the
projects, how do we pretend that is in people's interest? Well, we say,
``That rent cap is hurting you, so we are going to take the rent cap
off because we do not want your rent to go up when you get a job.''
We say we agree. We agree with Ed Brooke. We disagree with Ronald
Reagan. We do not want there to be an automatic escalator. It is simply
saying that there is a limit on the amount that a tenant can be
charged, but there is no mandate that they a be charged that.
Mr. Chairman, the problem is that that way the Republicans would not
be able to cut housing and let the housing authorities increase the
rents. Their rationale was ripped away from them, so they now come up
with a new one.
What is the new one? The new one is if tenants are making 30 percent
of the median income or less, they will get the protection of the 30-
percent cap, but not if they are making more. Who, now, is giving the
disincentive? They are.
Under the Lazio plan, as opposed to our amendment, if tenants are
making 30 percent or less, their rent is capped at 30 percent. But if
they go to work, if they get off of welfare, the 30 percent level, and
go to work, then there is no cap.
How does the gentleman from New York defend that? If we set a 30-
percent cap, the housing authorities, because they need money, because
the Republicans have cut it, will drive up to the top 30 percent. How
does the gentleman prevent the housing authorities from going to 30
percent on working people? By taking the cap off.
So, miraculously the gentleman tells us if there is a 30-percent cap,
the housing authorities will charge 30 percent, but if they can charge
whatever they want, they will only charge 28 percent.
Mr. Chairman, here is what the gentleman does to the elderly. Those
Members who are nostalgic for debating the Notch Act, be very happy
with this because he says to the elderly, if they are in elderly
housing, their rent will be grandfathered. We will grandparent the
grandparents at 30 percent.
[[Page H4601]]
But new elderly people who come in will be allowed to be charged 35 and
40 and 45 percent. So within a few years, we will have a building of
elderly people, some of whom will be paying 30 percent, some of whom
will be paying 40 percent.
Mr. Chairman, this is inequitable, socially destructive, and
indicative of the poor policy choices of this legislation.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think that, first of all, we should be ready to stay
here tonight and to fight for housing for people in the United States
of America.
Millions of people depend on the outcome of this debate here tonight.
I think it is unfortunate that we would want to change 50 years of
housing policy and do it in 1 day, and to say we are all going to wrap
this up here today.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see Members on the Democratic side of the
aisle beginning to fight with the Watt amendment, which I think is a
cornerstone of what it is we are going to be debating here tonight and
that is: What is the future? And the fact that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are even refusing to accept what seems to me to
be very basically logical language, very fair language about attempting
to reach as a goal that all Americans could have affordable housing,
and then to turn that into an antigovernment rhetoric as though we are
trying to impose Big Brother on somebody, which is totally not the
case.
So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my Democratic colleagues and I
suggest we continue to fight, we continue to struggle, because this is
an important struggle that millions of Americans are going to depend
upon.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to read this. And of course, I was born in
the United States of America and English is my first language. It is
not my only language, thank God. But I read it and it says, ``It is the
goal of our Nation.'' It does not say the goal of the Federal
Government. It does not say the goal of the Government. ``The goal of
our Nation that all citizens have decent and affordable housing.''
Mr. Chairman, it says ``goal of our Nation.'' And how does it say,
and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] put this splendidly,
and then he says, ``Our Nation should promote the goal of providing
decent, affordable housing for all citizens through the efforts and
encouragement of the Federal, State, and local governments and,''
listen up, because sometimes people on that side of the aisle only hear
what they want to hear. Read the whole thing. It says, ``and by
promoting and protecting the independent and collective actions of
private citizens.'' Not the Federal Government. Private citizens.
It says it right here. Maybe that is why some people on that side of
the aisle want English only because they cannot read it to begin with.
``Collective actions of private citizens, organizations, and private
sector to develop housing and strengthen their neighborhoods.'' That we
should help, that we should be a conduit. That we should be
facilitators of that goal. That is what is says here.
That is what it says here. So, I do not understand the rhetoric that
denounces this side of the aisle, and specifically the gentleman from
North Carolina, for wanting to impose the big hand of the Federal
Government, because that is just not what it says.
Now, maybe there is another English language that I have not been
accustomed to or acknowledged, but I think this is what this says.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say, look, to say to us that we are going
to give public housing authorities across this Nation hundreds of
millions, billions of dollars less and say we care about those people,
I think is a little disingenuous. Then, to come back and say, where our
side is saying 30 percent should be the cap.
Mr. Chairman, if I went to a bank, because I know that side wants us
to run everything like the private sector, and if I went to a bank
today, that bank would say to me, ``Mr. Gutierrez, you cannot get a
loan for your home that exceeds 28 percent of your income.'' That is
banking standards across this country. But this Congress of the United
States is going to say we can charge more than 30 percent of that
person's salary for housing. I think let us follow the private sector.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me just try to bring this down to the
level of what we are dealing with in this amendment, because I think
the language has been overlooked here, which I think is fair language.
I am a great believer in the need for public housing and that is what
we are doing, but it states, and what is being stricken here, ``The
Federal Government cannot through its direct action or involvement
provide for the housing of every American citizen.'' I think this is a
given. ``Or even a majority of its citizens.'' ``But the responsibility
of the government to promote and protect the independent and collective
actions of private citizens to develop housing and strengthen their own
neighborhoods.''
I do not have a problem with that language, not as a Republican or
Democrat, but just as one reading it. It is preamble language in this
bill. It is fair language. I am not sure what we are arguing about.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gutierrez was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I think the point is we should be
working this out. We should be sitting down with the gentleman so that
we can reach a consensus here that there is a role, there is a
responsibility for all of us.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot cut earned income tax credit; we cannot say
we are not going to give a raise on the minimum wage; we cannot say we
are going to cut school lunches; we cannot say we are going to do less
and less and less and you are going to do more with less. Let us come
together. It should be a goal of this country, a place that we seek to
reach that everybody can live in a decent and affordable home.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, a number of the members of the committee
have spoken here, and I certainly respect their expertise in the matter
as I respect the gentleman who is sponsoring and handling this bill,
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
My perspective is broader than that. It is the experience that I have
had in my district and in talking to people around the country who are
trying to rebuild distressed urban neighborhoods. My experience is one
that I think is shared by most of the Members of this body. It simply
does not reflect well on HUD.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell a couple of anecdotes that show that. I was
on a talk show about a year and a half ago with the man who used to be
the mayor of the city of St. Louis. He is a member of the Democratic
Party. I said, ``If you were the czar of public housing in this
country,'' and he had a lot of experience with it, ``what would you do
to provide good public housing for poor people?'' Mr. Chairman, he
said, ``I can tell you what I would begin by doing. I would begin by
abolishing the Department of Housing and Urban Development,'' and then
he went on to explain why HUD was blocking the efforts of local
officials and private people to provide decent housing for people.
Mr. Chairman, I visited the Columbia Heights neighborhood here in the
District of Columbia and looked at what those neighborhood associations
are doing to get good people into decent housing. I asked them, ``What
is your big problem with housing?'' They said, ``It is HUD. HUD owns
about 40 properties in our neighborhood, but will not do anything with
them. Will not give them to me. I cannot rehab them. They are run
down.''
HUD has a lot of people locked in a public housing project using dumb
rules and it is a source of difficulty and we cannot get control and
cannot do anything about it. I can go on and on. I think everybody in
this body could.
It seems that there is a whole lot of people in this country, and
this is encouraging, a group like Embers Beneath the Ashes of Urban
America,
[[Page H4602]]
that are rebuilding their neighborhoods, and they keep telling us that
HUD is a problem. We keep saying that it is HUD and we cannot do
anything about that.
This bill is an attempt to do something about it. What do we need to
do? We need to return local control back to the people in these
neighborhoods. We need to say: We trust you. You can run some housing
projects on your own without detailed supervision.
We need flexibility in Section 8 housing. We need to promote work
instead of punishing it. We need to provide for home ownership where we
can. That seems to me what is in the preamble here. I do not know that
there is a lot of difference. It just seems to me that what we have in
the bill with regard to the preamble makes clear that we recognize that
the Federal Government is not directly responsible for performing all
of those things.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to go on further and say, as it does say,
the Federal Government has a responsibility to help and will help, but
what we have been doing the last couple of decades is not helping, but
blocking the people who really can make a difference. That is what my
concern is.
We are fighting over language here. I hope that we can get behind
this bill, that we can move forward, and that what we are not seeing
here is some rear guard action on behalf of the status quo and that we
are going to take this bill up line by line, section by section, and we
end up with nothing except HUD oppressing these neighborhoods as they
have been doing year after year after year.
There are so many people who see these problems back home and want to
know why we do not do something and then they see us up here and
nothing ever happens. I hope that is not the result tonight.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate
myself with the remarks the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent] made
about his analysis of the problem. Most of us who serve on the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity recognize that there
have been many problems with HUD and that there have been, in fact,
some terribly run housing projects, some even worse run housing
authorities.
There are changes that are contained within this legislation that are
bipartisan in nature. The statements that suggest that we have got to
get rid of any problems that hold back people from going to work, that
we in fact ought to allow greater local control over housing
authorities, that we ought to provide tenant management programs and
all kinds of innovative and creative ways of getting local control is
in fact important.
{time} 1845
I can say to the gentleman that I agree with him. I do not understand
why a couple of Republicans are digging in their heels about setting a
goal on trying to provide housing for the American people. What is the
problem? I cannot believe we are having this debate. Why do not we just
accept the language?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Bereuter was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield again to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend, the last gentleman
who spoke from Massachusetts, that I would hope that that is not the
case as well. When I have seen a number of times, I hope that is not
the case here, is Members who indicate that they are for change in
these areas but keep picking and picking and picking at proposals so
that at the end of the day nothing gets done. So they try and have it
both ways; say, yes, we are for it, but at the end of the day nothing
is being done. I hope that is not happening here.
Mr. Chairman, if there truly is not much difference between the two,
what is in the bill and the gentleman's amendment, I do not know why we
have to have the amendment, why it was offered and why we are fighting
over there for so long.
I would say to the gentleman I hope something gets done tonight. I
hope this does not become a referendum over something that does not
matter and instead is a referendum over what does matter for the people
of this country, which is whether we are going to rein in HUD or not.
That is the way that I see this bill.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat perplexed at the length of this debate
tonight. I will try not to extend it too much further. I have to admit
that I looked at the language of this amendment and I do not know what
is objectionable. I do not see what the problem is.
The first sentence says it is a goal of our Nation that all citizens
have decent and affordable housing. What is the objectionable part? Are
we opposed to all citizens having decent and affordable housing? Are we
opposed to citizens having affordable housing? Are we opposed to
citizens having decent housing? I do not see what the problem is. I do
not see why this is an objectionable amendment.
It goes on then to say that our Nation should promote the goal of
providing decent and affordable housing for all citizens through the
efforts and encouragement of Federal, State and local governments and
by promoting and protecting the independent and collective actions of
private citizens, organizations and the private sector to develop
housing and strengthen their neighborhoods. This piece of legislation,
this amendment, if handed to most Members in this body and asked them
who drafted it, they would say the realtors drafted it. This looks like
a statement from the realtors. The realtors believe in affordable
housing. The realtors believe in decent housing. But the problem is it
has been offered by the gentleman from North Carolina. That seems to be
the problem.
Mr. Chairman, the language in the bill itself says that the Federal
Government cannot or should not get involved through direct or indirect
action but should do so only when there is serious need that private
citizens or groups cannot or are not addressing the problem
responsibly. Does that mean that the majority is against the deduction
for home ownership? The Federal Government is getting involved in
housing? The Federal Government is doing the terrible thing that most
people say over there, the Federal Government is actually encouraging
home ownership in this country by allowing American citizens to deduct
their home mortgages.
I do not think that is such a bad thing. I think 99 percent of the
people in this country think that home ownership should be encouraged.
I fail to see why there is this line being drawn over this amendment.
Take a look at the amendment. Read the amendment. It is a good
amendment. It is a common sense amendment.
I dare say it is an American amendment. It is apple pie. Let us just
take the amendment and go on.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I have been listening to this debate, and I have had a chance to read
this bill and to read the amendment. I want to congratulate our
chairman. I have been listening to the debate here and had a chance to
take a look at this bill. I want to congratulate the chairman because I
think he is the first real leader to bring meaningful change to this
issue that we have had and we have been. I have been in this Congress
for 18 years, and this is the first time I can honestly say that we
have got a housing bill that has some fundamental changes. So I
congratulate the chairman for that.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] is for change. I see the
opponents of this bill come in with their amendment as fighting for the
status quo. This is an honest bill. What this bill says is that the
Federal Government cannot, through its direct action or involvement,
provide for the housing for every American citizen. It is the first
time I have read an honest bill dealing with this subject in a long,
long time.
Mr. Chairman, we had one of the previous speakers, my good friend
from
[[Page H4603]]
Washington, get up and say the realtors could have drafted this
amendment from the gentleman from North Carolina. Members can see that
that is the point. We are not interested in special interests coming in
here drafting our legislation; are we?
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] did not have special
interests drafting this legislation. It was done for the American
people. Now we have got people coming in here debating the issue saying
we want the realtors to draft the amendments. I do not want realtors
drafting amendments. I love realtors. They are great people. They are
hard working people. But I do not want them writing the legislation. I
want us here in this Congress writing the legislation.
This is a great bill. I congratulate the chairman for his hard work
and the members of the committee. I even congratulated the chairman, I
mean the gentleman from North Carolina, for his hard work. But his
amendment does not belong on this bill. This is not special interest
legislation. We have had too much of that. That is why the people in
the last election voted for change because they were voting for this
kind of legislation, not for special interest legislation.
Mr. Chairman, for 40 years we have had the special interests come in
here and write the legislation. The American people said we do not want
any more of that. We want Members of the Congress to draft the
legislation. That is precisely what this bill is before us. It is
legislation that is drafted by Members of Congress and not by the
special interests.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think that my colleague from Wisconsin
mischaracterized the statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Barrett] that Mr. Barrett is suggesting that this amendment or this
language, which reiterates the 1937 and 1949 housing goal, could have
been drafted by groups from the private sector, could have been drafted
by others.
It should be noncontroversial, I think, was his point, not that it
was drafted. Frankly, I do not know who drafted the 1937 or 1049. All I
know is that it serves this Nation well to have that and hold that up
as a goal. That we do not accomplish it is very disappointing.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding to me.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, one of the great concerns I have is, as I
listen to this debate, is that we seem to forget that there have been
points in American history when we have found the need to be involved
in whatever area we found there to be a problem that in some way made
it impossible for us to have the best possible demonstration of what
democracy is all about.
One of those was when our soldiers returned from war and we decided
that we needed to provide housing. Therefore, we developed the VA
program, subsequently the FHA programs and other programs that opened
up opportunities for people to be able to move into home ownership. It
was felt that the Government had a role in trying to assure that every
person who was an American, every person who saluted this flag, who
understood its Constitution and understood the responsibility as a
citizen of this Nation could expect that there would be some benefits
which would derive to them.
It seems to me now we move away from the responsibility of making
sure that every American understands that they have a place, every
American understands that this country is concerned about them.
Particularly those Americans who go to work every day would like to be
able to become a homeowner and find it difficult to do so.
I think many of us function under the notion, which I consider a bit
naive, that somehow the private sector or some others will take care of
the responsibility for assuring that every citizen has an opportunity
to become a homeowner. I hate to tell you but that is just not a fact.
There is enough data to support the notion that in this country there
are reasons that are not given but in fact it is impossible for every
American citizen to dare to even believe that they can own a home.
I support this amendment because I think it makes sense. It makes
sense for a strong Nation with bountiful resources, with the capability
to respond to almost any predicament that it finds necessary, to do so
in the midst of a homeless crisis, in the midst of a situation where
persons work every day and still are not able to save enough money to
be able to buy a house, to at least believe that it has a
responsibility to let somebody know that we as a government, we as a
Nation believe that we want you to participate. We want you to share in
the American dream. We want you to become a homeowner. We will do
everything possible to make it real for you.
I am a provider. I know what it means not only to talk about it, the
rhetoric of building communities and building homes. I do it. I know
what it means when a person has an opportunity to be able to move into
their own home. They not only begin to do what is necessary to pay the
mortgage. They do whatever is necessary to fix that home up. They work
two jobs, if necessary. They do whatever they can to provide for the
needs of their family while at the same time providing the best housing
opportunity.
I think that when we move away from that responsibility, we are
saying to a certain segment of Americans, you do not count; you are
really not important. We do not see it as our role to try to assure
that you have an opportunity to participate in the American dream.
One speaker before me said, and it is indeed correct, those persons
who can afford home ownership in America find that the Government in
fact does in many ways pay for them to be home owners. It gives tax
credits for their mortgage. It gives tax credits for other taxes that
they pay to the county and State. And then we come to this place and
say, no, we do not have a responsibility or an obligation.
I would challenge my colleagues. I would hope we can move out of
partisanship to deal with this particular issue because I think it
supersedes that. I think all of you, Democrat and Republican, black and
white, female and male, must understand our obligations to one another
as citizens. And when we do that, I think we can come to good
legislation.
We stand up and we proudly sing, America, America, God shed his grace
on thee, and crown thy good, and crown thy good with brotherhood from
sea to shining sea. In between the seas there are a lot of people who
are suffering. There are a lot of people who are crying. There are a
lot of people who have desires. There are a lot of people who have
unmet needs, and we do not meet those needs by virtue to moving away
from our responsibility as a people to other people, sharing in a kind
of brotherhood that lets us understand that even the poorest of us, the
poorest among us have a right to be able to believe that in this
society, in this Nation, they will be able to be provided with shelter.
I would hope my colleagues would bury the hatchet of separation and
move together. Let us take the Watt amendment. Let us agree to it and
let us more forward.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Bereuter, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Flake was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might be able to engage in
a colloquy with the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
I know you are the maker of the amendment. I am just becoming
familiar with the amendment and what it attempts to do. My problem,
speaking only for myself, is not what you are suggesting and adding in
the way of national goals. I think they are entirely appropriate. There
is a long history for it.
The problem I have and I suspect that most Members have is what you
are deleting. Some Members on this side of the aisle, including myself,
feel very strongly that the language which says ``the Federal
Government cannot, through direct action or involvement, provide for
the housing of every American citizen or even a majority'' is an
[[Page H4604]]
important change. But there is absolutely nothing that is contestable,
in my judgment, with what you are suggesting in the way of the goal of
our Nation that all citizens have decent, affordable housing. Our
Nation should promote the goal of providing decent, affordable housing
and so on and so forth, through State, local, Federal action and
private action which you describe in several ways.
Is it not possible for us to reach an agreement on this subject or do
we have an impossible difference of opinion here so that you simply do
not strike line 20 on page 5 through line 2 on page 6, but you add back
or you add language which we have accepted in this country for a long
period of time. Does the gentleman find that as a possible amendment?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would think that there is
not a dime's worth of difference between where I think we are and where
I hope the gentleman is. If it would facilitate reaching some kind of
agreement about this issue, I would be happy, if we could get unanimous
consent to withdraw the amendment and reoffer it. But I do not want to
lose my place.
{time} 1900
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield.
I would ask the gentleman a question then. I would make a unanimous
consent request at this point, and we will see if the gentleman finds
it acceptable.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the section in the
gentleman's amendment, the amendment offered by Mr. Watt, where he
strikes line 20 and all that follows through page 6, on line 2, and
insert the following new paragraph:
The striking portion be deleted from the gentleman's amendment and
that the appropriate re-numbering follow so that, in fact, we are
adding all of the gentleman's new language to the existing language on
page 5 and 6.
I would make that unanimous-consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Nebraska?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I am wondering if the gentleman might allow the debate to
continue while we actually look at the impact of that, and it might
have some possibilities if we could just allow whoever else wants to
speak on this to speak, and in the meantime we will continue to work on
it.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Nebraska withdraw the
unanimous-consent request?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the unanimous-consent request
until we have time to deliberate on it.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek recognition on the amendment?
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Members, I am pleased that I happen to come to the floor at a time
where there appears that we can have some agreement about how we can
get language back into this legislation that will place us squarely on
the frontlines in ensuring that this Nation places priorities where
they should be.
As a matter of fact, I am very pleased that the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has offered to the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt] an opportunity to put this language back in that
will ensure that this is a goal that we have in this country, that we
have a goal of trying to make sure that there is safe and decent
housing for all Americans.
This does not mean, however, that we have to pay for housing for
everybody. This does not mean that we have to appropriate money in
order to build housing. This simply means that we think it is good, it
is right, and it is meaningful to have decent housing for everybody,
and I think it would be a wonderful thing for the Congress of the
United States, the House of Representatives this evening, to say to
America we believe that everybody should have what we have.
Mr. Chairman, everybody in this Congress goes home at night to a
wonderful place to sleep. As a matter of fact, most people in this
Congress have two or three places to sleep. We have a place here in
Washington, we have a place in our district. Some of the more fortunate
have summer homes. Some have two or three homes. And I am sure that we
would not want to send the message that while we enjoy the comforts of
two and three and four homes, that somehow we cannot go on record as
saying we think every American deserves a decent, safe, and secure
place to live.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
to strike the requisite number of words to enter into a colloquy with
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I was wondering if the chairman of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services would be willing to endorse
the process of having the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] get together to try to
work out some mutually acceptable language.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman was asking
whether I would support a unanimous-consent request for the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] to withdraw his motion without prejudice
with the ability to come back and re-offer his amendment after
reflection and negotiation on this particular item, I would have no
objection to that.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. And, Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if
the gentleman could maybe give some encouragement. I would give a great
deal of encouragement to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]
to try to work the thing out. I was wondering if we might expect the
same from the gentleman with respect to the gentleman from Nebraska
[Mr. Bereuter].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would continue to yield, Mr.
Chairman, we have been debating this for over an hour now. The
important aspect of this for me is to insure that the language which
speaks to what I believe is the Federal role in terms of it being a
partner is preserved to the extent that there is additional material
that is inserted that is consistent, I believe is consistent,
basically, with what the other elements of our purpose is. I think that
it would be a rational thing to believe that we can agree on and that
we be able to resolve this issue.
I am supportive of the process.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think that was a yes,
and I am going to take it as one.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am moved by the
gentlewoman's statement, and I appreciate the fact that she has come to
the floor as I have listened to the debate as well with a very
prominent housing authority facility in my district, Allan Parkway
Village, that has languished for so many years because there may not
have been the kind of spirit where the community would come together
and say, yes, we need decent, affordable housing, so we do not have
this acrimony; we want to work on affordable housing.
I want to raise with the gentlewoman, since she comes from California
and I am from Texas, taking this language out would suggest to me if we
want to just take it to the absurd, that if we had a disaster, and we
asked FEMA to come in, that maybe in fact FEMA should not go in to
recreate affordable housing or housing for people whose housing was
destroyed because, we take this language and we say we want no
involvement of sorts of the Federal Government.
That seems to be not what this Congress wants to say, and certainly
if those who have decent housing destroyed by a natural disaster can
then have new housing built, why not poor
[[Page H4605]]
people, and have the Federal Government's involvement to do the right
thing, which is to create an opportunity for affordable housing?
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman makes a good point
that we certainly could have situations, as we know, in this United
States where people lose their homes because there are acts of nature,
and we certainly do not want to send the message that we do not somehow
want to assume some responsibility in insuring that there is
replacement housing.
But beyond that, my colleagues in this House, even with the goals
that we have articulated in the preamble to housing legislation in the
past, we still have millions of people who are without decent, safe
housing in America. We need that goal throughout, not simply the inner
cities of America. I am not talking about St. Louis and Philadelphia,
and I am not simply talking about Harlem or other cities that people
would immediately want to think about. I am talking about rural America
also, where people are living in shacks, where people still do not have
running water in America. I am talking about down in the delta in
Mississippi, where we have people not only without running water, but
people who have rags stuffed in the openings in the side of their homes
and coverings put on roofs of plastic and other materials in order to
keep the rain out.
So I am sure that those who thought about taking out this goal, this
wonderful goal that speaks to family values, this goal that talks about
insuring that children have a safe and decent place to live. I am sure
they did not know what they were saying.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me pick up on a point. We are not only
talking about housing which is slum housing.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Waters] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Sanders, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Waters was
allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, we are not only talking about inadequate
housing without running water, with holes in the roof. We are talking
about housing that is not affordable. Millions and millions of
Americans today are paying 50, 60, 70 percent of their limited income
for housing, and they have very little else to live with. And that is
why the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Watt's amendment, is important, and that is why it should be passed.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say I think the
language of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] conforms with
the bill.
I am one of the few Democrats who actually supported the bill when it
was sent from the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and I do
not see any problem with including this language, and I think it is
true that this language not only meets the history of our Nation's
commitment to housing, but it also meets the policy that I have not
seen the other side of the aisle talk about doing away with.
When we look at what we do directly, indirectly, and what we do in
encouraging housing in this country, if we look at things like the VA
Guarantee Program, the FHA program, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the
government-sponsored entities, the Federal Home Loan Bank System, to
create a secondary market to increase the availability and
affordability of home mortgages, things like FmHA to assist in creating
affordable housing in the Farmers' Home Loan Program for the rural
communities, the mortgage interest deduction, which I think 80 million
American families benefit from, the low-income tax credit to spur
multifamily and single-family development for low-income housing, the
redevelopment tax credit for historical housing, things such as the
mortgage revenue bonds, multifamily bonds to provide a tax subsidy for
both single-family and multifamily housing for middle-income families,
and the mortgage credit certificate program.
So, clearly, it has been historically the goal of this Nation to
provide assistance in housing, and the fact of the matter is over the
time that we have done that we have seen home ownership, which I think
both sides of the aisle seek to attain, we have seen home ownership
rise dramatically since the Great Depression.
So this fits within the goal of the United States, and I think the
gentleman from North Carolina's language is commensurate with what the
goals of the bill are.
As I said, I support the legislation. I think it makes sense. I think
there are some things that we are going to have to do to make it
better. One would be the Frank-Gutierrez amendment because I think we
want to be careful that the bill does not turn local housing agencies,
public housing agencies and local housing management agencies, into
profit centers where they seek to raise the most revenue in a time of
declining Federal revenues at the expense of low-income people who need
housing assistance the most.
So I intend to support that amendment, and I would encourage my
colleagues to do so, but I think that it is a mistake for us to argue
or have some ideological argument to think that somehow we cannot have
any involvement in housing, because if we look at the tax code, if we
look at other sections of the code with our government-sponsored
entities, we will see that we have long, in a bipartisan fashion, done
everything we could to promote housing, home ownership, and I think
that is the goal that we should continue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the United States Housing Act. As
a member of the House Banking Committee, I am pleased that we are
considering critical public housing legislation today in the House of
Representatives.
This legislation would fundamentally reform the public housing and
section 8 rental assistance programs. This legislation would deregulate
the Public Housing Authorities and promote more local control over
public housing programs. In addition, it would consolidate section 8
certificate and voucher programs to promote efficiency and encourage
more public housing residents to move into neighborhoods, rather than
project-based residences. This emphasis on vouchers will ensure that
public housing recipients can either rent or buy homes throughout our
communities.
I am particularly pleased that this legislation will encourage home
ownership and flexible vouchers for rental assistance. Home ownership
has been shown to increase the financial status of purchasers and
improve the quality of life for all Americans. We provide many
incentives for people to buy their own home and this bill would
increase these opportunities for qualified recipients. Flexible
vouchers allow tenants to move into their communities, away from
project-based assistance. Vouchers offer real choice for tenants and
would encourage competition among developers to provide quality housing
at a reasonable price.
Existing public housing programs would be consolidated and
transferred to Local Housing Management Agencies [LHMA's] that would
administer federally-assisted housing programs and manage these
properties. These LHMA's would be accredited by the Housing Foundation
and Accreditation Board to ensure that local programs are well-run and
fulfilling their mission. These locally-oriented LHMA's would make
decisions about what kind of housing they would offer, including
project-based assistance or voucher-based assistance. As part of this
process, the LHMA's would develop a local housing management plan where
local residents and communities leaders would work together to
accomplish this goal.
There is a real need to reform public housing programs to better meet
the needs of American families. The 1.4 million existing public housing
units simply are not meeting the need and are often beyond repair. Of
the 13 million families who qualify for public housing, only 4.3
million families actually live in public housing. Clearly, we must do
more to meet housing needs.
This legislation would provide greater flexibility to meet housing
needs. Decisions about admissions and tenants would be changed so that
public housing programs could include a broader mix of residents. As
Federal assistance to housing declines, there is a real need to find
new sources of revenue for public housing authorities. Allowing higher
income families to move into Federal assisted housing dwellings will
help to replace Federal subsidies.
[[Page H4606]]
This bill is also carefully written to ensure that those most in need
will continue to receive public housing. For instance, under the
manager's amendment, at least 50 percent of the tenant-based assistance
will be reserved for families making 60 percent or less of the area
median income.
H.R. 2406 also would reform the rents charged for public housing
units. Under the manager's amendment, the maximum rents charged for
current residents earning less than 30 percent of the median income
would be capped at 30 percent of their incomes. In addition, current
disabled and senior citizens would also be charged capped rents of 30
percent of their incomes. Representatives Frank, Gutierrez, and Hinchey
will offer an amendment that would further protect low-income families.
The Frank/Gutierrez amendment would cap rents at 30 percent of a family
income. I support this effort because I believe we should ensure that
low-income families are not required to contribute an unreasonable and
unsustainable portion of their income to housing. However, the Frank/
Gutierrez amendment ensures that LHMA's will receive more income from
tenants without charging excessive rents for public housing residents.
During consideration of H.R. 2406 in the House Banking Committee, I
successfully offered three amendments to encourage home ownership for
low-income families. To really help low-income families we should do
everything possible to promote home ownership. Studies have shown that
the largest obstacle to home ownership is the downpayment and closing
costs. My amendment would permit resident to put together their
downpayment from gifts, grants, or loans in addition to their own
funds. This has been utilized at the State and local level
successfully. A second amendment I offered would reduce the opportunity
for abusive sales practices by requiring the recapture of the Federal
subsidy for the first 5 years of homeownership. We should encourage
homeownership for the long term, not short term flipping. The third
amendment would ensure that Federal housing programs vouchers could no
be used to violate local housing deed restrictions except where these
violate the Fair Housing Act. In Houston where there is no zoning, this
protection would ensure that single-family neighborhoods are protected
from multi-family developments, while still allowing the use of
vouchers. I am pleased these improvements were made to the bill.
H.R. 2406 will streamline Federal housing programs and result in
better housing opportunities for all Americans. In order to reform our
housing programs, we must promote innovation and provide more local
control over public housing. The U.S. Housing Act does that and I urge
my colleagues' support.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] be allowed to address
the House for 2 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that the chairman returns
soon because I think we are close to an agreement here.
Just to reiterate what we are attempting to do: We are attempting to
keep the language, page 5, line 20, through line 2, page 6, to make it
clear that, ``the Federal Government cannot through its direct action
or involvement provide for the housing of every American citizen,'' and
the gentleman is offering a few changes there so we will delete the
words ``or involvement'' and instead it would read, ``the Federal
Government cannot through its direct action only provide for the
housing for every American or even a majority of its citizens, but it
is the responsibility of the government to promote and protect the
independent and collective actions of private citizens to develop
housing and strengthen their own neighborhoods;''. That would stay as
opposed to being deleted by the gentleman from North Carolina.
But in addition, the gentleman would add the following language which
we do not contest, it appears, on this side, and I do not think we
should, which indicates the following subparagraph, subparagraph (2):
It is a goal of our Nation that all citizens have decent
and affordable housing; No. 3, our Nation should promote the
goal of providing decent and affordable housing for all
citizens through the efforts and encouragement of Federal,
State and local governments and by promoting and protecting
the independent and collective action of private citizens,
organizations and the private sector to develop housing and
strengthen their own neighborhood.
We have reached that point of agreement, I believe now, between the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and Members on this side of
the aisle, and I believe that we have a unanimous-consent request to
proceed.
There is one remaining item that the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Watt] has brought up which may yet be controversial, and so I
would ask the gentleman from North Carolina if he wishes to proceed,
and we would have a replacement which does accomplish what we have
already attempted to do, or should we pass over this for the moment
until they can resolve the final point?
{time} 1915
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would hope that any modification will be
submitted in writing so we can assure the accuracy of the Record.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I have sat, incredulous, that this debate has been
ongoing. Of course, I am very supportive of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and appreciative of the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and those who are concerned
enough to be about the business of trying to reconcile what remaining
differences exist with reference to some rather innocuous language.
Mr. Chairman, this Nation built a monument to middle-class housing
under the aegis of the Federal Housing Administration and the Veterans'
Administration, and rightly so. We seem to forget exactly what the
United States of America does for any number of entities who are
involved in institutional development.
When a major institution in this country builds a new building and
leases it for 99 years, it does not mean that the Federal Government is
not involved in insuring the loan that constructed those magnificent
high-rises in many of our communities that have absolutely nothing to
do with the housing of poor individuals.
How dare we come in here and say, as policymakers of this Nation,
that we do not favor a goal of ensuring that every citizen in this
country has safe and inhabitable housing? I find it almost unbelievable
that in the preamble to this bill that is going to change housing
policy that has been in existence for as much as 50 years, we find
ourselves debating something as simple as whether or not it ought to be
the goal of the U.S. Congress and its Members to state that we favor
every citizen in this country having safe and inhabitable housing.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue pretty much in the vein that
the gentleman started, that talked about some of the things that we
have done to carry out that kind of policy. As a matter of fact, Mr.
Chairman, the GSE's come to mind, the government service enterprises,
where we have FNMA and Freddie Mac. That is not about anything more
than ensuring that we have the vehicles by which we can get those
mortgages on the secondary market to ensure that people can own homes.
If we do not support the preamble and the goals of that preamble, are
we then saying we want to remove our support from these GSE's and all
of these instruments that we have developed to support ownership and
means by which people can get into safe and decent housing? Would the
gentleman not say that we have in place not only the GSE's, but
veterans policy and other things to carry out the goals that we
articulated in that preamble? Is that what the gentleman is referring
to?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is no question but what
that is true, if we were to add to that the mortgage deduction that I
benefit from in developing my interests in a home, or any number of
aspects of the government's involvement in allowing for the
development.
But what I was trying to get across is it is not only homes. We
insure the homes of millionaires with their mortgages. There is nothing
wrong with that. Why, then, should there not be a goal that we want to
make sure that every American understands that we as
[[Page H4607]]
policymakers favor their right to have a safe and inhabitable house,
and that the public and the private sector, local and Federal and
State, ought to participate as a goal to ensure that? I thought that is
what I was here about.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. The
gentleman has rightly pointed out the tremendous home ownership
opportunities that have been developed in these last 50 years. To date,
65 percent of American families own their own homes.
Tonight, of course, what we are talking about is those groups that
are in most desperate need, those that are receiving public housing.
That is what this particular bill is about. That is why I think it is
so important that we recognize this as a goal among the neediest, and I
think as a Nation we have done very well.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment currently under debate be withdrawn, and that an
amendment which I have at the desk be substituted instead.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
Mr. BEREUTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I will not
object. I want to thank the gentleman for his work on it, and the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio],
on following through on a suggestion we made in a colloquy here. I urge
my colleagues to support the unanimous consent request and the
amendment that the gentleman from North Carolina will subsequently
offer.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: page 5,
line 22, insert ``alone'' after ``involvement'' and strike
``or involvement''; page 6, line 3 strike ``only''; page 6,
after line 10 add the following: and renumber accordingly.
(5) it is a goal of our Nation that all citizens have
decent and affordable housing;
(6) our Nation should promote the goal of providing decent
and affordable housing for all citizens through the efforts
and encouragement of Federal, State, and local governments
and by promoting and protecting the independent and
collective actions of private citizens, organizations, and
the private sector to develop housing and strengthen their
own neighborhoods.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, basically what we have done
in the bill is to acknowledge, as the original bill does, that the
Federal Government cannot alone accomplish all of the housing
objectives that we all have as a Nation.
We have added to that the goal, the specific language that is in the
original Watt amendment, which says that our Nation should promote the
goal of providing decent and affordable housing, and the rest of the
language that was in the original amendment, and we have acknowledged
that the Federal Government can pursue this policy. So I think all our
hearts and minds are at peace on this.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlemen yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from
California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman that I
am so appreciative that he took the leadership to ensure that we did
not somehow kill a philosophy that has held us in good stead as it
relates to housing. I thank the gentleman.
I would like to take this time to thank the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Lazio] and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for bending
and for accepting that it is important to have this as part of our
philosophy. I think that if we continue to work in this vein, we can
straighten this bill out. We have a couple more amendments to go that I
think are very important, but for the time being, I think it is worth
it to note that an important step has been taken here in moving in the
right direction. I thank the gentleman so much.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman as
well for working with us to resolve this issue. I emphasize again that
the point we are trying to make and which we continue to make and which
the gentleman has agreed to graciously in terms of this language is to
ensure that the Federal Government cannot go it alone. Those days are
basically over. We need to develop good community partnerships, the
Federal Government being a vibrant and vital partner in developing a
housing strategy, together with States, together with communities,
locally based solutions, for-profits, not-for-profits, institutions,
all working together collaboratively.
I want to stress my support for the modification to the amendment
that the gentleman has offered.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want
to express my special thanks to my friend, and in the heat of debate
sometimes people get the impression that we are not friends. The
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] is my friend, but this is important
public policy and an important goal that the Nation should have for
affordable and decent housing for all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express a particular thanks to the gentleman
from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], who played the role of peacemaker and
reminded us of what we are here about this evening.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to section 2?
If not, the Clerk will designate title I.
The text of title I is as follows:
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 101. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to promote safe, clean, and
healthy housing that is affordable to low-income families,
and thereby contribute to the supply of affordable housing,
by--
(1) deregulating and decontrolling public housing agencies,
which in this Act are referred to as ``local housing and
management authorities'', and thereby enable them to perform
as property and asset managers;
(2) providing for more flexible use of Federal assistance
to local housing and management authorities, allowing the
authorities to leverage and combine assistance amounts with
amounts obtained from other sources;
(3) facilitating mixed income communities;
(4) increasing accountability and rewarding effective
management of local housing and management authorities;
(5) creating incentives and economic opportunities for
residents of dwelling units assisted by local housing and
management authorities to work and become self-sufficient;
and
(6) recreating the existing rental assistance voucher
program so that the use of vouchers and relationships between
landlords and tenants under the program operate in a manner
that more closely resembles the private housing market.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Disabled family.--The term ``disabled family'' means a
family whose head (or his or her spouse), or whose sole
member, is a person with disabilities. Such term includes 2
or more persons with disabilities living together, and 1 or
more such persons living with 1 or more persons determined
under the regulations of the Secretary to be essential to
their care or well-being.
(2) Drug-related criminal activity.--The term ``drug-
related criminal activity'' means the illegal manufacture,
sale, distribution, use, or possession with intent to
manufacture, sell, distribute, or use, of a controlled
substance (as such term is defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act).
(3) Elderly families and near elderly families.--The terms
``elderly family'' and ``near-elderly family'' mean a family
whose head (or his or her spouse), or whose sole member, is
an elderly person or a near-elderly person, respectively.
Such terms include 2 or more elderly persons or near-elderly
persons living together, and 1 or more such persons living
with 1 or more persons determined under the regulations of
the Secretary to be essential to their care or well-being.
[[Page H4608]]
(4) Elderly person.--The term ``elderly person'' means a
person who is at least 62 years of age.
(5) Family.--The term ``family'' includes a family with or
without children, an elderly family, a near-elderly family, a
disabled family, and a single person.
(6) Income.--The term ``income'' means, with respect to a
family, income from all sources of each member of the
household, as determined in accordance with criteria
prescribed by the applicable local housing and management
authority and the Secretary, except that the following
amounts shall be excluded:
(A) Any amounts not actually received by the family.
(B) Any amounts that would be eligible for exclusion under
section 1613(a)(7) of the Social Security Act.
(7) Indian.--The term ``Indian'' means any person
recognized as being an Indian, Alaska Native, or Native
Hawaiian by an Indian tribe, the Federal Government, or any
State.
(8) Indian area.--The term ``Indian area'' means the area
within which an Indian housing authority is authorized to
provide low-income housing assistance under this Act.
(9) Indian housing authority.--The term ``Indian housing
authority'' means any entity that--
(A) is authorized to engage in or assist in the production
or operation of low-income housing for Indians that is
assisted under this Act; and
(B) is established--
(i) by exercise of the power of self-government of an
Indian tribe independent of State law; or
(ii) by operation of State law providing specifically for
housing authorities for Indians, including regional housing
authorities in the State of Alaska.
(10) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any
tribe, band, pueblo, group, community, or nation of Indians,
Alaska Natives, or Native Hawaiians.
(11) Local housing and management authority.--The term
``local housing and management authority'' is defined in
section 103.
(12) Local housing management plan.--The term ``local
housing management plan'' means, with respect to any fiscal
year, the plan under section 107 of a local housing and
management authority for such fiscal year.
(13) Low-income family.--The term ``low-income family''
means a family whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the
median income for the area, except that the Secretary may,
for purposes of this paragraph, establish income ceilings
higher or lower than 80 percent of the median for the area on
the basis of the authority's findings that such variations
are necessary because of unusually high or low family
incomes.
(14) Low-income housing.--The term ``low-income housing''
means dwellings that comply with the requirements--
(A) under subtitle B of title II for assistance under such
title for the dwellings; or
(B) under title III for rental assistance payments under
such title for the dwellings.
(15) Near-elderly person.--The term ``near-elderly person''
means a person who is at least 55 years of age.
(16) Person with disabilities.--The term ``person with
disabilities'' means a person who--
(A) has a disability as defined in section 223 of the
Social Security Act; or
(B) has a developmental disability as defined in section
102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act.
Such term shall not exclude persons who have the disease of
acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or any conditions arising
from the etiologic agent for acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
individual shall be considered a person with disabilities,
for purposes of eligibility for public housing under title II
of this Act, solely on the basis of any drug or alcohol
dependence. The Secretary shall consult with other
appropriate Federal agencies to implement the preceding
sentence.
(17) Public housing.--The term ``public housing'' means
housing, and all necessary appurtenances thereto, that--
(A) is low-income housing or low-income dwelling units in
mixed income housing (as provided in section 221(c)(2)); and
(B)(i) is subject to an annual block grant contract under
title II; or
(ii) was subject to an annual block grant contract under
title II (or an annual contributions contract under the
United States Housing Act of 1937) which is not in effect,
but for which occupancy is limited in accordance with the
requirements under section 222(a).
(18) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development.
(19) State.--The term ``State'' means the States of the
United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, any
other territory or possession of the United States, and
Indian tribes.
(20) Very low-income family.--The term ``very low-income
family'' means a low-income family whose income does not
exceed 50 percent of the median family income for the area,
except that the Secretary may, for purposes of this
paragraph, establish income ceilings higher or lower than 50
percent of the median for the area on the basis of the
authority's findings that such variations are necessary
because of unusually high or low family incomes.
SEC. 103. ORGANIZATION OF LOCAL HOUSING AND MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITIES.
(a) Requirements.--For purposes of this Act, the terms
``local housing and management authority'' and ``authority''
mean any entity that--
(1) is--
(A) a public housing agency or Indian housing authority
that was authorized under the United States Housing Act of
1937 to engage in or assist in the development or operation
of low-income housing;
(B) authorized under this Act to engage in or assist in the
development or operation of low-income housing by any State,
county, municipality, or other governmental body or public
entity; or
(C) an entity selected by the Secretary, pursuant to
subtitle B of title IV, to manage housing; and
(2) complies with the requirements under subsection (b).
(b) Governance.--
(1) Board of directors.--Each local housing and management
authority shall have a board of directors or other form of
governance as prescribed in State or local law. No person may
be barred from serving on such board or body because of such
person's residency in a public housing development or status
as an assisted family under title III.
(2) Resident membership.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in
localities in which a local housing and management authority
is governed by a board of directors or other similar body,
the board or body shall include not less than 1 member who
is--
(i) a resident of a public housing dwelling unit owned or
operated by the authority; or
(ii) a member of an assisted family under title III.
(B) Exceptions.--The requirement in subparagraph (A) with
respect to a resident member shall not apply to--
(i) any State or local governing body that serves as a
local housing and management authority for purposes of this
Act and whose responsibilities include substantial activities
other than acting as the local housing and management
authority, except that such requirement shall apply to any
advisory committee or organization that is established by
such governing body and whose responsibilities relate only to
the governing body's functions as a local housing and
management authority for purposes of this Act;
(ii) any local housing and management authority that owns
or operates less than 250 public housing dwelling units
(including any authority that does not own or operate public
housing);
(iii) any local housing and management authority that
manages public housing consisting primarily of scattered site
public housing;
(iv) any local housing and management authority in a State
in which State law specifically precludes public housing
residents or assisted families from serving on the board of
directors or other similar body of an authority; or
(v) any local housing and management authority in a State
that requires the members of the board of directors or other
similar body of a local housing and management authority to
be salaried and to serve on a full-time basis.
(3) Full participation.--No local housing and management
authority may limit or restrict the capacity or offices in
which a member of such board or body may serve on such board
or body solely because of the member's status as a resident
member.
(4) Conflicts of interest.--The Secretary shall establish
guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest on the part of
members of the board or directors or governing body of a
local housing and management authority.
(5) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``resident member'' means a member of the board of directors
or other similar governing body of a local housing and
management authority who is a resident of a public housing
dwelling unit administered or assisted by the authority or is
an assisted family (as such term is defined in section 371).
(c) Establishment of Policies.--Any rules, regulations,
policies, standards, and procedures necessary to implement
policies required under section 107 to be included in the
local housing management plan for a local housing and
management authority shall be approved by the board of
directors or similar governing body of the authority and
shall be publicly available for review upon request.
SEC. 104. DETERMINATION OF ADJUSTED INCOME.
(a) In General.--For purposes of this Act, the term
``adjusted income'' means, with respect to a family, the
difference between the income of the members of the family
residing in a dwelling unit or the persons on a lease and the
amount of any income exclusions for the family under
subsections (b) and (c), as determined by the local housing
and management authority.
(b) Mandatory Exclusions From Income.--In determining
adjusted income, a local housing and management authority
shall exclude from the annual income of a family the
following amounts:
(1) Elderly and disabled families.--$400 for any elderly or
disabled family.
(2) Medical expenses.--The amount by which 3 percent of the
annual family income is exceeded by the sum of--
(A) unreimbursed medical expenses of any elderly family;
(B) unreimbursed medical expenses of any nonelderly family,
except that this subparagraph shall apply only to the extent
approved in appropriation Acts; and
(C) unreimbursed reasonable attendant care and auxiliary
apparatus expenses for each handicapped member of the family,
to the extent necessary to enable any member of such family
(including such handicapped member) to be employed.
(3) Child care expenses.--Any reasonable child care
expenses necessary to enable a member of the family to be
employed or to further his or her education.
(4) Minors.--$480 for each member of the family residing in
the household (other than the
[[Page H4609]]
head of the household or his or her spouse) who is under 18
years of age or is attending school or vocational training on
a full-time basis.
(5) Child support payments.--Any payment made by a member
of the family for the support and maintenance of any child
who does not reside in the household, except that the amount
excluded under this paragraph may not exceed $480 for each
child for whom such payment is made.
(c) Permissive Exclusions From Income.--In determining
adjusted income, a local housing and management authority
may, in the discretion of the authority, establish exclusions
from the annual income of a family. Such exclusions may
include the following amounts:
(1) Excessive travel expenses.--Excessive travel expenses
in an amount not to exceed $25 per family per week, for
employment- or education-related travel.
(2) Earned income.--An amount of any earned income of the
family, established at the discretion of the local housing
and management authority, which may be based on--
(A) all earned income of the family,
(B) the amount earned by particular members of the family;
(C) the amount earned by families having certain
characteristics; or
(D) the amount earned by families or members during certain
periods or from certain sources.
(3) Others.--Such other amounts for other purposes, as the
local housing and management authority may establish.
SEC. 105. LIMITATION ON ADMISSION OF DRUG OR ALCOHOL ABUSERS
TO ASSISTED HOUSING.
(a) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
a local housing and management authority may establish
standards for occupancy in public housing dwelling units and
assistance under title III, that prohibit admission to such
units and assistance under title III by any person--
(1) who currently illegally uses a controlled substance; or
(2) whose history of illegal use of a controlled substance
or use of alcohol, or current use of alcohol, provides
reasonable cause for the authority 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.
(b) Consideration of Rehabilitation.--In determining
whether, pursuant to subsection (a), to deny admission or
assistance to any person based on a history of use of a
controlled substance or alcohol, a local housing and
management authority may consider whether such person--
(1) 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),
(2) 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
(3) 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),
and in making such a determination may obtain recommendations
of social workers, drug and alcohol counselors, probation
officers, and former landlords for such person.
SEC. 106. COMMUNITY WORK AND FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY
REQUIREMENT.
(a) Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
each local housing and management authority shall require, as
a condition of occupancy of a public housing dwelling unit by
a family and of providing housing assistance under title III
on behalf of a family, that each adult member of the family
shall--
(1) contribute not less than 8 hours of work per month
within the community in which the family resides; or
(2) participate on an ongoing basis in a program designed
to promote economic self-sufficiency.
(b) Exemptions.--A local housing and management authority
shall provide for the exemption, from the applicability of
the requirement under subsection (a), of each individual who
is--
(1) an elderly person and unable, as determined in
accordance with guidelines established by the Secretary, to
comply with the requirement;
(2) a person with disabilities and unable (as so
determined) to comply with the requirement;
(3) working, attending school or vocational training, or
otherwise complying with work requirements applicable under
other public assistance programs, and unable (as so
determined) to comply with the requirement; or
(4) otherwise physically impaired, as certified by a
doctor, and is therefore unable to comply with the
requirement.
SEC. 107. LOCAL HOUSING MANAGEMENT PLANS.
(a) In General.--In accordance with this section, the
Secretary shall provide for each local housing and management
authority to submit to the Secretary a local housing
management plan under this section for each fiscal year that
describes the mission of the local housing and management
authority and the goals, objectives, and policies of the
authority to meet the housing needs of low-income families in
the jurisdiction of the authority.
(b) Procedures.--The Secretary shall establish requirements
and procedures for submission and review of plans and for the
contents of such plans. Such procedures shall provide for
local housing and management authorities to, at the option of
the authority, submit plans under this section together with,
or as part of, the comprehensive housing affordability
strategy under section 105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (or any consolidated plan
incorporating such strategy) for the relevant jurisdiction
and for concomitant review of such plans.
(c) Contents.--A local housing management plan under this
section for a local housing and management authority shall
contain the following information relating to the upcoming
fiscal year for which the assistance under this Act is to be
made available:
(1) Financial resources.--An operating budget for the
authority that includes--
(A) a description of the financial resources available to
the authority;
(B) the uses to which such resources will be committed,
including eligible and required activities under section 203
to be assisted, housing assistance to be provided under title
III, and administrative, management, maintenance, and capital
improvement activities to be carried out; and
(C) an estimate of the market rent value of each public
housing development of the authority.
(2) Population served.--A statement of the policies of the
authority governing eligibility, admissions, and occupancy of
families with respect to public housing dwelling units and
housing assistance under title III, including--
(A) the requirements for eligibility for such units and
assistance and the method by which eligibility will be
determined and verified;
(B) the requirements for selection and admissions of
eligible families for such units and assistance, including
any preferences established under section 223 or 321(c) and
the criteria for selection under section 222(b);
(C) the procedures for assignment of families admitted to
dwelling units owned, operated, or assisted by the authority;
(D) any standards and requirements for occupancy of public
housing dwelling units and units assisted under title III,
including conditions for continued occupancy, termination of
tenancy, eviction, and termination of housing assistance
under section 321(g);
(E) the criteria under subsections (d) and (f) of section
321 for providing and denying housing assistance under title
III to families moving into the jurisdiction of the
authority;
(F) the fair housing policy of the authority; and
(G) the procedures for outreach efforts (including efforts
that are planned and that have been executed) to homeless
families and to entities providing assistance to homeless
families, in the jurisdiction of the authority.
(3) Rent determination.--A statement of the policies of the
authority governing rents charged for public housing dwelling
units and rental contributions of assisted families under
title III, including--
(A) the methods by which such rents are determined under
section 225 and such contributions are determined under
section 322;
(B) an analysis of how such methods affect--
(i) the ability of the authority to provide housing
assistance for families having a broad range of incomes;
(ii) the affordability of housing for families having
incomes that do not exceed 30 percent of the median family
income for the area; and
(iii) the availability of other financial resources to the
authority.
(4) Quality standards for maintenance and management.--A
statement of the standards and policies of the authority
governing maintenance and management of housing owned and
operated by the authority, and management of the local
housing and management authority, including--
(A) housing quality standards in effect pursuant to
sections 232 and 328 and any certifications required under
such sections;
(B) routine and preventative maintenance policies for
public housing;
(C) emergency and disaster plans for public housing;
(D) rent collection and security policies for public
housing;
(E) priorities and improvements for management of public
housing; and
(F) priorities and improvements for management of the
authority, including improvement of electronic information
systems to facilitate managerial capacity and efficiency.
(5) Grievance procedure.--A statement of the grievance
procedures of the authority under section 110.
(6) Capital improvements.--With respect to public housing
developments owned or operated by the authority, a plan
describing--
(A) the capital improvements necessary to ensure long-term
physical and social viability of the developments; and
(B) the priorities of the authority for capital
improvements based on analysis of available financial
resources, consultation with residents, and health and safety
considerations.
(7) Demolition and disposition.--With respect to public
housing developments owned or operated by the authority--
(A) a description of any such housing to be demolished or
disposed of under subtitle E of title II;
(B) a timetable for such demolition or disposition; and
(C) any information required under section 261(h) with
respect to such demolition or disposition.
(8) Designation of housing for elderly and disabled
families.--With respect to public housing developments owned
or operated by the authority, a description of any
developments (or portions thereof) that the authority has
designated or will designate for occupancy by elderly and
disabled families in accordance with section 227 and any
information required under section 227(c) for such designated
developments.
(9) Conversion of public housing.--With respect to public
housing owned or operated by the authority, a description of
any building or buildings that the authority is required
under section 203(b) to convert to housing assistance
[[Page H4610]]
under title III, an analysis of such buildings showing that
the buildings meet the requirements under such section for
such conversion, and a statement of the amount of grant
amounts under title II to be used for rental assistance under
title III.
(10) Homeownership activities.--A description of any
homeownership programs of the authority under subtitle D of
title II or section 329 for the authority and the
requirements and assistance available under such programs.
(11) Coordination with welfare agencies.--A description of
how the authority will coordinate with State welfare agencies
to ensure that public housing residents and assisted families
will be provided with access to resources to assist in
obtaining employment and achieving self-sufficiency.
(12) Safety and crime prevention.--A description of the
requirements established by the authority that ensure the
safety of public housing residents, facilitate the authority
undertaking crime prevention measures (such as community
policing, where appropriate), allow resident input and
involvement, and allow for creative methods to increase
public housing resident safety by coordinating crime
prevention efforts between the authority and local law
enforcement officials.
(d) 5-Year Plan.--Each local housing management plan under
this section for a local housing and management authority
shall contain, with respect to the 5-year period beginning
with the fiscal year for which the plan is submitted, the
following information:
(1) Statement of mission.--A statement of the mission of
the authority for serving the needs of low-income families in
the jurisdiction of authority during such period.
(2) Goals and objectives.--A statement of the goals and
objectives of the authority that will enable the authority to
serve the needs identified pursuant to paragraph (1) during
such period.
(3) Capital improvement overview.--If the authority will
provide capital improvements for public housing developments
during such period, an overview of such improvements, the
rationale for such improvements, and an analysis of how such
improvements will enable the authority to meet its goals,
objectives, and mission.
(e) Citizen Participation.--
(1) In general.--Before submitting a plan under this
section or an amendment under section 108(f) to a plan, a
local housing and management authority shall make the plan or
amendment publicly available in a manner that affords
affected public housing residents and assisted families under
title III, citizens, public agencies, entities providing
assistance and services for homeless families, and other
interested parties an opportunity, for a period not shorter
than 60 days and ending at a time that reasonably provides
for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2), to
examine its content and to submit comments to the authority.
(2) Consideration of comments.--A local housing and
management authority shall consider any comments or views
provided pursuant to paragraph (1) in preparing a final plan
or amendment for submission to the Secretary. A summary of
such comments or views shall be attached to the plan,
amendment, or report submitted. The submitted
plan, amendment, or report shall be made publicly
available upon submission.
(f) Local Review.--Before submitting a plan under this
section to the Secretary, the local housing and management
authority shall submit the plan to any local elected official
or officials responsible for appointing the members of the
board of directors (or other similar governing body) of the
local housing and management authority for review and
approval.
(g) Plans for Small LHMA's and LHMA's Administering Only
Rental Assistance.--The Secretary shall establish
requirements for submission of plans under this section and
the information to be included in such plans applicable to
housing and management authorities that own or operate less
than 250 public housing dwelling units and shall establish
requirements for such submission and information applicable
to authorities that only administer housing assistance under
title III (and do not own or operate public housing). Such
requirements shall waive any requirements under this section
that the Secretary determines are burdensome or unnecessary
for such agencies.
SEC. 108. REVIEW OF PLANS.
(a) Review and Notice.--
(1) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a limited review
of each local housing management plan submitted to the
Secretary to ensure that the plan is complete and complies
with the requirements of section 107. The Secretary shall
have the discretion to review a plan only to the extent that
the Secretary considers review is necessary.
(2) Notice.--The Secretary shall notify each local housing
and management authority submitting a plan whether the plan
complies with such requirements not later than 75 days after
receiving the plan. If the Secretary does not notify the
local housing and management authority, as required under
this subsection and subsection (b), the plan shall be
considered, for purposes of this Act, to have been determined
to comply with the requirements under section 107 and the
authority shall be considered to have been notified of
compliance upon the expiration of such 75-day period.
(b) Notice of Reasons for Determination of Noncompliance.--
If the Secretary determines that a plan, as submitted, does
not comply with the requirements under section 107, the
Secretary shall specify in the notice under subsection (a)
the reasons for the noncompliance and any modifications
necessary for the plan to meet the requirements under section
107.
(c) Standards for Determination of Noncompliance.--The
Secretary may determine that a plan does not comply with the
requirements under section 107 only if--
(1) the plan is incomplete in significant matters required
under such section;
(2) there is evidence available to the Secretary that
challenges, in a substantial manner, any information provided
in the plan; or
(3) the Secretary determines that the plan violates the
purposes of this Act because it fails to provide housing that
will be viable on a long-term basis at a reasonable cost.
(d) Treatment of Existing Plans.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this title, a local housing and management
authority shall be considered to have submitted a plan under
this section if the authority has submitted to the Secretary
a comprehensive plan under section 14(e) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before the
enactment of this Act) or under the comprehensive improvement
assistance program under such section 14, and the Secretary
has approved such plan, before January 1, 1994. The Secretary
shall provide specific procedures and requirements for such
authorities to amend such plans by submitting only such
additional information as is necessary to comply with the
requirements of section 107.
(e) Actions to Change Plan.--A local housing and management
authority that has submitted a plan under section 107 may
change actions or policies described in the plan before
submission and review of the plan of the authority for the
next fiscal year only if--
(1) in the case of costly or nonroutine changes, the
authority submits to the Secretary an amendment to the plan
under subsection (f) which is reviewed in accordance with
such subsection; or
(2) in the case of inexpensive or routine changes, the
authority describes such changes in such local housing
management plan for the next fiscal year.
(f) Amendments to Plan.--
(1) In general.--During the annual or 5-year period covered
by the plan for a local housing and management authority, the
authority may submit to the Secretary any amendments to the
plan.
(2) Review.--The Secretary shall conduct a limited review
of each proposed amendment submitted under this subsection to
determine whether the plan, as amended by the amendment,
complies with the requirements of section 107 and notify each
local housing and management authority submitting the
amendment whether the plan, as amended, complies with such
requirements not later than 30 days after receiving the
amendment. If the Secretary determines that a plan, as
amended, does not comply with the requirements under section
107, such notice shall indicate the reasons for the
noncompliance and any modifications necessary for the plan to
meet the requirements under section 107. If the Secretary
does not notify the local housing and management authority as
required under this paragraph, the plan, as amended, shall be
considered, for purposes of this section, to comply with the
requirements under section 107.
(3) Standards for determination of noncompliance.--The
Secretary may determine that a plan, as amended by a proposed
amendment, does not comply with the requirements under
section 107 only if--
(A) the plan, as amended, would be subject to a
determination of noncompliance in accordance with the
provisions of subsection (c); or
(B) the Secretary determines that--
(i) the proposed amendment is plainly inconsistent with the
activities specified in the plan;
(ii) there is evidence that challenges, in a substantial
manner, any information contained in the amendment; or
(3) the Secretary determines that the plan, as amended,
violates the purposes of this Act because it fails to provide
housing that will be viable on a long-term basis at a
reasonable cost.
(4) Amendments to extend time of performance.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the
Secretary may not determine that any amendment to the plan of
a local housing and management authority that extends the
time for performance of activities assisted with amounts
provided under this title fails to comply with the
requirements under section 107 if the Secretary has not
provided the amount of assistance set forth in the plan or
has not provided the assistance in a timely manner.
SEC. 109. PET OWNERSHIP.
A resident of a public housing dwelling unit or an assisted
dwelling unit (as such term is defined in section 371) may
own common household pets or have common household pets
present in the dwelling unit of such resident to the extent
allowed by the local housing and management authority or the
owner of the assisted dwelling unit, respectively.
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, pet ownership in
housing assisted under this Act that is federally assisted
rental housing for the elderly or handicapped (as such term
is defined in section 227 of the Housing and Urban-Rural
Recovery Act of 1983) shall be governed by the provisions of
section 227 of such Act.
SEC. 110. ADMINISTRATIVE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.
(a) Requirements.--Each local housing and management
authority receiving assistance under this Act shall establish
and implement an administrative grievance procedure under
which residents of public housing and assisted families under
title III will--
(1) be advised of the specific grounds of any proposed
adverse local housing and management authority action;
(2) have an opportunity for a hearing before an impartial
party upon timely request within a reasonable period of time;
(3) have an opportunity to examine any documents or records
or regulations related to the proposed action;
[[Page H4611]]
(4) be entitled to be represented by another person of
their choice at any hearing;
(5) be entitled to ask questions of witnesses and have
others make statements on their behalf; and
(6) be entitled to receive a written decision by the local
housing and management authority on the proposed action.
(b) Exclusion From Administrative Procedure of Grievances
Concerning Evictions From Public Housing.--A local housing
and management authority shall exclude from its procedure
established under subsection (a) any grievance concerning an
eviction from or termination of tenancy in public housing in
any State which requires that, prior to eviction, a resident
be provided a hearing in court which the Secretary determines
provides the basic elements of due process.
(c) Costs of Grievance Procedure.--The costs of
administering a grievance procedure under this section
(including costs of retaining counsel) shall be considered
operating activities of a local housing and management
authority.
SEC. 111. HEADQUARTERS RESERVE FUND.
(a) Annual Reservation of Amounts.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary may retain not more
than 3 percent of the amounts appropriated to carry out title
II for any fiscal year to provide incremental housing
assistance under title III in accordance with this section.
(b) Use of Amounts.--Any amounts that are retained under
subsection (a) shall be available for subsequent allocation
to specific areas and communities, and may only be used for
the Department of Housing and Urban Development and--
(1) unforeseen housing needs resulting from natural and
other disasters;
(2) housing needs resulting from emergencies, as certified
by the Secretary, other than such disasters;
(3) housing needs related to a settlement of litigation,
including settlement of fair housing litigation; and
(4) providing technical assistance, training, and
electronic information systems for the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and local housing and management
authorities to improve management of such authorities.
SEC. 112. LABOR STANDARDS.
(a) In General.--Any contract for grants, sale, or lease
pursuant to this Act relating to public housing shall contain
the following provisions:
(1) Operation.--A provision requiring that not less than
the wages prevailing in the locality, as determined or
adopted (subsequent to a determination under applicable State
or local law) by the Secretary, shall be paid to all
contractors and persons employed in the operation of the low-
income housing development involved.
(2) Production.--A provision that not less than the wages
prevailing in the locality, as predetermined by the Secretary
of Labor pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a-
276a-5), shall be paid to all laborers and mechanics employed
in the production of the development involved.
The Secretary shall require certification as to compliance
with the provisions of this section before making any payment
under such contract.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) and the provisions relating
to wages (pursuant to subsection (a)) in any contract for
grants, sale, or lease pursuant to this Act relating to
public housing, shall not apply to any of the following
individuals:
(1) Volunteers.--Any individual who--
(A) performs services for which the individual volunteered;
(B)(i) does not receive compensation for such services; or
(ii) is paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal
fee for such services; and
(C) is not otherwise employed at any time in the
construction work.
(2) Residents employed by lhma.--Any resident of a public
housing development who is an employee of the local housing
and management authority for the development and performs
services in connection with the operation or production of a
low-income housing project owned or managed by such
authority.
SEC. 113. NONDISCRIMINATION.
(a) In General.--No person in the United States shall on
the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, or sex
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity funded in whole or in part with amounts made
available under this Act. Any prohibition against
discrimination on the basis of age under the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975 or with respect to an otherwise
qualified handicapped individual as provided in section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shall also apply to any
such program or activity.
(b) Civil Rights Compliance.--Each local housing and
management authority that receives grant amounts under this
Act shall use such amounts and carry out its local housing
management plan approved under section 108 in conformity with
title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing
Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975, and the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990, and shall affirmatively further
fair housing.
SEC. 114. EFFECTIVE DATE AND REGULATIONS.
(a) Effective Date.--The provisions of this Act and the
amendments made by this Act shall take effect and shall apply
on the date of the enactment of this Act, unless such
provisions or amendments specifically provide for
effectiveness or applicability on another date certain.
(b) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue any regulations
necessary to carry out this Act.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Any failure by the Secretary to
issue any regulations authorized under subsection (b) shall
not affect the effectiveness of any provision of this Act or
any amendment made by this Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title I?
amendment no. 35 offered by mr. vento
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 35 offered by Mr. Vento: Page 11, line 2,
strike ``authority's'' and insert in lieu thereof
``Secretary's''.
Page 13, line 10, strike ``authority's'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``Secretary's''.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, this is, I suppose in some minds, a
technical amendment. What the bill has done is provides the flexibility
for the Secretary, based on findings by the local housing management
authority, to change the 50 percent very low-income definition to raise
it or lower it, depending upon local conditions, and to, on the 80
percent, and this really deals with the percentages in the bill, on the
80 percent, to change that, in fact; either raise or lower it,
depending on local circumstances and findings.
Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the Secretary having this
flexibility. In fact, I think that it is necessary. I am concerned that
the bill appears to limit this solely to the local housing management's
findings. I think it is clear to me that since the Secretary has to
approve it, that indeed he has and should set some standards as to what
those findings are.
I do not think it is probable that 3,400 different housing
authorities will in fact seek to modify these percentages, and I think
it is probably somewhat unrealistic to assume that they will develop
the expertise independently. I think that they have some insights, but
I doubt that they on their own, without any type of guidance, would be
able to in fact establish this without some signal, some direction from
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
So my amendment would alter that so that instead of the local housing
authority making the findings, that in fact it is the Secretary. I just
think it is important from the onset to understand the significance of
changing these definitions in law, not handing that over to a State and
local government authority, whatever the entity may be, the local
housing management authority, but in fact to keep that definition
responsibility in the hands of the Secretary, one that has to, in any
case, approve this, and I think should be, as I said, involved from the
beginning with regards to findings. This would restore what essentially
is current law.
Mr. Chairman, I am not aware with any problems that have occurred
with that. I think it would be clear, as I said, that local housing
management authorities would certainly be consulted or be expected to
in fact put together the data, so I would be happy to yield to the
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Lazio, for
further explanation. I do not recall any testimony or any problem with
this issue, so I look at it as a technical amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, my disagreement with him on this issue has to do with
who initiates the changes that would basically define low and very low
income for purposes of making adjustments to basically definitional
issues.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman would suggest that the Secretary in
Washington ought to initiate this. Our position is to have maximum
local control, and that the local community would be the entity to
initiate the request, the change in definition in terms of the
threshold, what is median income and
[[Page H4612]]
what is not sufficient median income to qualify.
The Secretary, obviously, in either case has a role. In our model, we
would suggest that the local government, the local community, initiates
it. The Secretary is consulted and has, in essence, they ability to
preclude the change. The gentleman's opinion apparently is that the
Secretary would have all the discretion to do this and the decision-
making would be centralized in Washington.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the Secretary
makes the decision in this particular instance in the gentleman's
amendment, so we agree on who has the authority. The issue is one of
the findings that such variations are necessary, because of unusually
high or low income criteria. This is just the findings issue. Clearly
what the intent is and I think what occurs under current law, this is
current law, is that the local housing management authority or public
housing authority has to initiate such process in saying that we have a
problem. But we are just talking about the findings issue is really
what we are talking about.
I do not think the gentleman and I necessarily disagree about who
initiates it, because clearly the housing authority has to play a key
role here. It is just a question of findings. The ultimate authority is
in Washington no matter what, because the Secretary, if he is
dissatisfied or she is dissatisfied with the information, will simply
reject it. So I do not know, I do not think it is a question of
authority, it is simply a question of clarifying the issue of findings,
in my mind.
{time} 1930
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I
just would like to query whether the gentleman believes this is
something that, if we continue a dialogue and discussion through the
process moving toward conference, if we can resolve by finding a
compromise we can both live with.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, that is reasonable. I think it is not
something I perceive as a problem. If there is some other basic reason
the gentleman is resisting I'd be interested in learning such. I would
be happy to work with the subcommittee chairman on the basis of that
assurance and interest. We had a long debate on the previous amendment
and we resolved that successfully.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana: In section
103(b) of the bill (as amended by the manager's amendment),
strike paragraph (2) (relating to resident membership) and
insert the following new paragraph:
(2) Resident membership.--
(A) In general.--In localities in which a local housing and
management authority is governed by a board of directors or
other similar body, not less than 25 percent of the members
of the board or body shall be individuals who are--
(i) residents of public housing dwelling units owned or
operated by the authority; or
(ii) members of assisted families under title III.
(B) Election and training.--Members of the board of
directors or other similar body by reason of subparagraph (A)
shall be selected for such membership in an election in which
only residents of public housing dwelling units owned or
operated by the authority and members of assisted families
under title III who are assisted by the authority are
eligible to vote. The authority shall provide such members
with training appropriate to assist them to carry out their
responsibilities as members of the board or other similar
body.
Section 103(b)(5) of the bill (as amended by the manager's
amendment), strike subparagraph (A) (relating to the
definition of ``elected public housing resident member'').
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very
simple amendment. It should be a noncontroversial amendment because it
does not deal with the preamble, it deals with the substance of the
bill.
This amendment will, quite frankly speaking, simply provide that the
boards that will be in place across this country that will regulate
public housing must be composed of at least 25 percent of those
individuals who live in public housing. This is at a time, Mr.
Chairman, when we want to give local tenants more input into the
decisionmaking process, and this amendment is right along those lines.
Twenty-five percent of those individuals who are in public housing
being on a board, that means that about 75 percent will not be in
public housing. Although that is not a mandate in this amendment, it
can very possibly be that way.
If you have a 4-member board, Mr. Chairman, only 1 member under this
amendment will be from the public housing; 8 members, 2 members; a 12-
member board, only 3 members; 16, 4 members. So 25 percent of whatever
board we have will consist of people from the public housing who live
there every day.
Second, Mr. Chairman, if there is any question about training those
individuals who live in public housing, whether or not they are able to
make managerial decisions, whether or not they are able to conduct
themselves in a manner that is conducive to finances and things of that
nature, each of these people, each of these individuals will be
trained. The amendment does not deviate from the present language in
the bill. It provides for training among those members who will come
from the public housing to serve on those particular boards.
Last, Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that many public housing
boards across this country now include members from public housing. As
a matter of fact, it makes it much more conducive for implementing
programs because the tenants are in a better position to know what in
fact takes place on a day-to-day basis in those public housing
facilities all across this country.
So this is an amendment that simply allows tenants to participate in
the decisionmaking process in this country, and I do not think there is
any opposition from the other side of the aisle.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if
this is the same amendment that is being offered that was printed
earlier, listed as Amendment No. 4.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. This is the same. After the manager's
amendment was adopted, I had to make a few minor modifications, but the
language is the same.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, if I might see that first.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to share it
with the gentleman. It is the exact amendment that I prefiled and was
printed in the Record. The only change in this amendment versus the
printed amendment is to the different language in the different parts
of the bill because of the manager's amendment. So this amendment was
to comply with the manager's amendment that was adopted by this House.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield once
again, if I can see a copy of that language, it will help facilitate
our discussion, I believe, if we have that.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I turned in 12 copies. I would
be happy to share this copy with the gentleman from New York if the
gentleman does not have a copy of the amendment. It is the exact
amendment that I introduced earlier. The only change is the change in
location.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I wonder if the gentleman can point out the differences in
the original printed version relative to the corrections that he made
after the adoption of the manager's amendment.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, in the manager's amendment, as
the gentleman from New York is aware, the section that deals with the
board of directors, the manager's amendment calls for an election of
one
[[Page H4613]]
tenant on each board. This amendment simply went, as a result of the
manager's amendment, my amendment was changed to deal with that same
language, to change the number from 1 to 25 percent.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, could you just give me the precise language that was changed,
if that is feasible?
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, it is the same language. The
only difference is the difference in sections.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if I may make the
suggestion to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] that we simply
allow the original amendment which the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Fields] filed.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). The time of the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Fields of Louisiana was allowed to proceed
for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. It would be my suggestion that we go
back to the original Fields amendment that was filed prior to the
manager's amendment and simply ask that the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Lazio] allow my technical and conforming changes made to the
amendment after its potential adoption to reflect the changes that are
contained in the manager's amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, I am informed that part of this amendment strikes almost two
pages of language involving exemptions for certain public housing
authorities, so this is not technical in nature. As a nature of fact,
it goes to the heart of the manager's amendment with respect to this
particular provision.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Would the gentleman have any objections to
withdrawing this amendment and going back to the original amendment,
since the gentleman is quite aware of the original amendment, because
it is not my intent to try to sneak an amendment on the gentleman. As
the gentleman knows, this amendment is the identical amendment as the
original amendment that was introduced by the gentleman, and that was
printed in the Record.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, the printed amendment that I have before me, printed as
amendment No. 4, strikes the language that is in question. I would like
to think that the gentleman's concerns to allow for a direct election
to the board, direct election by the board, were met in the manager's
amendment.
I think the gentleman wants to go much further than I think is
appropriate, quite frankly, with respect to some of the other
provisions, including establishing a quota of 25 percent, technical
training that I think gets us back into that micromanaging model that I
am trying desperately to move away from, and also striking some of the
exemptions that I will help make this workable in terms of direct
election.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to
withdraw his amendment?
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment that I introduced today and be allowed to speak
to the original amendment that was printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana:
Page 14, strike line 18 and all that follows through page
16, line 18, and insert the following:
(A) In general.--In localities in which a local housing and
management authority is governed by a board of directors or
other similar body, not less than 25 percent of the members
of the board or body shall be individuals who are--
(i) residents of public housing dwelling units owned or
operated by the authority; or
(ii) members of assisted families under title III.
(B) Election and training.--Members of the board of
directors or other similar body by reason of subparagraph (A)
shall be selected for such membership in an election in which
only residents of public housing dwelling units owned or
operated by the authority and members of assisted families
under title III who are assisted by the authority are
eligible to vote. The authority shall provide such members
with training appropriate to assist them to carry out their
responsibilities as members of the board or other similar
body.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply provides
that 25 percent of all the boards of directors across the country will
consist of 25 percent of tenants. Twenty-five percent of those
individuals who sit around the table and make decisions on how public
housing works in America will be tenants.
It is a very straightforward amendment. There is nothing complicated
about it. If there is a board of four, then one member will according
to this amendment come from public housing.
Second, this amendment will also provide, as I stated earlier, for
training. So anyone who has any question about individuals being able
to make major decisions, each individual who is elected to the board
will be provided adequate training.
In terms of who will elect these members, these members will be
elected by bona fide housing residents. The housing residents will meet
and elect their representatives to the board, and those individuals
will serve based on a time that is enumerated by the rules and the
regulations of that particular board.
If there are no objections to this amendment, I suggest its adoption.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Fields
amendment.
I am not quite sure what the gentleman is attempting to add but I
think I am right in understanding some of the things that he is
eliminating. He is eliminating, as I understand it, the exceptions
which begin on page 15, subparagraph B, and specifically on lines 22
through lines 24, and on to page 16, lines 1 and 2. He is eliminating
the exception for local housing and management authorities that own or
operate less than 250 public housing units, including any authority
that does not own or operate public housing. We have had substantial
debate on this issue.
This Member has strong objection from his own State--for example,
from the city of Omaha--to in fact requiring, in contrast to State law,
that a resident be a member of the public housing authority. But I
certainly have strenuous objections to the smaller housing authorities
also have this requirement.
I think my colleagues should know that in my State, for example, we
once had the second largest number of public housing units in the
country. We started quite early in the process. Many of them are for
senior citizens. A great many of them have less than 30 units across
the whole State. That is especially true in my district and in the
district of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett]. It would be not
only difficult and in contrast to State law to have residents
automatically being placed on the public housing authority for those
units, it would be unworkable.
We have had this debate before. I think we are bending an exceptional
amount already in suggesting that in fact for the larger housing units
you have a resident that becomes a member of the board, but to take it
down to the small housing units is something that this member cannot
accept in representing his constituents. It is unworkable in the small
cities and the villages in my district that have these small housing
authorities. It is in contrast to State law. We are exempting the State
law.
Therefore, I have to rise in strong objection to the gentleman's
amendment which would remove this exception.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I appreciate the gentleman's comment, but I
am having a hard time understanding
[[Page H4614]]
how a board that consists of 15 Members is OK to have one tenant from
the public housing but a board that consists of five or four is not
acceptable. I thought the gentleman's philosophy, and that is one of
the reasons why I introduced the amendment, was to give tenants an
opportunity to participate.
I see that the gentleman is not adverse to tenant participation
because the gentleman has spoken to that point, and I cannot understand
why just because there is a small housing facility versus a large, that
those tenants should be denied the opportunity to participate.
Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, I would say that under State law
public housing authorities in my State have 5 members. You are
mandating that at least one of those members automatically, despite the
recommendations of the city council or the village board of trustees in
my State that appoints the housing authority, must appoint one person
from the residency of that public housing.
In many cases these housing units are exclusively for senior
citizens. In most cases they really are. This is too much intrusion in
local control and decisions about who that city council, that village
board of trustees wants to have on the housing authority. In many cases
they in fact do appoint it but that ought to be a decision that is made
by the city council, the governing body of that particular community.
That is why I object to the gentleman's amendment.
{time} 1945
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for
the insight and the vision that he has had with respect to this
legislation. I have heard my good friend from Nebraska, and I would
simply like to offer an explanation as it relates to a local situation.
He has mentioned a local community and I would like to mention one as
well in Houston, where we have been dealing with a public housing
problem for a number of years.
There would be many that would come and suggest there are reasons why
we have this problem: Federal regulations, the disagreement, if you
will, between the local parties, lack of funding, lack of priority. I
would offer to say that maybe the reason why we have this problem is
that we have not brought parties together to be able to discuss how
best to solve and create good public housing, good, clean public
housing, with the involvement of residents.
I like that word ``residents,'' as opposed to ``tenants.'' It gives a
certain stakeholder's role to those in public housing.
This amendment the gentleman offers is a positive amendment that is
instructive. Not only does he provide for an opportunity for
participants, for residents to participate, but he gives them training,
the training that any board member would bring maybe from their work
experience or business experience, he then allows those residents to
have the same kind of training to be able to be part of a management
system.
Has anyone seen their local United Ways, where they have attempted to
reach out into the community? Our United Ways used to be a board of
corporate CEO's. Those are the only people that could participate. They
collected money and decided how it was to be distributed. We got wise
until Houston realized United Way was a community organization, and
that means they had to reach out to local community activists and mix
them with corporate leaders and begin to solve the community's
problems. United Way sought diversity on its board, and in doing so,
they trained those activists and local community individuals to be on
the United Way board.
This is the very same approach. This allows the residents of that
particular housing entity, that housing development, to be able to
participate, and it gives them the necessary training.
I am not sure whether or not we suffer in local communities with
units under a certain number where we increase the number of residents.
I am not sure that is detrimental when in fact in most cases the
dominant participants will be selected from the community and will be
able to work with a lesser number of residents. So I am unsure of the
difficulty in allowing the Fields amendment to go forward.
I applaud him for this amendment. I have seen over the past 17 years
in Houston where we have had strife and disagreement because we have
not had the involvement of our residents to solve a problem, to provide
clean and decent public housing. It is not a question of whether we
demolish, it is not a question of whether we keep units, it is a
question of whether people can have a meeting of the minds. You cannot
have a meeting of the mind when you have residents standing on the
outside with the door closed. We need to affirmatively bring them
inside. Twenty-five percent is a minimal number, it is a fair number.
It is a fair number for smaller units, and it is a fair number for
larger units.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for
his vision, and would solicit the support for this amendment. I would
simply say to my colleagues in opposition, we cannot do any less than
our civic boards across the Nation. Let us diversify, let us include,
let us solve this Nation's housing problems, not only by ourselves, but
including those who are most affected, and that is the residents. I
support the passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of this very important
amendment.
Having a place to call home, no matter how modest, is a cornerstone
of the American dream. It is the goal of every family. A home is not
just a place to live; it is also a place where individuals should and
must have a voice.
This amendment would go a long way in creating a voice for residents
of public housing in the decisionmaking process that affect their
homes. By requiring that 25 percent of the board of directors of local
housing authorities be residents of public housing, or persons
receiving Federal rental assistance, the best interests of resident's
would be served.
To ensure that those who will serve in this capacity are truly
representative, they will be elected by the residents and be given
sufficient training to fulfill their obligation to their community.
This amendment will inject fairness into this legislation and allow
for residents who are personally invested in public housing to have a
voice in the decisionmaking process.
I would like to thank Representative Fields for bringing this
important amendment before the House for consideration.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Louisiana's
amendment. I think it is a worthwhile amendment, and it is a consistent
amendment with what the chairman said about his desire to put public
housing into the hands of the tenants or the residents.
As a matter of fact, I have heard that statement made several times
this evening, that it is the chairman's desire, it is the desire of the
Republican Party, it is the desire of the leadership, to put public
housing in the hand of the residents, to give them more power to make
decisions about their lives and about their living.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this is the way to do it. I understand very well
how it works now. As a matter of fact, many cities across this Nation
simply appoint people who are well connected. You know the mayor in
some cities and the mayor is making the appointment. If you have been
involved in the campaign, if you know a contributor, what have you, you
get an appointment.
The same thing is true with the members of the city council. They
appoint their friends and cronies and those politically connected. That
is okay. I guess there should be some payoff for those who are
supportive.
But the fact of the matter is, residents have been excluded from
decisions about their daily living. We have these resident councils in
each of the housing authorities or the projects. However, oftentimes
they are kind of left to try and be involved in ways that they do not
really know how to be involved.
We have the residents who are supposed to be organized at each site.
Oftentimes they are not getting any training. They do not even know
when a board meeting takes place. They do not receive the notices, they
are not encouraged to be at the board meetings. The agendas are
developed without their input.
[[Page H4615]]
It is time for us to make sure that we mean what we say. If in fact
we have the resident councils at each site and we then have the area
councils, and somehow they are supposed to be involved in decision
making, then we must make sure that they have the ultimate involvement,
the ultimate involvement, which is that they work their way up to the
board.
The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] is saying in his amendment
that at each of these local housing projects they would have an
opportunity to vote. They would have an opportunity to recommend to
those who do the appointing, those that they think will serve them well
at the board.
You talk about residents in public housing projects who somehow do
not seem to understand what happens and the kinds of decisions the
management must make. Well, if you want people to understand the budget
and how it works and whether or not they can have revitalized
apartments, whether or not they can get new screens on the doors,
whether or not they can change the heating systems, they have to
understand how much money is available. If they do not understand the
money, then they do not understand what you claim are management
problems or how to help make decisions about how best to use the money.
I think residents have a lot of input that they need to be able to
give. They know more about these buildings, about these grounds, and
about the communities they live in than most of the political
appointees, who never go to these housing projects, will ever know, and
I think they deserve to be at the board meetings helping to formulate
those agendas and giving input that is going to make good sense.
I think they will have some cost effective suggestions about how best
to manage. I think they will know how to save money. I think they could
tell the board about the personnel and the workers who are getting paid
and about what they are doing and that they are not doing.
The board members do not know that now. They are not out in these
housing projects. But I can tell you, the people who live there can
tell you what the maintenance crew is doing and what they are not
doing, if they can ever get to a board meeting. They are not encouraged
to be at the board meetings, they are not wanted at those board
meetings, their opinions are not respected. That is why you see some
resistance to having them on boards.
It really does not make good sense to say it is all right to have
them, maybe one, if there is a big housing authority, and maybe none if
there is a small housing authority. That does not have anything to do
with big or small. If you have got five members on a small housing
authority board and five members on a large housing authority board,
they both deserve representation, and it makes no difference what their
size is.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. This is true empowerment.
This is true respect for residents. I ask support for the Fields
amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my good friend from Louisiana's
amendment. I think we have heard a lot of rhetoric about the fact that
we want to provide for local control of local housing authorities, and
I can think of nothing more important than making certain that the
people that actually live in these projects are provided some say in
the direction that the projects are going to take and the kind of
management and control that those projects take.
I have understood some of the concerns of my friend from Nebraska
[Mr. Bereuter] with regard to some of the smaller housing projects that
constitute authorities in a rural state like Nebraska, which is very
different than perhaps some of the problems that we face in places like
Massachusetts.
In Boston, I found specifically in projects in my own district that
there are some very, very large urban projects that would be greatly
improved if we get more tenant control and more tenant say in the
future of those projects, where how many units, what kinds of units,
income mix, and a whole range of other issues could have some input
directly by the tenant.
So I think the overall goal of tenant input is very, very important.
I am hopeful we could find ways of working out an agreement on the
Fields amendment that will somehow provide for exemptions for those
cases such that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] referred to,
where we have very, very small numbers or clusters of units that would
not apply, and in fact where this amendment might create a needless
burden.
But where this is an appropriate use of an authority's response to
the needs of the tenants, I think this could be a very, very useful
tool. I would hope that we might be able to find a way of working out
some of the concerns that we have.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Louisiana and
myself have reached an agreement that satisfies my concern. He would
simply remove the exemptions. But the first part of his amendment, he
will provide for at least 25 percent of those housing authorities
having over 250 units, whereas the existing bill provides 25 percent.
Now, 25 percent of a five-member board, for example, of the city of
Omaha, is one. Whenever State law calls for an 8- or 10-member board,
the Fields amendment would actually increase the number of tenants.
That will be controversial for some States. For others, like my own,
that has a five-member board, it is the same, one member one way, one
member the other way. So there is a possibility of us working out this
last sticking point.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, can
the gentleman clarify for me why it would be more difficult with the
eight-member board versus the five?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the Fields amendment in that case would
provide for two members, and in the case of a smaller number of board
members it would be only one. So there is the potential for a larger
number of people who are tenants to be on the board under the Fields
amendment than there is under existing language of the bill. I am not
arguing the point. It is not relevant to my State. It is going to be
controversial in some States. This is a matter that the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Fields] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] are
going to have to work out.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
appreciate the gentleman from Nebraska's willingness to recognize the
fact that tenant involvement in these cases is important. Twenty-five
percent is twenty-five percent.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the
bill says that a minimum of one member must be a tenant on a housing
authority, but the Fields amendment says at least 25 percent. So, you
see, potentially more members would be on some housing authorities who
are tenants than would be under the bill, which specifies only one
minimum. That is the difference.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that
was the point. We wanted to have greater tenant involvement in the
process. I understand maybe that is not an issue that the gentleman was
arguing, but I think that all of us recognize that what we are trying
to do here is make certain that we do not have some elected board or
appointed board of individuals that has very little to do or very
little understanding of the direct impact of their decision making
process on the local housing authorities, and in fact try to find a way
to create tenant involvement in the overall decisionmaking process.
I think it is something that certainly the rhetoric that we are
hearing surrounding this bill is completely compatible with, and I hope
that we find a way of actually making certain that the people who are
going to be most affected by these decisions are in fact involved in
the decisions of the housing authority.
Now, I wonder if I could inquire from my friend, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio], whether we are close to an agreement on this
issue?
{time} 2000
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has expired.
[[Page H4616]]
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Lazio].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts
has a question with respect to where we are on the Fields amendment? I
would suggest to the gentleman that we continue to have an ongoing
problem.
In the bill, we allow for the direct election of tenants onto boards.
I have no objection if a local community wants to have 100 percent of
the people on the board that are residents. What I do have an objection
to is getting back to the model where again one size fits all and
Washington knows best. We must use this much money for technical
assistance. We must have a 25-percent quota of local residents.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I think that we have a
fundamental difference of opinion with respect to the amendment. I
tried to meet the objection in terms of having the direct election of a
resident to the board and in the manager's amendment that was adopted.
Now I think the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] would like to go
substantially further than that. I think there is a philosophical
difference as to whether we should pursue that.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
wonder whether or not the gentleman can find some consistency in saying
that the problem with the amendment is that it is a Washington-based
solution, where in fact the solution simply says that we ought to have
local involvement in the decision-making process? We are saying that 25
percent of the people on the board ought to come from the local area.
To try to identify that as a Washington-based solution is kind of
bizarre.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, my concern here is not that we have local participation. As a
matter of fact, we spend a page and a half in the manager's amendment
speaking to the fact that the housing authorities should integrate into
the community and have local participation. I believe deeply in it. My
problem is setting quotas and saying every community should have this
as opposed to----
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the
gentleman from New York has a quota of one. The gentleman has a page
and a half of rhetoric and he has one person. What we are trying to
say, and what the gentleman from Louisiana is trying to say, is that we
have 25 percent of the people, which is not anything close to the
ability to carry the day on any vote, but that 25 percent of the people
making the decision ought to have some direct impact and people that
actually are living in these housing authorities ought to be involved
in how those housing authorities are going to proceed.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue
to yield, my problem, which I think is a philosophical divide, is
whether we start to retreat back from allowing flexibility and
fungibility for the housing authorities, giving them more rules,
imposing on them a set quota.
I do not care if a community decides that they have all residents,
but that should be the local community's decision and not Washington's.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time,
that is the most inverted logic I have ever heard.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Fields]. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is family
values. Imagine those of us who live in middle-class neighborhoods, we
organize into block clubs, we organize into neighborhood organizations,
because it is the local residents who have the knowledge about the
community in which they reside to make determinations about their
particular community.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that failure of this amendment says
to residents across this country that Washington knows better about the
neighborhood and the development in which you reside better than you
do, and what could be a more paternalistic view of the condition of
people in public housing across our country than that?
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]
for the purpose of a colloquy.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman if this
business of one smacks of tokenism? It sounds familiar, that we will
let one in, we will let one on, but we do not want too many if, in
fact, we have more than one, they may being to have a collective voice
and challenge some of the decisions.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman thinks that the accusation of
the gentleman from New York where he says somehow that the amendment of
the gentleman from Louisiana that asks for 25 percent is any different
than his asking for 1 percent, except that it is more involvement.
Could the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] expand on that a little
bit?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would
like to make the argument that this is not about quotas in public
housing. Residents have the right to participate in making decisions
about where they live, and that is just a fact of life. I make
decisions about the condominium that I live in here in Washington, DC.
The gentlewoman from California certainly makes decisions as a member
of a condominium or a cooperative in the neighborhood in which she
lives.
Mr. Chairman, why should not low income and poor Americans be able to
make decisions about the complexes and the developments within which
they live? Twenty-five percent, one out of four, three out of 12, four
out of 16, is not an unreasonable number to ask for participation from
residents to make some determination about the conditions under which
they live.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, the only real change that is actually
occurring here is for the very first time the Federal Government is
mandating that residents do participate in local housing authorities.
Reality is those of us from middle-class neighborhoods have served in
capacities for public housing authorities all across our country and,
frankly, the residents have had no say.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
let me just say that I tried to make the point earlier that to the
degree people are involved, they accept more responsibility. We have a
lot of young people in public housing authorities that have no idea how
these decisions get made.
Let me give some examples. I can recall in the city of Los Angeles
when they would let contracts out for people to come into the public
housing authorities and do work. They would contract with folks who
would come from all over the extended Los Angeles area to come in and
put up screens and to dig and to do all of these things. The people who
lived there simply would watch out of their windows while other people
come in and make money, take the money, and go home and spend it in
their communities.
Mr. Chairman, we organized a little bit in some of these public
housing authorities and asked the residents: What do you think the
policy should be about creating job opportunities where you live? They
said, ``Ms. Waters we want to work. We think that the public housing
authorities should create job opportunities for those jobs that are
being done where we live. Many of these jobs do not even require
training. Some of them may. We want to be trained.''
We organized and forced that kind of decision at the board to allow
the residents to work in those public housing authorities where they
live when the jobs become available. If there were contractors coming
in, we developed a public policy where those contractors should have to
hire some of the people there.
Mr. Chairman, if they had been sitting on the board where these
decisions were being made, they could have told them a long time ago.
There are hundreds of decisions like that. We have people in local
housing authorities who
[[Page H4617]]
believe there should be some commerce inside the public housing
authorities, that they should be able to create some businesses so they
can get off of welfare, so that they can work. We will not get that
unless we get people working at the board where the decisions are made,
giving input, and helping those who come from every place else. But the
communities, they are making decisions about understanding how to run
these places.
I think in my city and in the city of the gentleman that we have seen
a lot of what goes on, and we believe that we can go a long way toward
solving some of the problems if we but listen to the people who live
there.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] will be
postponed.
amendment no. 44 offered by mr. watt of north carolina
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 34,
line 9, after ``determines that the plan'' insert ``does not
comply with Federal law or''.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes,
because it is my understanding that the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio], the subcommittee chair, has agreed to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we are simply trying to make it clear that when a local
housing authority submits its housing plan, that the Secretary has the
authority to review it in compliance with Federal law, as well as the
underlying provisions of this bill.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of bipartisan
cooperation and reasonableness, I would support the gentleman's
amendment and urge its adoption. I believe this is consistent with the
current law, and for that reason I support the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. gilchrest
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest: On page 30, line 8,
insert the following: ``Furthermore, to assure the safety of
public housing residents, the requirements will include use
of trespass laws by the authority to keep evicted tenants or
criminals out of public housing property.''
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to section
107, to the section on the crime prevention plan that local housing and
management authorities must have to be approved by the Secretary of
HUD. The language in my amendment is needed to make sure that the local
housing authorities can keep their properties safe and crime-free by
invoking local criminal trespass laws. Without this amendment, local
housing authorities risk lawsuits from disgruntled evicted criminal
tenants, and the entire public housing community is put at risk.
In my district, there is a situation where a Federal judge issued a
consent decree as part of a settlement in a lawsuit of former tenants
against a local public housing authority. Aided by Legal Aid and the
ACLU, the former tenants obtained a settlement that states the housing
authority cannot ban evicted tenants or other troublesome visitors from
returning to the public housing unless required to do so by HUD. HUD
has taken no action. Since 1993, the judge's decree and HUD's inaction
leave the authority unable to assure a safe, secure community.
Mr. Chairman, other housing authorities use notice of trespass with
success in keeping evicted tenants and known drug criminals out of
public housing, but because HUD is silent, St. Michael's Housing
Authority in my district cannot use local trespass laws to provide a
safe environment for all other law-abiding, lease-abiding tenants.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us this evening brings historic reforms
that will strengthen the management of local housing authorities and
give public housing residents more incentives to take care of their
communities. Does it not seem reasonable, then, that to carry out HUD's
``one strike and your out policy,'' local housing and management
authorities must use local trespass laws to keep out those evicted
tenants who have struck out?
The Federal judge's ruling in this settlement weakens the ability of
St. Michael's Housing Authority to keep evicted tenants and other
criminals out. I am told that other housing directors have used such
notice and credit it with eliminating drug problems.
The situation described is unfortunate and another example of why
reforms of HUD's management of public housing are needed. By adopting
this amendment we will make sure housing authorities have the tools
they need to keep out evicted tenants.
The intent of the public housing reforms is to help assure safe
communities, and in keeping with this intent, HUD should require
housing authorities to do their best to assure that those persons who
are ineligible for public housing do not return to disrupt public
housing communities. Let's finish the job by allowing authorities to
keep out evicted tenants. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, one example of what happens in this particular housing
development as a result of this court ruling and this court decree, in
order to get an evicted tenant evicted from the premises of this
particular housing project, a tenant, not the housing manager or
housing authority, a tenant must write a letter to the person that was
evicted that is now trespassing.
Can my colleagues imagine a 70-year-old woman writing a letter to
someone that was evicted because of drug abuse that is now back on the
property before any action is taken?
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge adoption of this amendment.
{time} 2015
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, the case of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest]
makes seems to make some sense. It is the first that any of us have
seen this amendment. I do not know what kinds of legal problems or
anything else that this might create, that the actual language he has
written here might create, but we would be happy to work with the
gentleman between now and the conference committee, if we pass this
amendment this evening, to incorporate the gentleman's concerns.
Mr. Chairman, everybody wants to make certain that we keep public
housing safe and secure for residents. No one wants to have evicted
tenants or criminals abusing existing tenants, and we will try to work
with Members to make sure that the concerns of Members and their
constituents are met.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the amendment of the
gentleman from Maryland. It is an amendment that is important in terms
of the quality of life for people in public housing. It is a truism
that people in public housing do not have the same protections as
people in the rest of the marketplace. That is unfair.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland seeks to impose or create
an equity where people will not be able to harass residents in public
housing. He illustrates that through the use of his local community. I
am in support of that. I think it is the right thing to do. I urge its
passage.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
[[Page H4618]]
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
amendment offered by mrs. maloney
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney: Page 37, line 19, strike
``A'' and insert ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in
subsections (b) and (c), a''.
Page 37, line 25, strike ``Notwithstanding the preceding
sentence, pet'' and insert the following:
(b) Federally Assisted Rental Housing for the Elderly or
Disabled.--Pet
Page 38, after line 5, insert the following new subsection:
(c) Elderly Families in Public and Assisted Housing.--
Responsible ownership of common household pets shall not be
denied any elderly or disabled family who resides in a
dwelling unit in public housing or an assisted dwelling unit
(as such term is defined in section 371), subject to the
reasonable requirements of the local housing and management
authority or the owner of the assisted dwelling unit, as
applicable. This subsection shall not apply to units in
public housing or assisted dwelling units that are located in
federally assisted rental housing for the elderly or
handicapped referred to in subsection (b).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself and my friend and
colleague, the gentlewoman from New York, Representative Susan
Molinari, I am offering an amendment to the housing bill. As my
colleagues know, Susan Molinari is at home right now, expecting the
birth of her first child at any moment. Although I would have liked
very much to have her join me tonight on the floor, I want to take this
opportunity to offer my congratulations to Susan and Bill Paxon on,
truly, life's greatest experience, that of becoming a parent, that of
waiting to become a parent.
That aside, the key issues of my amendment are very, very simple.
Senior citizens and people with disabilities should not be forced to
choose between their pets and their opportunities to affordable
housing.
Mr. Chairman, under current Federal law, senior citizens living in
federally assisted senior designated housing have a right to own a pet.
This 12-year-old policy has worked and it has worked very well.
But tragically for most seniors, senior designated housing makes up
only 10 percent of all the Federal housing. In many places, specially
designated senior housing is not available due to long, long
waiting lists. Seniors, therefore, who live in Federal housing are
forced to give up their pets. Studies have shown again and again the
physical and mental health benefits of pet ownership.
When the original policy was passed in 1983, a number of public
housing authorities expressed concern that pets would damage dwellings
and harm other residents. According to HUD, these concerns have not
been borne out. Furthermore, numerous studies have shown us that pets
in public housing present little trouble and that the benefits of pet
ownership far outweigh any pitfalls.
Mr. Chairman, many studies back up the lack of problems. For example,
a University of California study of the 1983 law reported that 84
percent of local housing authorities who have dealt with the 1983 law
allowing pets reported either positive effects or no noticeable
changes.
The Massachusetts Committee on Housing found that seniors proved
themselves to be responsible pet owners in every way. Our amendment
provides a simple way to dramatically improve the lives of millions of
our growing senior community. Most studies have found that senior
citizens and people with disabilities who have pets, live longer, go to
the doctor less often, recover more quickly from illnesses, and have
more positive outlooks than those who do not have pets.
For older persons, isolated by widowhood or declining health, pets
provide companionship.
The National Institutes of Health concluded that pets are medically
beneficial to people's health. The bond between people and their pets
predates recorded history. My amendment ensures that we will not deny
this incredible bond to hundreds of thousands of senior citizens.
With 3.7 million Federal housing units still prohibiting seniors from
keeping their pets, the need for this amendment is great. As people
grow older, they often taste the loss of family and home. It is
inhumane to take away someone's companion at a time when they need
their unconditional love the most, when they face a fixed income and
the need for public housing.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment removes the unfair distinction between
seniors-only housing and other public housing in a responsible manner.
The amendment allows the housing authorities to write effective,
comprehensive regulations appropriate to their own dwellings, which
ensure tenant and landlord compliance while maintaining decent, safe,
and sanitary housing.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment has a broad array of support
from advocacy groups and Members. A coalition of groups who protect
seniors rights have supported this amendment, like the American
Association of Retired Persons and the Pets for the Elderly Foundation.
Advocates for physical and mental health support this legislation,
including the American Psychological Association, many other health
groups. It is cosponsored by 130 of my colleagues from both sides of
the aisle.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentlewoman from New York speaks with
conviction and sincerity. I appreciate that. But we are talking about a
situation where we can barely control the maintenance and the basic
order in some developments in America. We are talking about a situation
not where we have $300,000 condos but where gangs control some halls,
where people are actually blocked from having entrance into their
apartments because gangs control the halls, seal it off, and there is
crack dealing sometimes under the stairwells.
We already allow for pets in senior housing. What we are saying is
that Washington should not decide this issue.
Let me explain to you what it has already done. This is where the HUD
pet police enter. The recent department, the department is talking
about reinventing itself, just issued 20 pages of regulations about
reinventing itself, just issued 20 pages of regulations on pets in
public housing. This is what the new reinvented HUD does, issues regs
that state the mandatory pet rules for public housing, including
specific rules on when kitty litter boxes are put out, how often that
is going to be changed. Is that exactly what we are talking about here?
Is that what we think about when we talk about the mission of HUD
providing for decent sanitary housing?
When the dog runs down the hall, are we going to have the pet police
try to identify who belongs to that dog, whether it is someone who is a
senior in the building or whether it is a neighbor next door who is not
allowed to have a dog? Are we going to have packs of dogs and animals
running throughout the halls? Is that what we want? Is that what we are
looking for. We are talking about providing safe, sanitary, healthy
housing for Americans.
We are talking about reclaiming our tradition of having decent
housing as public housing. We are talking about identifying and
acknowledging the fact that we have failed. We have situations where
ceilings are falling down, elevators do not work, the stench of waste
in hallways. And we are talking about introducing pets into public
housing to compound the problem that managers have. This is exactly
where we are headed over here.
This defines two different visions of what we are doing over here.
One vision is a vision that would say we ought to regulate how often
people ought to put out the kitty litter boxes and how often they ought
to be changed. Another vision would be that local communities ought to
make those decisions, that they know best, that we do not get involved
in these micromanagement decisions.
We are living in a fantasy land, my colleagues, if we believe that
every place in America, the public housing throughout America is the
same as America in some of our communities.
There are wide differences over here. There are huge challenges in
terms of management. This issue, introducing
[[Page H4619]]
pets into public housing where we really do not regulate whether you
have a pit bull, whether it is one, 5 or 10 pit bulls in a particular
area, who belongs to those pit bulls. This is absolutely ludicrous.
This is exactly the model that we want to move away from. We want to
move toward a situation where we have community empowerment, local
decisionmaking, move away from centralized bureaucrats deciding that
this is going to be the case without an understanding of what the
consequences are in our neighborhoods.
We are trying to move away from neighborhoods of despair and
impoverishment and failure toward communities of hope. We cannot
complicate the mission of people who are trying to manage public
housing and assisted housing by introducing this grave problem into the
equation.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot forebear commenting on the pattern that we are
hearing from the chairman. In the first place, he gives the same speech
on every amendment. I would suspect that his familiarity with the
specifics are not what they might be. He talks about one size fits all.
We have one speech fits all.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York,
unlike the gentleman who would not yield to me any of the times I asked
him this evening.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to debate any
particular section of this bill, if the gentleman wants to talk about
the merits of it or the particulars. I know his comments. He often
relishes being condescending and insulting. I appreciate that. But let
me explain to the gentleman, I am fully prepared to discuss two
different visions of where we think public housing and assisted housing
needs to go in this country. If the gentleman wants to defend the
failure of 40 years under his party's control, I am happy to engage the
gentleman.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the
gentleman has illustrated it again. We get the same speech.
I tried when the gentleman left the floor before, he talks about 40
years of control. It was the Reagan budget, known as the Gramm-Latta
bill, which amended the Brooke amendment in the way the gentleman
objected to. The gentleman said that the Brooke amendment, which was a
Republican proposal to limit the amount of rents that could be charged,
became a job killer because it also became a floor. That was done under
Gramm-Latta, under Ronald Reagan.
I have asked the gentleman to explain to me how that is the fault of
the Democrats. Would he explain to me, I will be glad to yield to him,
how was the fact that the Reagan budget of 1981 turned the Brooke
amendment from a tenant protection to a job killer the fault of the
Democrats? I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to that. For the
last 10 years or 12 years----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, excuse me. I know the gentleman was
talking to somebody.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I want to tell you about the facts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman please
abide by the rules?
The last 10 years cannot be relevant to my question about 1981. We
are talking about 1981. In 1981, under the Reagan domination of this
House, Gramm-Latta amended the Brooke amendment to make it what the
gentleman objected to. How was that the fault of the Democrats, when it
was Gramm-Latta that did it in 1981?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, last time I recalled, 1981, the Democrats had a Democratic
speaker up there. They controlled this House. This is the typical
response of denial that there is any responsibility for all of the
efforts that led to the position we are in right now.
Since 1981, for the last 15 years, for 13 of the 15 years, the
Democrats have had a majority in this House. They have known that the
Brooke amendment has been a disincentive to work. They have done
nothing about it. Just like one for one, Federal preferences----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I am only talking
about the Brooke amendment now. I would make a couple of points. The
gentleman from New York's argument that during 1981, when Gramm-Latta
passed with Ronald Reagan's first year of the presidency, it was a
Democrat, the Democrats controlling the agenda, illustrates how at
variance he is with the facts.
Second, we were talking about Republican control of the Senate for
all of those periods when we could not get legislation through that was
not agreed to by both.
{time} 2030
We also had a Republican President whose signoff we had to have on
the legislation. This is an example of the kind of distortion we are
talking about, and again the notion, and, by the way, during this whole
period when I got here in 1981, the Republicans controlled the Senate,
the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Presidency from 1981
through 1986, but according to the gentleman from New York they have no
responsibility.
But I also want to talk about the substantive pattern here, and the
substantive pattern here is for all the talk about empowerment, let us
give the housing authorities more control over the lives of the
tenants.
When the gentleman from Louisiana wanted to expand tenant rights, no,
no, that is no good.
The gentlewoman from New York and her colleague, the other
gentlewoman from new York, want to protect tenants' rights regarding
pet ownership; no, no, no, we cannot interfere with the authorities.
Indeed the gentleman from new York says we are going to empower the
tenants by letting the housing authorities raise their rents without
limit. That is the gentleman from New York's answer about empowerment
because in fact what he said was, and this one I am still trying to
understand and I will yield to him to explain this to me; the gentleman
said that if we put a 30 percent cap on what tenants can be charged,
that would be bad for the tenants who were working because then the
authority would go up to the 30 percent, and the way to prevent the
authority from going up to a 30 percent cap is to say with those very
same tenants there is no cap at all.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the
gentleman in 10 seconds to explain to me how limiting the authorities
to 30 percent of what they can charge working people, which is what my
amendment would do, is a better protection for those working people in
the housing authority than giving the housing authority the right to
charge them unlimited rents because that is the only difference between
us.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman still thinks in
the box. The gentleman still thinks that rent can only be charged as a
percentage of income. What I am suggesting is that public housing
authorities ought to be in power to set place-based rents or to say
that a particular unit should rent for $15, or $25 a month so that if
somebody goes to work, begins to earn more money, they do not have this
disincentive.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am reclaiming my time
because the gentleman simply refuses to answer a plain English
question.
No, there is no disincentive, and I would ask the gentleman please to
abide by the rules. The point is he does not want to answer the
question. I did not ask him the question he answered.
I am not mandating any increase. He talks about a disincentive. The
disincentive came from Reagan, Gramm, and Latta. What we are doing is
to say, no, there is no floor, they can charge less if they want to. We
are saying not that rents have to be percentage based, but that 30
percent is the limit. They
[[Page H4620]]
can use whatever formula and rules they want, but they cannot go above
30 percent.
And the gentleman is going to protect tenants by not letting them
have pets, he would protect tenants by not having more of them on the
authority, and he will protect tenants in the most bizarre logic of all
by allowing the housing authorities to raise the rents without limit.
We are not talking about mandating 30 percent as the basis. We are
saying whatever basis they have, it cannot for working people go above
30 percent.
The gentleman's amendment says welfare recipients cannot go above 30
percent, but working people, there is no limit.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I wonder if the gentleman would agree to a
compromise when we apply Brooke to the pet amendment so 30 percent of
the people could have pets?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would expect more in the
gentleman's logic that we would propose that people could keep 30
percent of their pets; that would be more in line with the kind of
thinking the gentleman has had.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I am glad we can get back to the Ace Ventura amendment here.
The truth is that if we get back to what the purposes of the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], it
is in fact, and states quite clearly, that this provides the local
housing authority with the capability of deciding on their own whether
or not the pets ought to be allowed. To try to suggest that this is
something that is going to Washington for decision making is a bizarre
twist of what Mrs. Maloney's amendment says. Mrs. Maloney's amendment
allows this decision to be made locally, and that is what we are trying
to do here.
As my colleagues know, every time somebody stands up and makes an
amendment, we have an amendment to say 25 percent of the decisions here
ought to be made by people within the 25 percent of the people on the
board ought to come from local housing authority. Oh, no that is
Washington-based. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] offers
an amendment that allows the decision to be made by the local housing
authority and, oh, no, that is a Washington-based decision, and someone
or another we are getting packs of pit bulls in these housing
authorities as a result of having elderly people allowed to be able to
have pets.
I just do not understand where the chairman is coming from when we
are trying to simply allow what is already currently allowed in many,
many housing authorities throughout the country.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. The gentleman correctly states the intent of
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] that local housing
authorities will be able to determine whether pets will be allowed. I
find that perfectly acceptable. That is exactly what I am arguing for,
local control.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the bill allows local housing authorities
to come forward with the rules and regulations. The one thing that they
cannot do is say absolutely under no circumstances can a senior citizen
or a disabled person have a fine, quiet pet.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, therein lies the problem. I
agree. Local control allows the locals to decide whether pets should be
allowed or not, depending on their particular circumstance, but we are
not suggesting this in this amendment. We are suggesting in this
amendment they must do it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY. Currently, as my dear friend from New York knows, the
Federal law allows seniors to have pets in federally designated senior
housing and housing for the disabled. This merely extends that right to
seniors and the disabled in regular housing projects, and allows local
housing authorities to come forward with their own rules and
commonsense regulations.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I would ask the
chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services if, given
the fact that he is now stating, as I understand, that he is not
opposed to letting local housing authorities have the decision about
whether or not pets should be allowed, and recognizing that the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] in
fact provided that decision to be made in conjunction with the local
housing authority, the local housing authority would have to establish
the rules and regulations by which pets would be allowed within any
housing project. I would think that we are close enough that if we
huddle together for a few minutes, we might be able to work out some
language that would allow the option to be utilized at the local level
to enable people to have pets if they want them.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, completely protective in our
bill in preserving the right of seniors to have pets in senior-only
housing, I am also supportive and always have been supportive of
allowing local housing authorities to determine, based on their own
particular local circumstances, whether it makes sense to have pets in
mixed populations where seniors may want pets. I have no problem with
that.
I would be glad to try and work that out as long as we understand
that it is my principle and my intent to retain local control on the
decisionmaking.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Who does the gentleman not want to have
pets?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman from Massachusetts will yield
back, I do not want to make that decision at all. I want the local
community to make that decision.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that that is
all the intent of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Maloney].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would yield, Mr. Chairman,
that is the gentlewoman's intent and she is willing to make the
corrections. I would be happy to work with her. But the bill as
currently constituted would suggest that every housing authority----
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Hang on.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs.
Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, it would require every housing authority
to allow pets for seniors and the disabled in all Federal housing, not
just senior-designated, but it also allows the local housing authority
to come forward with their own commonsense rules and regulations.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Let us see if we can work it out.
Mrs. MALONEY. Legislating on the floor.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I say to the gentleman the problem is that you
will have a situation in some areas where one person in a particular
public housing hall will be allowed to have a pet. The person next door
will not be allowed to have a pet. We want to make sure that public
housing authorities have the discretion.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, I do
not think that the gentleman's faith in
[[Page H4621]]
the local housing authority's wisdom of suggesting that Mrs.
McGillicuddy is going to be able to have a dog, but Ms. Smith is not
going to be able to have a dog is a lot less than my faith in the local
housing authority.
Why do we not just leave this, give the right to have the dog to the
homeowners and allow the terms and conditions under what? The cat
maybe, if that is better. That will allow the dogs and the cats to be
decided, the rules and regulations, by the local housing authority.
What is wrong with that?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would yield, the difference
between our perspectives is that I would allow a local housing
authority that knows its neighborhoods and knows its building to make
that decision, and I think the gentlewoman's perspective is that
Washington knows best and that it knows what is best for every
community in the entire country.
If the gentlewoman is interested in working out, if the gentleman is
interested in working out a discretionary situation in terms of the
housing authorities, I am interested in pursuing that. But if the
gentleman or gentlewoman feels very strongly about the fact that this
must be a mandate, then we have a difference in opinion.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I do not think anybody is
suggesting, reclaiming my time, I do not think anybody suggesting a
mandate, but it is probably the first time that I have ever heard of a
Congressman running against cats and dogs.
But I say to the gentleman, go right ahead and do that territory, Mr.
Chairman, and you know I would urge, if we cannot find a way to work
this out, I urge us to go ahead and have a vote.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to know if the
gentleman from Long Island could maybe answer this. I keep hearing that
it is up to the local housing authority. I had thought I heard that
there was an amendment that said that every housing authority would be
required to administer this personal improvement plan.
Is that optional with the local housing authorities, the personal
improvement plan whereby every tenant, every working tenant, has to do
that?
I would ask the gentleman if he would yield to the gentleman from
Long Island.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] if he would yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio]?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Lazio].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. No, no, that is not optional, because that is
a matter of trying to transition people back into the work force.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So, in other words, Washington knows best
on that, and that is the one size fits all. That is a fair point that
ought to be made explicit.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. One vision is that we should be worried about
how many more animals would be allowed in public housing halls, and
another vision is, which is my vision, is how do we----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That is not the argument. The gentleman
shifts from substance to this, ``Oh, no, it is not up to us.'' It is up
to us. I think I understand the principle. It is up to us when we want
it to be up to us and it is not up to us when we do not want it to be.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I have been taking a look at
this amendment and I was wondering, the gentlewoman who is offering the
amendment, I do not want to be accused of being against dogs and cats
and pets. Being opposed to liberals is enough.
But let me ask my colleagues this:
Is pet defined in this amendment?
The gentlewoman said if it is a quiet pet.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment only allows common household
pets. It does not include exotic animals, reptiles or dangerous or
menacing animals, but common household pets.
Mr. ROTH. How about a pit bull that does not bite?
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, it would depend on the regulations of the
housing authority. Most housing authorities remove dogs, if I may
explain the definition.
Mr. ROTH. How about snakes? Now, snakes do not make a lot of noise,
and in Florida many people have snakes.
How about alligators? Alligators do not make a lot of noise, but some
people in Florida have little pet alligators.
This amendment is absolutely ridiculous. This is an idiotic
amendment. I have never seen anything as crazy as this.
As my colleagues know, I opened this file today on this amendment,
and what pops out is the regulations from HUD.
Now we are paying billions of dollars as taxpayers. That is why
American people are opposed to what is going on in Washington.
They have got 20 pages on cat litter. Think about it.
Look at this. I just want to read one sentence to my colleague:
In the case of cats and other pets using litter boxes the
pet rules may require the pet owner to change the litter but
not more than twice each week, may require pet owners to
separate pet waste from litter but not more than once a day,
and may prescribe methods for the disposal of pet waste and
used litter.
Twenty pages, and we are paying bureaucrats to draft this stuff?
{time} 2045
At quarter to 9 at night we are debating whether you can have a pit
bull in your apartment, come on; or whether a snake makes noise? And we
do not know whether we can have an alligator as a pet?
Mr. Chairman, let us vote this turkey down.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we all come from different districts. We all represent
different kinds of folks. But in my district, which is primarily a
rural, working-class district in which there is a limited amount of
public housing, the very idea that anyone, particularly a senior
citizen, would have to dispose of a beloved dog or a cat in order to
live in the center would be looked upon with total disbelief. It lacks
compassion, it lacks sensitivity, it lack everything that I think we
believe in.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the
gentleman, and I appreciate him yielding, that in fact seniors who
would like to have pets have many different vehicles if they need
assisted housing. They can use vouchers, they can use certificates,
they can go into all senior housing that allows pets. Getting into a
situation where some parts of the population in a particular housing
development can have pets and some cannot, in a particularly distressed
environment, makes no sense to me.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. WILSON. But, of course, the chairman of the committee knows that
they represent only 10 percent of the housing, and that there is a
waiting list of those people. The matter of fact is, and we would not
be discussing this in the first place, but the matter of fact is that
it is going to force people to dispose of pets. That is just absolutely
crazy.
In east Texas, to tell somebody that because they are forced into
public housing that they are going to have to get rid of their puppy,
is just nuts.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, in fact, the 1983 law still does not
cover
[[Page H4622]]
about 90 percent of all Federal housing, or 3.7 million units. This is
an issue of fairness. My amendment today would give those seniors and
disabled living in non-senior or disabled-designated federally assisted
housing the right to own pets.
As my colleague said, I received a letter from one of my constituents
who has had a pet for 12 years. She moved into public housing. They are
telling her that she must get rid of her pet. They sent information on
how the pet could be euthanized. She is desperate.
Mr. WILSON. Reclaiming the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, I have
many friends on the minority side and I have many friends on the
majority side. To my friends on the majority side, particularly those
that are from rural districts, and especially those that are from rural
southern districts, I would advise extreme caution on this vote.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would say first of all to my colleague, the gentleman
from Texas, there is nothing in the bill that relates to pets. The bill
is silent on the subject of pets. The debate here has been about
whether or not we require housing authorities to accept pets. I think
we have heard the expression of the chairman of the committee. He is
quite willing to leave that authority to the housing authorities
themselves, whether or not an under what conditions they want to have
pets.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize again
that we are preserving current law, so people who have pets, seniors
who have pets now in public housing and in all senior developments,
will be allowed to keep their pets. Nobody is saying to anybody that
they have to dispose of their pets if they are already in public
housing. What we are saying is that by extending this into a
development where some people can have pets in a particular building,
but some people cannot, is going to create enormous tension. It creates
a huge mandate on public housing authorities who are worrying
desperately about how to transition people back to work, how to keep
families together, how to take care of the basic elements of quality of
life without introducing or compounding the problems for housing
authorities in terms of the management of those particular buildings
that are under strees.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York. This amendment ensures that any elderly or
disabled person in federally assisted housing, even federally assisted
housing that is not specifically senior citizen housing, can have a
pet. This is important for all the obvious reasons, which I will not
repeat; but in addition we know, based upon scientific research, that
older people with pets live longer, go to the doctor less often, and
recover more quickly from illnesses. The lives of elderly and disabled
persons, people in New York City and in the rest of the country, would
be dramatically improved by this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of nonsensical arguments tonight on
this amendment. Let me address a few of them. We have heard, What about
snakes, what about reptiles? This amendment refers to common household
pets. It allows almost complete regulation by the local housing
authority, other than saying, ``not under any circumstances.''
We have heard, Mr. Chairman, the particularly hypocritical argument
about Washington knows best. Let me particularly address the chairman
of the subcommittee on this point.
Let me particularly address the chairman of the subcommittee on this
point, because he got up a few minutes ago and said that this amendment
says Washington knows best. Let me say, yes, it does. We all say
Washington knows best sometimes. We passed an amendment on this floor
yesterday with four dissenting votes, a bill, four dissenting votes, 42
to 4, that said that every State must amend its law to provide for
community notification when a sexual criminal is released from prison.
Must. We did not give them a choice. We said they must. Thirty-five
States must change their laws or else they will lose Federal aid,
because we thought we knew best. I voted for it. Every Member sitting
in this Chamber here voted for it, because most of us thought in that
instance Washington knew best.
Mr. Chairman, an amendment on the floor a few hours ago to this bill
itself says that we are going to say we are going to force the housing
authorities to institute these personal improvement plans to have
working people, whose only fault is that they do not earn enough money
because we will not raise the minimum wage, and because of economic
forces beyond their control they have to have personal improvement
plans. If the New York City Housing Authority thinks this is nuts, that
is too bad, they had better do it or they will lose their Federal aid,
because Members on that side of the aisle think Washington knows best
in that instance.
Mr. Chairman, to give one other example, we passed a welfare reform
bill that says States must institute time limits, States must do
various things or they will lose their Federal aid. I am not going to
debate the wisdom of those things. The point is this House determined
by majority vote that Washington knows best in that instance, too. The
only difference between many of us, among many of us on the floor, is
that some of us are honest enough to say that we will judge, that is
our job as Members of this House, we will judge when and under what
circumstances we think that Washington knows best, and when and under
what circumstances we think it is more appropriate to leave a question
to local control. The question here is, is this appropriate to leave to
local control, or is this appropriate, as the gentleman on that side of
the aisle thought it appropriate, to mandate personal improvement plans
to say Washington knows best in this instance? What are we saying that
Washington knows best about, what policy judgment? It is our job to
make policy judgments.
We are saying that Washington knows best that senior citizens,
disabled people, are entitled to have common household pets if they
want to. If the local housing authority wants to limit that in various
ways, wants to regulate that in any way they want, it is a local
decision. We will make the one policy that they cannot say ``not under
any circumstances.'' We have made that policy decision, by the way, in
the law, if they live within senior citizen and disabled household
projects. Now we are going to make it for other assisted projects.
What are we afraid of? I heard some rhetoric on that side of the
aisle before, that we have crime in the projects committed by the
senior citizens and the disabled or their pets, that we have gangs
running through the projects. Not the pets of senior citizens, they are
not the gangs. They are not committing murder and mayhem. I doubt that.
Who are we afraid of? Who are we protecting? The fact is, the rhetoric
about local control is just that: rhetoric. We all believe in local
control under some circumstances. We all believe Washington ought to
dictate policy in some circumstances. We disagree when. We disagree
when it is appropriate. That is fine.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, let us not hear as an argument that
Washington should not try to dictate to the local governments; because
sometimes we do in this very bill. Sometimes we do not. The question
is, is it appropriate, and why is it appropriate or not appropriate?
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add to my
colleague's statement that this is a very bipartisan effort. The lead
sponsor is the gentlewoman from New York, Susan Molinari. We have 57
Republican cosponsors, and 63 Democrats cosponsors. It has been very
much a bipartisan effort.
[[Page H4623]]
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that
the sentiment that sometimes we ought to make decisions here and not
leave everything to local government is more or less equally shared on
both sides of the aisle.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio],
chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York just
said we judge. We judge, we make the judgments, but we do not live with
the consequences of those judgments. We can send out a press release
and think we have done something very important. We can take care of a
political constituency. But who is watching out for the people in
public housing? Obviously, nobody, for the people living in 200,000
units that are supervised by some of the most dysfunctional corrupt
housing authorities in America.
For 17 years people have tolerated the failure, have tolerated the
fact that these buildings are poorly maintained, they are infested in
many cases with drugs and crime. Who cares about them? We are debating
pets right now. I want to ask, where were some of these voices in
outrage when people were trapped in poverty, when families could not
transition back to the marketplace, where halls are sealed off so drug
dealers can make their deals in the hallways, and people cannot move
through?
Mr. Chairman, we are talking about putting pets back in the hands of
people where we have mixed populations. We expect people to supervise
them, housing authorities. Which housing authority is it that we
believe will be able to correctly supervise this with the problems they
already have on their hands? Maybe it is New Orleans, who is scoring 27
out of a possible score of 100, or the District of Columbia, that
scores 33 out of a possible 100, or maybe Chicago, 44, or Pittsburgh,
47: failing scores, all troubled since the inception of this back in
1979.
Do we care about helping those people already in there? Do we care
about creating an environment where people can transition back to the
marketplace, or do we care about the next press release and a
particular constituency, taking care of a particular association for
more votes, so we can introduce more pets in what is already a
troubled, difficult environment?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHRLICH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that the gentleman from Long
Island eloquently denounced several housing authorities, and I agree,
but he is the one who says leave this to the housing authority. How in
the name of a policy which says let us leave it all in the hands of the
local housing authority does he decide that the way to argue for it is
to denounce local housing authorities?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, I will explain to the gentleman exactly how that will happen.
The housing authorities that are chronically on this list of troubled
housing authorities, under this bill we would say, no more. We are not
going to tolerate failure anymore. We are not going to continue to
spend Federal dollars and condemn Americans living in public and
assisted housing that is disgraceful to live under those conditions,
because we are too complacent and/or it alienates our political
constituency.
We say we are not going to penalize those communities, we are going
to get the money to those communities, but we are going to bypass these
dysfunctional, mismanaged, corrupt housing authorities and give the
money to the people in the communities that are really making a
difference: the community development corporations, the not-for-
profits, the resident management groups, the people with firsthand
experience who are innovating, who are doing a good job. We are not
going to keep giving money to these corrupt housing authorities. That
is the difference with this bill on the floor and what has been done
over the last 30 years of tolerance of failure. We are going to expect
excellence and demand excellence.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
{time} 2100
Mr. Chairman, I would like to put a face on what has been a very
charged debate, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for
her wisdom, and the collective body of members of the committee for
seeing the wisdom in recognizing the value of giving human dignity to
seniors and the disabled.
There are good housing authorities and there are bad housing
authorities. In Houston we have a housing authority that has promoted
activities for youth, training, allowed residents to participate in
certain instance.
On the other hand, we cannot say that all decisions of housing
authorities across this Nation are the right decisions. They do not sit
as some royal decisionmaker that cannot be challenged.
The face I would like to put on this amendment is that of Eileen
Hobbs in the Allen Parkway Village. I visited Miss Hobbs just about a
week or so ago, living in conditions that would warrant improvement,
homebound and in a wheelchair, with two dogs, her friends, her doggies,
if you would call it, her companions, and yet intimidated that she
might not be able to keep these long-lasting friends who she said have
kept her alive, pure and simple, because there would be those in the
housing authority who would determine that she might not be able to
keep these long-time companions.
Someone who lives their life alone and yet has the opportunity to
interact with the kind of companion that an animal may give them, that
some of us may not understand. Why should we make those who live in
public housing second-class citizens?
It clearly shows that when we have an opportunity for someone like a
Miss Hobbs to have enhanced life, we should not give her a second-class
status from seniors who live elsewhere, from those of us who have as
many cats and dogs as we might desire. It is well known that pet
ownership gives a psychological boost and is beneficial to seniors and
the disabled.
I can only share with you, Mr. Chairman, this actual face of Eileen
Hobbs, the fear, the apprehension, and the devastation of losing her
companions.
This is a fair bill. This allows the participation of the housing
authority, but it recognizes the value and importance of what has to be
emphasized for those who live in a housing authority. They have rights,
too, and those rights are to have a companion, and we should not take
this jokingly. This is a serious issue, and I rise to support this
amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words, and I rise in favor of the amendment.
I have been listening to the debate in my office on C-SPAN, and I was
not going to speak, but I am a cosponsor of the amendment. I am a
Republican. I consider myself to be a conservative.
I had a grandmother who lived in public housing. She passed away
several years ago at the age of 95. There were four units in her
housing complex in a small town in central Texas. I do not know if it
was a local regulation or a Federal regulation, but she was not allowed
to have a pet. I think she should have been allowed to.
The gentlewoman from New York Susan Molinari, is the chief sponsor on
this amendment with the gentlewoman who has been debating it on the
floor on the Democratic side, and I hope that we do pass it.
I want our colleagues to know that this is a bipartisan issue. It
crosses party lines, and at least one person on this side who is in
favor of it is going to vote for it and speak for it. Hopefully we will
allow those senior citizens who want to have pets to let the local
housing authority allow them to have pets.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to associate myself with
the gentleman's remarks. The gentleman and I represent districts that
are very much alike. We both know how important it is to people in
public housing
[[Page H4624]]
projects in Crockett and in Normangee and Lufkin and in Toyahvale and
in Huntington. I just want to compliment the gentleman on his remarks
and his judgment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I want
to be in favor of it.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York
[Mr. Nadler].
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have one simple question to ask the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, if he is here. The question
I have is the following:
The gentleman spoke eloquently a few minutes ago about dysfunctional
housing authorities that are not fulfilling their functions, wasting
money, hurting people, et cetera. You are going to bypass those housing
authorities in this bill and you are going to give money directly
through tenant vouchers, et cetera. My question is simply this. In
terms of this amendment, where you say you want to let local housing
authorities make this decision and we should not mandate the decision,
we are going to bypass these housing authorities because they are
incompetent, who will make the decision as to whether we should allow
senior citizens and disabled people to have pets, the nonexistent local
housing authorities or the dysfunctional housing authorities?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. The dysfunctional housing authorities would
effectually be defunded under the plan that we have before us. Those
that are highly functioning will be given the flexibility that they all
request and all deserve.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard that before. I am asking a
question you are not answering. In those districts where you are
defunding the local housing authority, where there are bad and
dysfunctional and horrible housing authorities, if a senior citizen, a
disabled person in a housing project in that area wants to have a pet,
who will make that decision whether it is okay or not?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue
to yield, the way this bill operated, which is not the way it has
operated, gave discretion to the housing authority. The individual
vendor that controlled the management of the units would make the call,
if they were operating successfully, in conjunction with an evaluation
effectively by HUD.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Illinois will yield,
I thought the gentleman from New York just said there was no
functioning housing authority there, in which case, who would make the
decision?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman will yield further, if the
housing authority, as is the case for many housing authorities, is
chronically dysfunctional, ends up getting defunded, what happens is
HUD is required to bid out the work that is done by this chronically
dysfunctional housing authority, allow management groups, resident
management groups, and not-for-profits or for-profits to do the work
the housing authorities were previously supposed to be doing but were
not doing.
Mr. NADLER. So in other words, in those areas where there are
dysfunctional or incompetent housing authorities, no public agency
would make the decision. It would be left up to some private agency.
There would not be any public policy body in either the local housing
authority, which you have defunded, nor the Congress nor HUD.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, that is not a decision that will
be made here in Congress. It will be a decision made on various
applications.
Mr. NADLER. Made by whom?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. HUD will decide who is exactly awarded
contracts to do the work that the housing authority was supposed to do,
or the not-for-profit or for-profit.
Mr. NADLER. The decision will be made here in Washington by HUD?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. No. If the gentleman from Illinois will yield
again, the decision ultimately, under what I am suggesting, will be
made by the local housing authority itself or the successor to the
housing authority, as opposed to mandating it.
Mr. NADLER. As I understand what the gentleman is saying, if you have
a functional housing authority, they will make the decision. But with
respect to my question where you do not have a functioning housing
authority, HUD will decide on who is actually going to manage it and
that private agency will make the decision.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman would yield, once again it
does not have to be private. It could be a not-for-profit, it could be
a management resident group, it could be a public entity. It cannot be
the same mismanaged, dysfunctional housing authority. They are not
going to get the money anymore.
Mr. NADLER. It would not be the dysfunctional housing authority but
we would not make the decision.
Let me simply submit that this whole dialogue or colloquy is a good
argument why in this instance on the basic policy question, not the
details which we can leave to the locals but on the basic policy that
senior citizens and disabled people should not be denied pets in public
housing, that we are entitled and we should utilize this opportunity to
make this decision by adopting the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with great curiosity, intensity
to this debate. We are saying that we are passing this bill and we are
bringing this legislation in order to give control to the local housing
authorities and to get Washington out of the business of public
housing. That has been the argument time and time again. But those are
the very people that we say we have to take control away from because
they are so corrupt and inept in providing the services, but we are
going to give them more power so they can correct the corruptness and
ineptness of everything that they do.
Then they say, well, if they do not start behaving and they do not
start providing quality, affordable housing, then what we are going to
do is we are going to bring in Washington, DC. We are going to bring in
HUD to take them over. I thought we were getting out of the business of
managing the local housing authorities and giving them more control,
but if they do not abide by whatever standards or rules that we are
going to impose upon them, then of course HUD takes over.
The last time I checked, HUD was a Federal agency, unless my friends
on the other side of the aisle have eliminated it.
So HUD then comes and takes over. But then we are expected to
believe, if we listen to the chairman, that what is going to happen is
that HUD, the Federal Government, who we want to get out of the
business, is going to go in there and correct the problem. Because HUD
has then got to go in there and correct the problem and make sure that
they can find people to provide the services that the local housing
authority was not able to provide, if they do not abide by the rules.
I do now know whether we are in the business or trying to get out of
the business or we are back in the business again. But it seems to me
that we have to stop using this idiotic kind of argument that what we
are doing here is empowering local governments and localities, because
if that was the truth, and I just brought down because I think that
this is very interesting, section (b), page 9, the tenant self-
sufficiency contract:
Except as provided in subsection (c), each local housing
and management authority shall require, as a condition of
occupancy of a public housing dwelling unit by a family and
of providing. . . . The terms of a self-sufficiency contract
under this subsection shall be established pursuant to
consultation between the authority and the family.
Now we are going to get the public housing authority to sit down with
each and every family, and be their social worker and sit down with
them, but we are not going to provide day care. And if they say, ``You
know, if I only had a raise in the minimum wage, I might be able to do
better and reach self-sufficiency,'' we are not going to do anything
about that.
Then it says kinds of, well, if they have a problem related to
education,
[[Page H4625]]
we are going to reduce how much money we send to the people can get an
education, college loans and deduction, but we want them to receive a
self-sufficiency contract.
Then it says substance abuse and alcohol abuse, job training and
skills training. They have to get job training, but we are going to
reduce the amount of money that the House of Representatives is going
to send for job training and skills training.
I do not know how it is we expect them to keep this contract if at
the same time the House of Representatives is going to diminish the
funding for each and every one of these categories.
But the one thing we will be able to do, we will allow the local
housing authorities one power: That is to say to them, ``We are going
to give you less money, we are going to give you fewer resources to
deal with the issues,'' but we are going to give the local housing
authorities the ability to raise the rent for everyone of these
tenants.
{time} 2115
We are going to be able to allow those housing authorities to change
the venue of people. I think that this bill is clear to anybody who
really examines it and looks at it. It is not about local housing
authorities and empowering local housing authorities. It is about
washing our hands, as Pontius Pilate did, of the poor and the destitute
and those that have no hope in America, saying that this Congress is
going to turn its back on them also. Because I just cannot understand
how on the one hand we want to get out of people's lives, this is a
Congress that says let us get out of people's personal lives. Congress
and the Federal Government is involved in people's personal lives.
We want less government, we want less intrusion in the day-to-day
affairs. But then they are going to tell every local housing authority,
set up a contract on substance abuse, education, tell me when you are
graduating from high school, how you are going to get there and when
you are going to get there, but do not expect us to help you. Just tell
us how you are going to get there, and I want you to sign this
contract. If you do not sign it, you are out.
I thought we were about less government, less intrusion in people's
lives. But it seems to me we are about more intrusion, when we want to
destroy an institution. But it does not surprise me very much, because
as I look at the status of the House GOP Contract With America, given
where that contract is at today, I do not expect this will have much
success either.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I had been out at a meeting for the last hour or so,
and came back into my office, and the TV was running, and the sound had
been turned down, the staff was doing some work. As I watched the
debate in which we apparently are still engaged, I looked at it and I
saw the passion that seemed to be apparent on the faces of the folks on
the other side of the aisle and the gesturing, and so forth, and I
thought, well, let me turn the sound up, they are probably talking
about something for which passion is required and for which important
issues and important principles are at stake, such as those with which
I was somewhat familiar as a U.S. attorney in prosecuting cases
involving public housing units, matters such as drug trafficking,
matters such as drive-by shootings, matters such as child abuse,
matters that really do require our attention, because they affect the
lives of the people in those homes, in those projects.
But yet when I reached over and turned the volume up on the TV, I
hear that they are not talking about drug trafficking, murder, child
abuse, fraud, or something important. We are talking about pets. Pets.
I would respectfully urge my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle who continually chide us when we want to bring up a piece of
substantive legislation with cries of ``Oh, there are more important
issues. Why are you bringing up this issue that we believe is not so
important,'' I would urge them respectfully to get a life. Let us focus
on the true issues that are important to the people whose lives are at
stake, whose lives are being snuffed out by crime, by drug trafficking,
by drive-by shootings, by child abuse in these projects, and let us
move on.
I think, I truly do think, that the American people believe there are
matters slightly more weighty to be consuming hours of the time of the
Congress of the United States than pets.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I really do not understand why the gentleman on the
other side of the aisle will not accept the gentlewoman's amendment to
allow an elderly woman to have a pet in a home. Just because a person
living in public housing, for crying out loud, does not mean they ought
not have the quality of life of everybody else. Even the President of
the United States of America has a pet in his home.
But I want to yield to the gentleman, I would like to if the
gentleman would respond, and that is on public housing, I loud like to
yield to the gentleman from New York, because I have a particular
problem about some of the things even in the manager's amendment,
because reading the manager's amendment, for example, the gentleman's
amendment from New York, it says, ``A tenant who is elected to the
housing authority or to that housing board, cannot serve as a
representative of the board if he or she was convicted of a misdemeanor
in a 5-year period.''
I am trying to find out what is the rationale of telling a person who
lives in public housing, for crying out loud, they cannot serve on a
board if they were convicted of a traffic ticket? If they were
convicted of a parking ticket? If they go a ticket for jaywalking?
The gentleman continues to talk about how he wants to give the people
in this country the opportunity to participate in their decisions and
take it away from Washington and take it away from all these
bureaucracies across America, but yet he tells the poor citizens who
lives in a public housing facility that he or she cannot serve if they
have been convicted of a misdemeanor. Not a felony, but a misdemeanor,
for the past 5 years.
I would like to yield to the gentleman because I would like to know
why the gentleman would put such strict requirements on members elected
to the board who serve in housing facilities.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all, with
respect to the gentleman's initial comment, what I am advocating is
that those people who seek public housing live in the same world that
people who go out there and look for an apartment to live in, which is
to say if you go look for an apartment and you are lucky enough----
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the last
time I checked, there is nothing wrong with a person looking for an
apartment and filing out an application who has been convicted of a
parking violation. I do not understand the rationale. I can understand
felonies, but I do not understand the rationale of a misdemeanor.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about two
different things. I am trying to address the initial request about
pets.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Why is it so difficult for a person to serve
on a board if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman will yield, our position is
that we are trying to provide professional management in very troubled
situations. We are trying to eliminate people who are convicted
criminals from a fiduciary relationship in terms of boards.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. If I got a parking ticket yesterday, I am a
convicted criminal? If I got a ticket in Washington, DC., I cannot
serve on a board. Yes or no, is that not correct?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. The gentleman misstates the law. Parking
tickets are not a misdemeanor.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. A parking ticket is a misdemeanor. What
about if I got a traffic ticket? What about jaywalking? Then you take a
5-year period.
Second, why do we not impose this same requirement on the Members of
Congress? Why do we not say to America you cannot run for the U.S.
Congress if you have been convicted of a
[[Page H4626]]
misdemeanor in the past 5 years? I would ask the question to the
Members of this Congress, how many of us would be able to qualify to
run for office if we could not run if we were convicted of a traffic
ticket in a 5-year period?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, I do not mean to be condescending at all, but there are two
classes of crimes, felonies and misdemeanors. There is another class of
offenses that go by a variety of names, including lesser offenses.
Different States call them different names, but they are not crimes. A
misdemeanor is a higher level of crime. It is something that you go to
jail for. It is not a parking ticket, it is not a traffic infraction,
it is not jaywalking. It is none of those things.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in my
State you can go to jail for not paying a traffic ticket. In my State a
traffic ticket is a misdemeanor. In the State I come from a traffic
ticket, a moving violation, is a misdemeanor and you can in fact go to
jail for it.
What I am trying to understand, and I would hope the gentleman would
think about this overnight, because tomorrow I am going to try to take
this out of this bill and I would hope the gentleman would agree with
me, it makes no sense whatsoever to penalize a person who lives in
public housing to the extent they cannot serve on a board simply
because they got a ticket for jaywalking or parking.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope we could move toward a vote here. I think
a lot of people in the Chamber would hope we could move toward a vote.
I would urge the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] to maybe take the
request of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] under
consideration about the misdemeanor issue. He has got a number of other
issues that we are going to have to work on between now and tomorrow
morning, and maybe we can all get together and try to work out some of
the concerns that he has, and maybe we can see if we can urge all the
Members to allow us to get to the vote on the three issues. I assume
this will have a recorded vote. We can then get on to the Brooke
amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is going to
try to protect.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to continue an
ongoing discussion with any and all Members of the minority to try to
resolve some of the concerns, as I tried to do throughout the process.
So we will keep talking to see if there is some way we can resolve our
differences.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
would urge a vote on the Maloney amendment, and hope we can get to it
very, very shortly.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, just a few words in response to some of the
things that have been said. I am well aware of the data saying that
ownership of a pet can be helpful, and that is an important factor. I
also recognize that this has been a partisan debate, and I cannot
imagine why this should be a partisan issue, debating pet ownership.
But I also want to respond to someone who raised the point earlier
and wanted to bring a human face to the issue and talked about a person
who is having difficulty getting a pet in public housing. I would also
like to put a human face on this debate, and that face is mine.
I happen to have intense allergies to animals, particularly dogs,
cats and horses. I cannot be in a home that has a dog or a cat, even if
they are absent from the premises, for more than a half hour at most.
When I first read that pets were being introduced into nursing homes
and rest homes, I had an involuntary shudder. I thought if that happens
and it appears in all nursing homes and rest homes, I will never be
able to go to one. When we talk about public housing, we should be
aware that there are lot of people who have allergies.
Now, I have never talked about my handicap before. It was enough of a
handicap that I never went to school until I was college age. I had to
be in my home, because I invariably got sick when I went to school, so
I was home schooled, not by choice, but out of necessity.
I think I have always felt that handicap is my problem, it is not
someone else's problem. So if I am near someone smoking, I do not ask
them to put out their cigarette, I move away. It is my problem.
But if you are talking about a public housing situation, I think we
have to be extremely careful about offering amendments or adopting
amendments that will restrict the ability of local governments to deal
with people who have handicaps, such as mine. And there are many,
perhaps not as severe as mine, but there are many who have them.
So I advocate a voice of reason on this matter and simply say, why
not allow the local authorities to make the decision? Why not allow
them to designate a particular building to be pet-free, or a wing to be
pet-free, things of that sort, rather than adopting an amendment that
says thou shalt admit those with pets.
So I am asking for some reason, some consideration, some
thoughtfulness on this amendment, rather than prescribing precisely
what they have to do.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his very sincere
comments, and I offered a human face. The gentleman has offered a human
face. Seeing this 82-year-old lady crying about her companions that she
had had for years, I think there are two sides to that story of
allowing local control. The question becomes when you allow local
control and they would totally eliminate the opportunity for you to
have in your self-contained apartment the rights to a pet that would
not interfere with someone who may have had the condition that the
gentleman now expresses.
So I think there are two sides to this story. I appreciate the
gentleman's offering, but we face the same uphill battle when one would
have local control who say absolutely not, even without the kinds of
conditions.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that sounds like a good
alternative, but, unfortunately, it does not work. With anyone with
high sensitivity and today's modern ventilation system, which
circulates air throughout all rooms in all apartments in a wing or
building, it simply does not work. I cannot live in the same building
with someone who has a pet. Whenever I find an apartment, as I do here,
I immediately ask whether the entire building is pet-free.
{time} 2130
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am surprised my friends are not barking. I have been
fascinated by the debate, too. What strikes me is the fact that this is
a very interesting debate about fundamental differences in philosophy,
because I know of no one on our side who does not want elderly people
who live in public housing or elsewhere to have a pet if they want a
pet. And then, they ought to find the kind of housing that allows them
to have that pet. So, I mean those are things that can be put together
as a result of local control.
But here, Mr. Chairman, is the problem in what we are now debating.
We have costly, outdated Government programs that are costing taxpayers
hundreds of millions of dollars a year, that are enriching trial
lawyers, that are giving jobs to lawyers to do nothing but write
regulations. And here is a perfect example of everything that has gone
wrong in these programs directly out of Washington, because here is a
program where we have 20 pages of regulations telling folks how to take
care of their pet. Twenty pages of regulations that trial lawyers can
then use to take on public housing authorities or take on owners of
buildings or whatever, take on the owners of the pets. Twenty pages of
regulations telling people everything that they can do, including how
many times a day they should dump the cat litter.
[[Page H4627]]
Mr. Chairman, I would simply suggest that when Washington, DC, begins
writing regulations in that kind of detail, we have gotten to the point
where Government is too costly, we have outdated programs, and the fact
is, that that is the reason why taxpayers are suffering under such a
huge burden of overtaxation.
We ought not extend this program further. We ought to get to the idea
of local controls so that people can have real options about whether or
not they are going to have pets in their apartment. But let us stop the
madness that suggests that the only people that run this town are the
trial lawyers who want as many regulations written as possible so there
can be as many suits as possible. Twenty pages of regulations on how to
take care of your pet in the Government code is an absolute absurdity.
Reject the amendment.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I was over in my office and I could not hardly believe
what I was hearing when I was listening over there, so I decided to
come over and add my 2 cents to the rest of the discussion.
Mr. Chairman, as one who has been a pet owner almost all of my life,
when I was growing up with dogs and cats and pigeons and everything
else you can think of, and as one when we had our children, we had dogs
and cats and things like that.
Mr. Chairman, I am getting to the point where I am 65. I am getting
elderly. When I go home tonight, I have got a cat there. Old Bear has
been with me for 16 years. Now, if I happen to be in a senior citizens
complex someplace, I probably could not have old Bear. Old Bear would
have to be put out and go to a new home and it would probably kill him.
Or Bear would probably have to end up in a pond and that would be the
end of him.
Mr. Chairman, I get a lot of solace in Bear. I will be honest, Bear
comes up to me and when I go home and open up that door tonight after
all of this silly discussion on whether people should have pets,
because I think there is no reason for them to not have pets, when I
open that door Bear is going to be upstairs. But as soon as I open that
door, Bear comes running and Bear will be at that door to greet me.
The first thing he is going to want to do is he is going to want
something to eat, because I have not been there all day and he was not
eaten since breakfast and he is going to be hungry. It is going to be
my ability to be able to feed Bear and hear him purr and have him rub
up against my leg that is going to make me feel pretty good.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have a wife anymore at home. I have got Bear,
and Bear is a heck of a lot better as a friend and companion than some
of the Members of this body, I will be honest. I would much rather be
at home with Bear than be here.
So, I would appreciate it very much if Members would permit senior
citizens all over this country to have that same feeling. It is a good
feeling. It provides homeliness to a person. It is really like family,
believe it or not. Bear is family to me. He is not like my sons and
daughters, but he is family.
I cannot see the reasoning behind the people that think that pets are
not really part of an upbringing of a child, if they have been with you
for a long time since birth, like Bear. Bear was born of Tiger and
Tiger died back this December and Bear does not have Tiger anymore as a
mom. Bear has Harold and that is all.
Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it very much if the Members would
see fit to let other elderly such as myself to be able to have a pet
also, even if it is in the senior citizen housing complex, because I
think it would be a big help to them when they come home some evening
and they would like to have Bear, or somebody like Bear, around to purr
and give them a little friendliness.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman New York [Mrs. Maloney]
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
when the Frank amendment numbered 7 in the printed copy is considered,
debate on the amendment and all amendments thereto shall be limited to
60 minutes, equally divided between Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and a
Member opposed.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I have not raised this before, then the assumption is that the
vote on that would follow immediately after the close of the debate? I
assume we would not be rolling that vote? The vote would come
immediately at the close of the debate?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield,
yes, that is my understanding.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation
of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
amendment offered by mr. fields of louisiana
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158,
noes 254, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 154]
AYES--158
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Geren
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martini
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (FL)
Poshard
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tauzin
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Whitfield
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Zimmer
NOES--254
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
[[Page H4628]]
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--21
Becerra
Bentsen
Chapman
de la Garza
Dooley
Gephardt
Gibbons
Hayes
Houghton
Johnson, Sam
Laughlin
McDade
Molinari
Oxley
Pelosi
Rangel
Schroeder
Weldon (PA)
Wise
Yates
Young (FL)
{time} 2159
Messrs. COMBEST, RADANOVICH, POMEROY, and SHADEGG changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. BALDACCI and Mr. ZIMMER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 2200
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to title I?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the prior unanimous-consent agreement regarding my amendment No. 7
be modified so that the modified version of amendment No. 7 be the one
considered tomorrow morning.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title I?
amendment offered by mr. solomon
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. SOLOMON: Section 105 of the bill
(relating to occupancy limitation based on illegal drug use
and alcohol abuse), at end of the section add the following
new subsection:
(d) Limitation on Admission of Persons Convicted of Drug-
Related Offenses.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, each local housing and management authority shall
prohibit admission and occupancy to public housing dwelling
units by, and assistance under title III to, any person who,
after the date of the enactment of this Act, has been
convicted of illegal possession with intent to sell any
controlled substance (as such term is defined in the
Controlled Substances Act). This subsection may not be
construed to require the termination of tenancy of eviction
of any member of a household residing in public housing, or
the termination of assistance of any member of an assisted
family, who is not a person described in the preceding
sentence.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. SOLOMON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Am I correct in understanding that there are no more
recorded votes this evening on this legislation or any other
legislation, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SOLOMON. So there is no reason for Members to hang around in the
well to be discourteous.
The CHAIRMAN. Members should listen to this debate. The Chair prefers
that they not do it in the well.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
yield, before we send a signal to Members that they can leave the well,
anyone that has an amendment on this bill ought not to leave this well
and ought not to leave this room until we have an agreement worked out
as to what amendments might be discussed this evening. I just want to
have everybody protected until we have an agreement with the other side
about what amendments might still come forward this evening, despite
the fact that there might not be a recorded vote tonight.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts has good advice.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman; I will be very, very brief on my
amendment. What this amendment simply does is say that anyone who is
convicted of selling illegal drugs no longer will have access to and be
able to live in public subsidized housing. It does not affect the rest
of the family, should one person have to give up his residency there
because of that act.
Let me just say that President Clinton just recently has stated a
policy of one strike and you are out. He has suggested this to all of
the housing authorities throughout the country. What this does is
codify it into law; and we have to ask ourselves, Why codify it into
law?
Mr. Chairman, I know that where we have this terrible, terrible
situation of terrorism in public housing throughout the country, that
we have intimidation of the managers and the members of the housing
authority, so they are hesitant to kick out these drug dealers, these
people that have been convicted of selling drugs in these housing
establishments. What this amendment does, it simply codifies into law
what the President has asked that the authorities do.
Assistant Secretary Andrew Cuomo, who is the son of the former
Governor of New York, came up to Albany, NY, stating that ``We are
going to get to the bottom of this and we are going to get rid of these
people and kick them out of these public housing establishments.'' This
is a follow-up on that. It is going to put teeth into it, and
therefore, I think the amendment is going to be accepted on both sides
of the aisle, and I would urge acceptance of my amendment.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York,
I think this is an excellent measure. I just have a question. If there
is a mom with three kids and one of the kids gets caught selling drugs,
do the mom and the other two kids have to leave?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, absolutely
not. They are entitled to, in the last sentence, at the recommendation
of my good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts, Joe Kennedy, when
he appeared before the Committee on Rules today, he called to my
attention that particular problem, the way the amendment was drafted.
This means that if a brother or sister or father or mother or
daughter or son is convicted, that they are out. None of the others has
to leave under any circumstances.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the changes the gentleman made in terms of
the substance of the amendment and making certain that innocent
individuals that have perpetrated no crime are not going to be
inadvertently punished as a result of what I think is a straightforward
protection of people in public housing. We ought to try to do
everything we can to get rid of drug dealers and repeat offenders. I
think his amendment is well-intentioned and well thought through, and I
support it. I urge support of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
amendment offered by Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page H4629]]
Amendment offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana: In section
103(b)(5)(i) of the bill (as amended by the manager's
amendment)
(1) at the end of subclause (I), insert ``and''; and
(2) strike ``and'' at the end of subclause (II) and all
that follows through the end of subclause (III).
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very
simple and straightforward amendment. I talked about this amendment
earlier. In the manager's amendment, it simply goes in and strikes out
the portion that deals with the 5-year misdemeanor. That is not a
requirement of anyone else who serves on a board. It should not be a
requirement of a person, simply because they live in public housing,
who serves on a board.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we take that portion and that portion
only out of the manager's amendment, which will simply provide for all
the other rules and regulations, or election requirements, rather,
under the amendment, but it would take out the portion that when the
tenants have an election, one will not be subject to the provision that
says that if you have been convicted of a misdemeanor, not a felony but
a misdemeanor in the past 5 years, you cannot run for a seat on the
board.
I do not know if there are any objections to that amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me. I would tell the gentleman, we would be happy to accept
the gentleman's amendment, in the spirit of cooperation. I think we
have dealt with the issue to ensure that there is fiduciary
responsibility by eliminating people who have felony conviction
backgrounds, which I think is an important objective in terms of
ensuring that we have integrity on the boards. So I am happy to take
the amendment, and look forward to continuing to work with the
gentleman on this.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
amendment no. 5 offered by mr. fields of louisiana
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer one final amendment
printed in the Record, amendment No. 5.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana: Page
17, after line 17, insert the following new subsection:
(d) Local Advisory Board.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), each
local housing and management authority shall establish one or
more local advisory boards in accordance with this
subsection, the membership of which shall adequately reflect
and represent all of the residents of the dwelling units
owned, operated, or assisted by the local housing and
management authority.
(2) Membership.--Each local advisory board established
under this subsection shall be composed of the following
members:
(A) Tenants.--Not less than 60 percent of the members of
the board shall be tenants of dwelling units owned, operated,
or assisted by the local housing and management authority,
including representatives of any resident organizations.
(B) Other members.--The members of the board, other than
the members described in subparagraph (A), shall include--
(i) representatives of the community in which the local
housing and management authority is located; and
(ii) local government officials of the community in which
the local housing and management authority is located.
(3) Purpose.--Each local advisory board established under
this subsection shall assist and make recommendations
regarding the development of the local housing management
plan for the authority. The local housing and management
authority shall consider the recommendations of the local
advisory board in preparing the final local housing
management plan, and shall include a copy of those
recommendations in the local housing management plan
submitted to the Secretary under section 107.
(4) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirements of
this subsection with respect to tenant representation on the
local advisory board of a local housing and management
authority, if the authority demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the Secretary that a resident council or other tenant
organization of the local housing and management authority
adequately represents the interests of the tenants of the
authority.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple
amendment. It simply provides that each of the housing authorities have
or create an advisory council. We have just voted whereby members can
serve on a board; only one tenant, as the bill was presently perfected,
only one person can actually serve on a board who lives in a housing
facility.
This amendment is very simple. It provides for an advisory board.
That advisory board will not be 100 percent residents. That advisory
board will be 60 percent residents, which means that the advisory board
will take 60 percent of its membership from the actual residents of the
housing facility, and they will simply make recommendations, not rules
and regulations, but only recommendations to the actual board. We would
hope as a result of this, this board will take those issues into
consideration.
Mr. Chairman, many housing authorities today have implemented
advisory councils or advisory boards simply because they feel that is a
true way to get input from the residents who live in public housing.
This is a very straightforward, noncontroversial amendment that allows
an individual to serve on an advisory board for the facility that he or
she lives in, to make recommendations, recommendations only, to the
board itself as to how they feel different rules should be implemented
upon them that they have to live with.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know if there is any opposition to this
amendment, but that is what it does.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] offers
this in good faith with the expectation that it will increase citizen
participation. I, in fact, am fully in support of citizen participation
in terms of decisionmaking by local housing authorities. In fact, the
bill that has been offered has well over a page of language that asks
for housing authorities to ensure that there is maximum citizen
participation and integration with the community. We deeply believe
that communities need to be involved in establishing local solutions to
some of the challenges that are facing them.
What we disagree with is the need to create another level of
bureaucracy, another local advisory board that we think, that I think,
frankly, is potentially stilted. In some cases it is going to be
obsolete. We have citizen participation that will be communicating with
the housing authorities via electronic media, whether it is computers
in a number of different areas.
We certainly allow the opportunity to have various community forums.
There are many different ways of assuring maximum citizen participation
without creating another board that would purport to substitute for a
more aggressive effort to ensure maximum citizen participation.
Mr. Chairman, this is, in effect, micromanagement at the local level
to ensure what level and what type and what form citizen participation
with respect to housing authorities will take. For that reason, it is
inconsistent with the core principles of this bill, which are to allow
maximum local control over housing authorities, locally driven
solutions. I urge a ``no'' vote.
{time} 2215
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fields amendment which
establishes local advisory boards for public housing residents.
One of the objectives of public housing reform is to encourage
individuals to become involved in their communities and to take
responsibility for the neighborhoods in which they live. The Fields
amendment will give residents the opportunity to assume that
responsibility by requiring housing authorities to establish local
advisory boards with 60 percent of its membership made up of residents
of that authority. In addition, the amendment requires that
[[Page H4630]]
the recommendations made by this advisory board be considered by the
housing authority in the management plan that it submits to HUD.
In so doing, the Fields amendment gives residents a strong voice that
will be heard by the housing authority and HUD when making management
decisions that directly impact the lives of residents. This amendment
is a positive step towards strengthening our goal of personal
responsibility by helping tenants take control of their own lives and
to determine their own destiny.
I encourage Members to vote ``yes'' on the Fields amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us already makes substantial
improvements in the opportunity for citizens in the community or county
to make their views known as the local management plan is prepared.
First of all, under the legislation, of course, we have the mandate
that larger communities with over 250 housing units will have a
resident of a public housing authority on the local housing authority.
That is one thing that is already in the bill. This amendment, I think,
across the board, for every community in the country that has a housing
authority, no matter how small that community might be, to require them
to have a citizens advisory committee, it is another layer of
bureaucracy with unclear consequences, particularly if the local
housing management agency does not agree to follow the recommendations
of the advisory board.
I think it is unclear what the costs will be associated with that
advisory committee but I would like to call our colleagues' attention
to a section that is in the bill that provides specifically for
additional citizen participation that is now not required by the
operations of housing authorities today.
The Chairman has already made reference to it but I want to bring out
some of the details of the citizen participation section found on page
31.
Before they submit the local management plan, the local housing
authority shall make the plan or the amendments publicly available in a
manner that affords affected public housing residents and assisted
families and others an opportunity to review the plan, and then
provides for a period of not less than 60 days for that review.
Beyond that, the local housing and management authority shall
consider all comments, and to make sure that anybody that reviews the
plan has a full appreciation of the comments coming from the citizenry,
including from public housing residents, the plan, once submitted, must
contain a summary of such comments or views. It shall be attached to
the plan, the amendments, or the reports submitted. Therefore, HUD will
have an opportunity to look at the kind of citizen participation
comments that came forward as a part of the local hearing process
I think we have really made quite substantial improvements to the way
citizens have an opportunity to express their views on the management
of the local housing authority. This adds another layer of bureaucracy.
I strongly oppose it because it applies across the board, and I think
it is unnecessary.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I guess I am able to offer an additional insight to
this question of an advisory board. I bring to this microphone again
some long years of history as a layman dealing with public housing in
our community in Houston. I think we are well known for having, as I
indicated, some very exciting ventures in Houston's housing authority,
including one of the first experimental combined Texas Southern
University/public schools located in the Houston housing development by
the name of Cuney Homes. There is something to that decision. It came
about through community involvement. And when there is community
involvement, solutions come about in a manner when all who are
stakeholders can appreciate it.
Just a couple of weeks ago, Secretary Cisneros visited Houston and we
had a difficult problem. In fact, we still have a difficult problem
with one of our housing developments called Allen Parkway Village. But
at the time Secretary Cisneros joined us in Houston, we gathered
together community representatives, businesspersons, people from the
ministerial community, lawyers and others who indicated that they too
had a concern with Allen Parkway Village even though they were not
residents of that village. Out of that discussion came the suggestion
that we form an advisory board, an advisory board that would be the
stakeholders beyond those individuals who are residents.
I am very pleased to say that such advisory board does exist. But the
Fields amendment embodies and institutionalizes what is an effective
tool for the community, and, that is, an advisory board that will have
input and impact in solving problems and bringing fresh ideas to our
local authorities. Why reject an opportunity for participation? Why not
welcome and embrace? If we are talking about sending this important
issue to our local communities, and I would offer to say that the
Houston Housing Authority or any other housing authority does not have
all of the answers. The answers come from businesspersons, teachers,
doctors, lawyers, community activists and residents, and they can do
that through an advisory board. I simply say the amendment of the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] is right, and I rise to support
it.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for
her support of the amendment. I would like to make the Members of the
House aware of the fact that this very amendment is in the Senate bill,
S. 1260, which contains the very language that this amendment contains
and I am hopeful if this amendment is not adopted by this House tonight
that in conference this amendment will in fact have an opportunity to
be adopted so that it can in fact be the law of the land. But I truly
believe that the more input we get from people who live in public
housing in term of how we shape their living conditions, who knows best
than them. I just think this is a step in the right direction. I would
like to commend many of those local areas across the country who are
now implementing local advisory boards today, like the city of New
Orleans from my own State. They have an advisory board that consists of
residents. I think that is a step in the right direction.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would
simply thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] and say that I
think the advisory committee that we have organized in Houston has the
potential of being a very vital resource to bringing solutions to a
very difficult problem. I leave the microphone with a question. If we
talk about private/public partnerships, what better opportunity for
private/public partnerships on the local level than to create advisory
boards all who will have a stake in this issue and work with those who
live in public housing?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
The amendment was rejected.
amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offered an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Page 38,
line 24, strike ``and''.
Page 39, line 3, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 39, after line 3, insert the following new paragraph:
(7) be entitled to appeal such written decision to a
mandated impartial regional appeals board created by the
local housing and management authorities located in the same
region, such appeals board should include resident
representation.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on
the amendment. I do not have a copy of that amendment. I am wondering
if I can get a printed copy of that.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York reserves a
point of order.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in the
spirit of what I have been listening to throughout the night. Even
though
[[Page H4631]]
we have had disagreement on several amendments, we have talked about an
opportunity for fuller participation and for residents to in fact
become stakeholders in the improvement and providing solutions to
problems that may result as being renters, residents in the normal
course of business.
This amendment refers to the grievance procedure and it adds a moment
of fairness that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
would certainly welcome its addition.
Let me first indicate that this process of appeal that I am adding
does not in any way deal with criminal activities that might result in
eviction or violation of the lease agreement.
Take this scenario. A resident living in a public housing unit has
the fullest of pride about their place where they live and they go and
they paint the room a different color. The appeal process is that some
impartial person, it could be a single person that the housing
authority would designate, could listen to them. But then the final
decision is written by the housing authority or its management entity.
There is no opportunity for an appeal. We realize that those who live
in these kinds of facilities are in fear of losing their housing. They
have no other resources. It might be because they have raised the rent,
the housing authority. It might be because the resident has been
charged with noise in the hallway, something that all of us have had
happen with children in the house, dogs, cats. They might have been
charged late fees and they actually got their rent in on time. They are
fearful of losing their opportunity to be in public housing. So they
get a written decision initially. This provision provides for an appeal
process. Is the process in court? No. Is the process way up in
Washington with the national government interfering in local business?
No, it is not with HUD.
What happens is, is that the housing authority can create a locally
directed appeals board that is made up on a regional basis such as, for
example, the southwest part of the country, representatives from those
areas to then accept appeals for this individual who feels that they
have been aggrieved.
Remember, now, someone would ask the question, Are you giving the
resident in a public housing authority more rights than Mrs. Smith who
is down the street in an apartment building? I would say no.
Mrs. Smith may have the wherewithal and the resources to go to a
small claims court or to take it up to a higher level. I am suggesting
that we not go to court.
I wish that we had had something on this order and this structure 17
years ago when we were dealing with the issue of Allen Parkway Village.
I have always believed that when there is an opportunity to discuss
the problem, there may be an opportunity to resolve the problem.
{time} 2230
This appeals board would be a simple extension of the process now
cited and would allow that aggrieved resident to be on equal plane with
his or her neighbor in a private facility who had the ability to go to
a small claims court.
I simply would ask that my colleagues and the chairman, who has
worked very hard, listen to the offering of an opportunity for
residents to be respected, to have the right to an appropriate appeal
process, and to take some dignity in the fact that they have rights and
due process as well.
Just think of it: You have no recourse on raising the rent, painting
your apartment a different color, arguing that the noise in the hallway
was not your child, and generally protecting yourselves from some sort
of penalty that you may not be able to pay, because you were charged
with something and you had no right to pursue it if you got a decision
that was against you.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be accepted. I would ask for
support by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I would ask them
simply to put themselves in the shoes of our residents in public
housing throughout this Nation. All they have asked when I have spoken
to them, whether it has been Kelly Courts or Cuney Homes or Allen
Parkway Village, is simply dignity and respect and the right to be
treated fairly. They too will join in to ensure that better housing is
created for all Americans.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Does the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Lazio] insist on his point of order?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, continuing to reserve my point
of order, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentlewoman from Texas for her
interest in ensuring that there are appropriate levels of due process
for people that may be aggrieved in terms of administrative decisions.
Let me suggest, however, that we have gone through considerable effort
to ensure that we have a fair and equitable administrative grievance
procedure in the bill.
For example, we allow for a clear opportunity for a hearing by an
impartial party upon timely request within a reasonable period of time;
the ability to examine any written documents or records or regulations
that might be raised with respect to the proposed actions; the ability
to be represented by another party of their choice at any such hearing;
and the abilities to call witnesses and to have others make statements
on their behalf.
Beyond that, somebody who is subject to an administrative procedure,
including a possible procedure for eviction, is entitled to pursue all
of their rights through the courts of the State and of our Nation. Due
process is thoroughly considered and assured, and that is in the bill.
The effort by the gentlewoman, whom I respect greatly, I think still
has a number of different issues that are left unresolved. For example,
we do not have any explanation, I have not received this before today
as the subcommittee chairman, I just received this just now, we have
one paragraph written. We have no idea who is part of the board, how
big the board will be, who will govern the board, what rules of process
there might be, what regions might be considered, how it is
constituted, who sets it up, and so on and so forth.
I would suggest to the gentlewoman that perhaps we can continue to
talk about this and see if there is an appropriate concern that she
has, and I am sure she has a concern, that we might address in the
following weeks and months. This probably is not the right time and the
right place to do this.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the distinguished
chair of the subcommittee for this opportunity. I think that it is
clear in section 110 under ``administrative grievance procedure,'' page
38, lines 12 through 24, that six procedures have been laid out that
certainly address requirements for expressing these grievances.
But the gentlewoman from Texas is expressing a part of the due
process concern that I think is legitimate, and I would appreciate any
information the distinguished chairman can give with respect to the
appellate process to which the gentlewoman from Texas is addressing.
It is clear in section 110 that people who live in public housing are
to be advised of specific grounds of any of the proposed adverse local
housing and management actions. They have an opportunity for a hearing,
an opportunity to examine any documents. They are entitled to be
represented by another person of their choice at a hearing. They are
entitled to ask questions and receive a written decision.
But the gentlewoman's fundamental concern, which is a fundamental
tenet of justice in this society, is due process, and that is the
appellate process.
Mr. Chairman, if the distinguished chairman would address that, I
would appreciate it.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to
thank the gentleman, my neighbor from Illinois, Mr. Jackson, and again
compliment him for his interest in due process.
Again, the gentleman has laid out the six different types of due
process that will be afforded a party that feels that they have been
wronged. In addition to this, an individual who feels they are wronged
through the administrative process has the complete and full ability
that is reemphasized in this bill to continue to use the legal process,
both at the trial level and up the
[[Page H4632]]
process through various appellate divisions within a particular court.
The concern I have, in addition to the fact that I think with respect
to how this proposed appellate board is constituted and what the rules
might be and what regions are considered and so on and so forth, which
is not laid out in this amendment, is that during this entire time,
when we are going through yet another administrative procedure,
somebody who may be a danger to the other residents in a particular
project will remain in place. While we want to allow for full due
process and for a complete hearing, and we make that clear, by ensuring
that people do not just get a written decision, but are allowed to
present witnesses and hear testimony and present documents and have
someone represent them, and after that they feel they are still
wronged, they have the ability to do to court. There comes a time if
somebody is disruptive, is truly wronging other residents in a public
housing project, that they need to be separated from that and there
needs to be order as there is in the places we all live in.
For that reason, I am not able to support this.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman insist upon his point of
order?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of the
point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman
for his hard work. I think we have had some vigorous debates this
evening. I am here because I have lived with the problem for about 17
years dealing with public housing, and I truly believe that there is
still a solution.
If I might comment on some of the points that the gentleman made and
offer to him some answers to his concern, first of all, we have already
spoken about the abilities of local housing authorities to manage and
to make decisions. I would hope the gentleman would have the same kind
of confidence in the local housing authorities in a certain region as
defined by HUD. There is a Southwest Region, we have an office in
Dallas. I imagine there are regions on the East Coast where the
gentleman is from, New York. Those are the designated areas that would
regionally comprise an appeals board. I would believe, and it is
evident, just as you have left on this lower level, to the housing
authority, the decision of who might be on this board, but include some
participation from residents. Mind you, I did not even add a
percentage.
Also this does not go to those dangerous entities, such as drug
users. Somebody might be gun running. Somebody might be running or
alleged to be running prostitution. Those are criminal activities and a
total breach of the lease.
These are incidents where people might live at the Watergate and
would have the wherewithal to sue the management company or go into a
court of higher authority. But when you have people living in public
housing who are in fear every moment that they are doing something that
might cause them to be wrongly decided upon, if you will, then they do
not have the resources, as the gentleman has argued, of going to court.
Under the Administrative Procedures Act we realize there is a hearing
officer and then there is a higher tribunal before you even have to get
to court. That is to ensure that, we thought, we would not have
individuals clogging up the courts. On many occasions the
Administrative Procedures Act has worked effectively. In Texas, for
example, and around the country, we have gone to mediation. Lawyers are
now doing mediation to avoid going into court.
I wish we could encourage more opportunity for citizens to have the
right to address their grievances in a setting that is non-court like,
and I am an attorney, so that problems can be solved at an earlier
stage than what might occur later on.
Public housing residents, I would say to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Jackson], do not have some of the resources to go to court. This
is an administrative proceeding of sorts that would then come under the
provision where costs would be attributable, if any, minimally so, to
the housing authority.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am
operating under the impression that due process is not asking for very
much. If the chairman is very concerned about expediting the process,
then we need an expeditious due process concern. I think that the
concern that the gentlewoman has raised for this particular
administrative grievance procedure is one that the committee should
certainly consider, and I would certainly encourage the chairman to
consider due process, because we would not want to create a process
whereby public housing residents tend to or end up in court because of
our failure to honor a fundamental tenet of American justice.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, I appreciate the gentleman's characterization of this
amendment, because that is just what it is. It is to provide an
opportunity for those who are most frightened about not having housing,
some of whom have been on waiting lists for years. The community I come
from has had people on waiting lists for years, and we have had lists
as high as 15,000 individuals on waiting lists.
This is a procedure that helps clarify the problem, provides a
hearing, and then an appeal, and gives a fair opportunity for this
resident to air out their grievance and to address their grievance.
I would ask the chairman to consider what his concerns were and have
us have an opportunity to look at these concerns, but not deny, not
deny the opportunity for those who are residents, who are not violating
criminal laws or threatening anyone, to have an opportunity to appeal
their grievance in an appropriate manner.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to title I?
amendment no. 2 offered by mr. ehrlich
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Ehrlich: Page 43, after line
16 insert the following new section:
SEC. 115. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
amounts provided under this Act may be used for the purpose
of funding the relocation of public housing residents and
applicants from Baltimore City, Maryland, to other
jurisdiction in the State of Maryland if such relocation is
in connection with any settlement, consent decree,
injunction, judgment, or other resolution of litigation
brought by public housing residents of Baltimore City,
Maryland, concerning the demolition of certain public housing
units in such city.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I am given to understand that a point of
order will be raised with respect to amendment No. 2. It is my intent
to withdraw this amendment. But before I do, I want to make a number of
points and then enter into a colloquy with the chair of the
subcommittee.
The first thing I would like to do is congratulate the chairman of
the subcommittee, who has had a long day. He is a man of integrity,
class and intelligence, and I truly appreciate his friendship and I
appreciate the sensitivity he has shown toward me with respect to the
issue of HUD and the lawsuit in Baltimore City over the past few weeks.
It is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment drew a lot of
attention from Members of this House over the last two days. I received
a lot of phone calls from folks on both sides of the aisle, because
there is a genuine concern out there that there is a Federal department
increasingly out of control.
This department believes it should engage in policymaking far outside
the scope of its constitutional authority. It threatens and sues people
and groups who dare oppose its policies.
{time} 2245
It seeks to use unelected groups to bypass the electoral process. It
uses
[[Page H4633]]
the judicial process to create class- and race-based remedies and
programs it could not pass on this floor, in this House, in the Senate
of the United States.
For decades, HUD policies have contributed to the denigration of the
quality of life of many neighborhoods in the Baltimore Metropolitan
area. Now, in Baltimore, HUD seeks to create a special race-based
voucher to be given to public housing residents to be used in middle-
class neighborhoods.
Mr. Chairman, I ask what kind of message are we sending working folks
in this country of all races, working folks of all races? Why do we
allow this department to further a sense of entitlement with respect to
Federal housing policy? Whatever happened to the work ethic in the
context of Federal housing policy in this country?
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with my good friend and the
ranking member on our joint mission to reform Federal housing policy in
this country and to rein in an increasingly belligerent, aggressive,
and out of control Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy
with the gentleman from Long Island, NY [Mr. Lazio], my colleague and
my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee.
He and the staff have been very helpful and supportive of my efforts
to make sure that HUD does not run roughshod over the Constitution when
implementing the statutes previously passed by this Congress. At this
time, I would like to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee so that
he might offer his own observations of what I have described over the
last 5 minutes.
Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thank the
gentleman from Maryland for his very kind remarks, for being one the
most energetic Members of this body, and for his commitment to his own
neighborhood in the area of Baltimore.
Mr. Chairman, it is ironic as we consider this housing bill, one that
makes communities responsible for their own planning and development,
that in the area of Baltimore, HUD is negotiating a plan like the one
described by the gentleman. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats and
attorneys at HUD believe they know what is best for Baltimore and
surrounding suburbs. I do not share this view and this misguided
approach, the concept that Washington knows best is one of the
catalysts for the legislation we are now considering.
Mr. Chairman, we both believe that rental assistance recipients
should be educated about the rental marketplace and informed of their
total options. I believe counseling is an integral part of this
process. I strongly object to the Federal bureaucrats attempting to
dictate outcomes and limit options available to renters. Such a policy
runs counter to what we are trying to achieve here today.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comment and
ask for his continued assistance. HUD attorneys need to be reminded
that they can enter into all the questionable consent decrees they
desire, but that it is this Congress with the ultimate control over the
appropriation of Federal funds.
HUD should know that we are not bound to fund programs and policies
which could not pass this Congress. We are now in the midst of
consideration of the fiscal year 1997 budget, and I look forward to
working with the VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee and its chairman,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], to make sure that HUD does
not spend taxpayer dollars in a matter inconsistent with the will of
this body.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue
to yield, I share the gentleman's sentiments and would like to make
sure that our subcommittee will continue to monitor the actions of HUD
as this relates to the Baltimore consent decree, and many other areas
around the country.
It is my understanding that the designers of the Section 8 program
never intended for the use of vouchers to be limited to an area based
solely upon race. I have strong concerns about the manner in which HUD
is proceeding with certain lawsuits, and I thank the gentleman for
bringing this startling pattern to the attention of this Congress.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mr. Hobson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to title I?
If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
The text of title II is as follows:
TITLE II--PUBLIC HOUSING
Subtitle A--Block Grants
SEC. 201. BLOCK GRANT CONTRACTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into contracts
with local housing and management authorities under which--
(1) the Secretary agrees to make a block grant under this
title, in the amount provided under section 202(c), for
assistance for low-income housing to the local housing and
management authority for each fiscal year covered by the
contract; and
(2) the authority agrees--
(A) to provide safe, clean, and healthy housing that is
affordable to low-income families and services for families
in such housing;
(B) to operate, or provide for the operation, of such
housing in a financially sound manner;
(C) to use the block grant amounts in accordance with this
title and the local housing management plan for the authority
that complies with the requirements of section 107;
(D) to involve residents of housing assisted with block
grant amounts in functions and decisions relating to
management and the quality of life in such housing;
(E) that the management of the public housing of the
authority shall be subject to actions authorized under
subtitle B of title IV;
(F) that the Secretary may take actions under section 205
with respect to improper use of grant amounts provided under
the contract; and
(G) to otherwise comply with the requirements under this
title.
(b) Modification.--Contracts and agreements between the
Secretary and a local housing and management authority may
not be amended in a manner which would--
(1) impair the rights of--
(A) leaseholders for units assisted pursuant to a contract
or agreement; or
(B) the holders of any outstanding obligations of the local
housing and management authority involved for which annual
contributions have been pledged; or
(2) provide for payment of block grant amounts under this
title in an amount exceeding the allocation for the authority
determined under section 204.
Any rule of law contrary to this subsection shall be deemed
inapplicable.
(c) Conditions on Renewal.--Each block grant contract under
this section shall provide, as a condition of renewal of the
contract with the local housing and management authority,
that the authority's accreditation be renewed by the Housing
Foundation and Accreditation Board pursuant to review under
section 433 by such Board.
SEC. 202. BLOCK GRANT AUTHORITY AND AMOUNT.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary shall make block grants under
this title to eligible local housing and management
authorities in accordance with block grant contracts under
section 201.
(b) Eligibility.--A local housing and management authority
shall be an eligible local housing and management authority
with respect to a fiscal year for purposes of this title only
if--
(1) the Secretary has entered into a block grant contract
with the authority;
(2) the authority has submitted a local housing management
plan to the Secretary for such fiscal year;
(3) the plan has been determined to comply with the
requirements under section 107 and the Secretary has not
notified the authority that the plan fails to comply with
such requirements;
(4) the authority is accredited under section 433 by the
Housing Foundation and Accreditation Board;
(5) the authority is exempt from local taxes, as provided
under subsection (d), or receives a contribution, as provided
under such subsection;
(6) no member of the board of directors or other governing
body of the authority, or the executive director, has been
convicted of a felony;
(7) the authority has entered into an agreement providing
for local cooperation in accordance with subsection (e); and
(8) the authority has not been disqualified for a grant
pursuant to section 205(a) or subtitle B of title IV.
(c) Amount of Grants.--The amount of the grant under this
title for a local housing and management authority for a
fiscal year shall be the amount of the allocation for the
authority determined under section 204, except as otherwise
provided in this title and subtitle B of title IV.
(d) Payments in Lieu of State and Local Taxation of Public
Housing Developments.--
(1) Exemption from taxation.--A local housing and
management authority may receive a block grant under this
title only if--
(A)(i) the developments of the authority (exclusive of any
portions not assisted with amounts provided under this title)
are exempt from all real and personal property taxes levied
or imposed by the State, city, county, or other political
subdivision; and
(ii) the local housing and management authority makes
payments in lieu of taxes to such
[[Page H4634]]
taxing authority equal to 10 percent of the sum, for units
charged in the developments of the authority, of the
difference between the gross rent and the utility cost, or
such lesser amount as is--
(I) prescribed by State law;
(II) agreed to by the local governing body in its agreement
under subsection (e) for local cooperation with the local
housing and management authority or under a waiver by the
local governing body; or
(III) due to failure of a local public body or bodies other
than the local housing and management authority to perform
any obligation under such agreement; or
(B) the authority complies with the requirements under
subparagraph (A) with respect to public housing developments
(including public housing units in mixed-income
developments), but the authority agrees that the units other
than public housing units in any mixed-income developments
(as such term is defined in section 221(c)(2)) shall not be
subject to any otherwise applicable real property taxes
imposed by the State, city, county or other political
subdivision.
(2) Effect of failure to exempt from taxation.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local housing and management
authority that does not comply with the requirements under
such paragraph may receive a block grant under this title,
but only if the State, city, county, or other political
subdivision in which the development is situated contributes,
in the form of cash or tax remission, the amount by which the
taxes paid with respect to the development exceed 10 percent
of the gross rent and utility cost charged in the
development.
(e) Local Cooperation.--In recognition that there should be
local determination of the need for low-income housing to
meet needs not being adequately met by private enterprise,
the Secretary may not make any grant under this title to a
local housing and management authority unless the governing
body of the locality involved has entered into an agreement
with the authority providing for the local cooperation
required by the Secretary pursuant to this title.
(f) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the
Secretary may make a grant under this title for a local
housing and management authority that is not an eligible
local housing and management authority but only for the
period necessary to secure, in accordance with this title, an
alternative local housing and management authority for the
public housing of the ineligible authority.
SEC. 203. ELIGIBLE AND REQUIRED ACTIVITIES.
(a) Eligible Activities.--Except as provided in subsection
(b), amounts from a grant made under this title may be used
only for the following activities and costs:
(1) Production.--Production of public housing developments
and any production costs.
(2) Operation.--Operation of public housing developments in
a manner appropriate to ensure the viability of the
developments as low-income housing and provision of safety,
security, and law enforcement measures and activities
necessary to protect residents from crime, which shall
include providing adequate operating services and reserve
funds.
(3) Modernization.--Improvement of the physical condition
of existing public housing developments (including routine
and timely improvements, rehabilitation, and replacement of
systems, and major rehabilitation, redesign, reconstruction,
and redevelopment) and upgrading the management and operation
of such developments, to ensure that such developments
continue to be available for use as low-income housing.
(4) Resident programs.--Provision of social, educational,
employment, self-sufficiency, and other services to the
residents of public housing developments, including providing
part of the non-Federal share required in connection with
activities undertaken under Federal grant-in-aid programs.
(5) Homeownership activities.--Activities in connection
with a homeownership program for public housing residents
under subtitle D, including providing financing or assistance
for purchasing housing, or the provision of financial
assistance to resident management corporations or resident
councils to obtain training, technical assistance, and
educational assistance to promote homeownership
opportunities.
(6) Resident management activities.--Activities in
connection with establishing, organizing, training, and
assisting resident councils and resident management
corporations for public housing developments.
(7) Demolition and disposition activities.--Activities in
connection with the disposition or demolition of public
housing under section 261.
(8) Payments in lieu of taxes.--Payments in accordance with
the requirement under section 202(d)(1).
(9) Emergency corrections.--Correction of conditions that
constitute an immediate threat to the health or safety of
residents of public housing developments, without regard to
whether the need for such correction is indicated in the
local housing management plan of the authority.
(10) Preparation of local housing management plans.--
Preparation of local housing management plans (including
reasonable costs that may be necessary to assist residents in
participating in the planning process in a meaningful way)
and conducting annual financial and performance audits under
section 432.
(11) LHMA insurance.--Purchase of insurance by local
housing and management authorities (and their contractors),
except that--
(A) any such insurance so purchased shall be competitively
selected;
(B) any coverage provided under such policies, as certified
by the authority, shall provide reasonable coverage for the
risk of liability exposure, taking into consideration the
potential liability concerns inherent in the testing and
abatement of lead-based paint, and the managerial and quality
assurance responsibilities associated with the conduct of
such activities; and
(C) notwithstanding any other provision of State or Federal
law, regulation or other requirement, any line of insurance
from a nonprofit insurance entity, owned and controlled by
local housing and management authorities and approved by the
Secretary, may be purchased without regard to competitive
procurement.
(12) Payment of outstanding development bonds and notes
issued under 1937 act.--Payment of principal and interest
payable on obligations issued pursuant to section 5 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the
date of the enactment of this Act) by a local housing and
management authority to finance the production of public
housing, except that the Secretary shall retain the authority
to forgive such debt.
(13) Mutual help homeownership opportunity programs for
indian housing authorities.--In the case of an Indian housing
authority, production, operation, and modernization of
developments under a mutual help homeownership program
subject to the requirements under section 202 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before
the enactment of this Act), except that any reference in such
section to assistance under such section or such Act shall be
construed to refer to assistance under this title and
subsection (b) of such section shall not apply.
(b) Required Conversion of Assistance for Public Housing to
Rental Housing Assistance.--
(1) Requirement.--A local housing and management authority
that receives grant amounts under this title shall provide
assistance in the form of rental housing assistance under
title III or appropriate site revitalization or other
appropriate capital improvements approved by the Secretary,
in lieu of assisting the operation and modernization of any
building or buildings of public housing, if the authority
provides sufficient evidence to the Secretary that--
(A) the building is distressed or substantially vacant;
(B) the estimated cost of continued operation and
modernization of the building exceeds the cost of providing
choice-based rental assistance under title III; and
(C) there is a sufficient supply of available and
affordable housing to make the use of such voucher assistance
feasible.
(2) Use of Other Amounts.--In addition to grant amounts
under this title attributable (pursuant to the formula under
section 204) to the building or buildings identified under
paragraph (1), the Secretary may use amounts provided in
appropriation Acts for incremental choice-based housing
assistance and, to the extent approved in advance, for the
renewal of assistance under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the date of
enactment of this Act), for assistance under title III for
families residing in such building or buildings or for
appropriate site revitalization or other appropriate capital
improvements approved by the Secretary.
(3) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall take appropriate
action to ensure conversion of any building or buildings
identified under paragraph (1) and any other appropriate
action under this subsection, if the local housing and
management authority fails to take appropriate action under
this subsection.
(4) Failure of LHMA's to comply with conversion
requirement.--If the Secretary determines that--
(A) a local housing and management authority has failed
under paragraph (1) to identify a building or buildings in a
timely manner,
(B) a local housing and management authority has failed to
identify one or more buildings which the Secretary determines
should have been identified under paragraph (1), or
(C) one or more of the buildings identified by the local
housing and management authority pursuant to paragraph (1)
should not, in the determination of the Secretary, have been
identified under that paragraph,
the Secretary may identify a building or buildings for
conversion and other appropriate action pursuant to this
subsection.
(5) Cessation of unnecessary spending.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, if, in the determination of the
Secretary, a building or buildings meets or is likely to meet
the criteria set forth in paragraph (1), the Secretary may
direct the local housing and management authority to cease
additional spending in connection with such building or
buildings, except to the extent that additional spending is
necessary to ensure safe, clean, and healthy housing until
the Secretary determines or approves an appropriate course of
action with respect to such building or buildings under this
subsection.
(6) Use of budget authority.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, if a building or buildings are identified
pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary may authorize or
direct the transfer, to the choice-based or tenant-based
assistance program of such authority or to appropriate site
revitalization or other capital improvements approved by the
Secretary, of--
(A) in the case of an authority receiving assistance under
the comprehensive improvement assistance program, any amounts
obligated by the Secretary for the modernization of such
building or buildings pursuant to section 14 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937, as in effect immediately before
the date of enactment of this Act;
(B) in the case of an authority receiving public and Indian
housing modernization assistance by formula pursuant to such
section 14, any amounts provided to the authority which are
attributable pursuant to the formula for allocating such
assistance to such building or buildings;
[[Page H4635]]
(C) in the case of an authority receiving assistance for
the major reconstruction of obsolete projects, any amounts
obligated by the Secretary for the major reconstruction of
such building or buildings pursuant to section 5(j)(2) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, as in effect immediately
before the date of enactment of this Act; and
(D) in the case of an authority receiving assistance
pursuant to the formula under section 204, any amounts
provided to the authority which are attributable pursuant to
the formula for allocating such assistance to such building
or buildings.
(c) Fungibility of Amounts.--Any amounts provided under a
block grant under this title may be used for any eligible
activity under subsection (a) or for conversion under
subsection (b), notwithstanding whether such amounts are
attributable to the operating allocation under section
204(d)(1) or the capital improvements allocation for the
local housing and management authority determined under
section 204(d)(2).
(d) Compliance With Plan.--The local housing management
plan submitted by a local housing and management authority
(including any amendments to the plan), unless determined
under section 108 not to comply with the requirements
under section 107, shall be binding upon the Secretary and
the local housing and management authority and the
authority shall use any grant amounts provided under this
title for eligible activities under subsection (a) in
accordance with the plan. This subsection may not be
construed to preclude changes or amendments to the plan,
as authorized under section 108(e) or any actions
authorized by this Act to be taken without regard to a
local housing management plan.
SEC. 204. DETERMINATION OF BLOCK GRANT ALLOCATION.
(a) In General.--For each fiscal year, after reserving
amounts under section 111 from the aggregate amount made
available for the fiscal year for carrying out this title,
the Secretary shall allocate any remaining amounts among
eligible local housing and management authorities in
accordance with this section, so that the sum of all of the
allocations for all eligible authorities is equal to such
remaining amount.
(b) Allocation Amount.--The Secretary shall determine the
amount of the allocation for each eligible local housing and
management authority, which shall be--
(1) for any fiscal year beginning after the enactment of a
law containing a formula described in subsection (c), the
amount determined under such formula; or
(2) for any fiscal year beginning before the expiration of
such period, the sum of--
(A) the operating allocation determined under subsection
(d)(1) for the authority; and
(B) the capital improvement allocation determined under
subsection (d)(2) for the authority.
(c) Permanent Allocation Formula.--
(1) Formula.--A formula under this subsection shall provide
for allocating amounts available for a fiscal year for block
grants under this title for each local housing and management
authority. The formula should reward performance and may
consider factors that reflect the different characteristics
and sizes of local housing and management authorities, the
relative needs, revenues, costs, and capital improvements of
authorities, and the relative costs to authorities of
operating a well-managed authority that meets the performance
targets for the authority established in the local housing
management plan for the authority.
(2) Development under negotiated rulemaking procedure.--The
formula under this subsection shall be developed according to
procedures for issuance of regulations under the negotiated
rulemaking procedure under subchapter III of chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code, except that the formula shall
not be contained in a regulation.
(3) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 18-month
period beginning upon the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress containing
the proposed formula established pursuant to paragraph (2)
that meets the requirements of this subsection.
(d) Interim Allocation Requirements.--
(1) Operating allocation.--
(A) Applicability to 50 percent of appropriated amounts.--
Of any amounts available for allocation under this subsection
for a fiscal year, 50 percent shall be used only to provide
amounts for operating allocations under this paragraph for
eligible local housing and management authorities.
(B) Determination.--The operating allocation under this
subsection for a local housing and management authority for a
fiscal year shall be an amount determined by applying, to the
amount to be allocated under this paragraph, the formula used
for determining the distribution of operating subsidies for
fiscal year 1995 to public housing agencies (as modified
under subparagraph (C)) under section 9 of this Act, as in
effect before the enactment of this Act.
(C) Treatment of chronically vacant units.--The Secretary
shall revise the formula referred to in subparagraph (B) so
that the formula does not provide any amounts, other than
utility costs, attributable to any dwelling unit of a local
housing and management authority that has been vacant
continuously for 6 or more months. A unit shall not be
considered vacant for purposes of this paragraph if the unit
is unoccupied because of rehabilitation or renovation that is
on-schedule.
(2) Capital improvement allocation.--
(A) Applicability to 50 percent of appropriated amounts.--
Of any amounts available for allocation under this subsection
for a fiscal year, 50 percent shall be used only to provide
amounts for capital improvement allocations under this
paragraph for eligible local housing and management
authorities.
(B) Determination.--The capital improvement allocation
under this subsection for an eligible local housing and
management authority for a fiscal year shall be determined by
applying, to the amount to be allocated under this paragraph,
the formula used for determining the distribution of
modernization assistance for fiscal year 1995 to public
housing agencies under section 14 of this Act, as in effect
before the enactment of this Act, except that Secretary shall
establish a method for taking into consideration allocation
of amounts under the comprehensive improvement assistance
program.
SEC. 205. SANCTIONS FOR IMPROPER USE OF AMOUNTS.
(a) In General.--In addition to any other actions
authorized under this title, if the Secretary finds pursuant
to an annual financial and performance audit under section
432 that a local housing and management authority receiving
grant amounts under this title has failed to comply
substantially with any provision of this title, the Secretary
may--
(1) terminate payments under this title to the authority;
(2) withhold from the authority amounts from the total
allocation for the authority pursuant to section 204;
(3) reduce the amount of future grant payments under this
title to the authority by an amount equal to the amount of
such payments that were not expended in accordance with this
title;
(4) limit the availability of grant amounts provided to the
authority under this title to programs, projects, or
activities not affected by such failure to comply;
(5) withhold from the authority amounts allocated for the
authority under title III; or
(6) order other corrective action with respect to the
authority.
(b) Termination of Compliance Action.--If the Secretary
takes action under subsection (a) with respect to a local
housing and management authority, the Secretary shall--
(1) in the case of action under subsection (a)(1), resume
payments of grant amounts under this title to the authority
in the full amount of the total allocation under section 204
for the authority at the time that the Secretary first
determines that the authority will comply with the provisions
of this title;
(2) in the case of action under paragraph (2), (5), or (6)
of subsection (a), make withheld amounts available as the
Secretary considers appropriate to ensure that the authority
complies with the provisions of this title; or
(3) in the case of action under subsection (a)(4), release
such restrictions at the time that the Secretary first
determines that the authority will comply with the provisions
of this title.
Subtitle B--Admissions and Occupancy Requirements
SEC. 221. LOW-INCOME HOUSING REQUIREMENT.
(a) Production Assistance.--Any public housing produced
using amounts provided under a grant under this title or
under the United States Housing Act of 1937 shall be operated
as public housing for the 40-year period beginning upon such
production.
(b) Operating Assistance.--No portion of any public housing
development operated with amounts from a grant under this
title or operating assistance provided under the United
States Housing Act of 1937 may be disposed of before the
expiration of the 10-year period beginning upon the
conclusion of the fiscal year for which the grant or such
assistance was provided, except as provided in this Act.
(c) Capital Improvements Assistance.--Amounts may be used
for eligible activities under section 203(a)(3) only for the
following housing developments:
(1) Low-income developments.--Amounts may be used for a
low-income housing development that--
(A) is owned by local housing and management authorities;
(B) is operated as low-income rental housing and produced
or operated with assistance provided under a grant under this
title; and
(C) is consistent with the purposes of this title.
Any development, or portion thereof, referred to in this
paragraph for which activities under section 203(a)(3) are
conducted using amounts from a grant under this title shall
be maintained and used as public housing for the 20-year
period beginning upon the receipt of such grant. Any public
housing development, or portion thereof, that received the
benefit of a grant pursuant to section 14 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 shall be maintained and used as
public housing for the 20-year period beginning upon receipt
of such amounts.
(2) Mixed income developments.--Amounts may be used for
mixed-income developments, which shall be a housing
development that--
(A) contains dwelling units that are available for
occupancy by families other than low-income families;
(B) contains a number of dwelling units--
(i) which units are made available (by master contract or
individual lease) for occupancy only by low- and very low-
income families identified by the local housing and
management authority;
(ii) which number is not less than a reasonable number of
units, including related amenities, taking into account the
amount of the assistance provided by the authority compared
to the total investment (including costs of operation) in the
development;
(iii) which units are subject to the statutory and
regulatory requirements of the public housing program, except
that the Secretary may grant appropriate waivers to such
statutory and regulatory requirements if reductions in
funding or other changes to the program make continued
application of such requirements impracticable;
(iv) which units are specially designated as dwelling units
under this subparagraph, except
[[Page H4636]]
the equivalent units in the development may be substituted
for designated units during the period the units are subject
to the requirements of the public housing program; and
(v) which units shall be eligible for assistance under this
title; and
(C) is owned by the local housing and management authority,
an affiliate controlled by it, or another appropriate entity.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, to
facilitate the establishment of socioeconomically mixed
communities, a local housing and management authority that
uses grant amounts under this title for a mixed income
development under this paragraph may, to the extent that
income from such a development reduces the amount of grant
amounts used for operating or other costs relating to public
housing, use such resulting savings to rent privately
developed dwelling units in the neighborhood of the mixed
income development. Such units shall be made available for
occupancy only by low-income families eligible for residency
in public housing.
SEC. 222. FAMILY ELIGIBILITY.
(a) In General.--Dwelling units in public housing may be
rented only to families who are low-income families at the
time of their initial occupancy of such units.
(b) Income Mix Within Developments.--A local housing and
management authority may establish and utilize income-mix
criteria for the selection of residents for dwelling units in
public housing developments that limit admission to a
development by selecting applicants having incomes
appropriate so that the mix of incomes of families occupying
the development is proportional to the income mix in the
eligible population of the jurisdiction of the authority, as
adjusted to take into consideration the severity of housing
need. Any criteria established under this subsection shall be
subject to the provisions of subsection (c).
(c) Income Mix.--Of the public housing dwelling units of a
local housing and management authority made available for
occupancy after the date of the enactment of this Act, not
less than 25 percent shall be occupied by low-income families
whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the area median
income.
(d) Waiver of Eligibility Requirements for Occupancy by
Police Officers.--
(1) Authority and waiver.--To provide occupancy in public
housing dwelling units to police officers and other law
enforcement or security personnel (who are not otherwise
eligible for residence in public housing) and to increase
security for other public housing residents in developments
where crime has been a problem, a local housing and
management authority may, with respect to such units and
subject to paragraph (2)--
(A) waive--
(i) the provisions of subsection (a) of this section and
section 225(a);
(ii) the applicability of--
(I) any preferences for occupancy established under section
223;
(II) the minimum rental amount established pursuant to
section 225(b) and any maximum monthly rental amount
established pursuant to such section;
(III) any criteria relating to project income mix
established under subsection (b);
(IV) the income mix requirements under subsection (c); and
(V) any other occupancy limitations or requirements; and
(B) establish special rent requirements and other terms and
conditions of occupancy.
(2) Conditions of waiver.--A local housing and management
authority may take the actions authorized in paragraph (1)
only if authority determines that such actions will increase
security in the public housing developments involved and will
not result in a significant reduction of units available for
residence by low-income families.
SEC. 223. PREFERENCES FOR OCCUPANCY.
(a) Authority To Establish.--Any local housing and
management authority may establish a system for making
dwelling units in public housing available for occupancy that
provides preference for such occupancy to families having
certain characteristics.
(b) Content.--Each system of preferences established
pursuant to this section shall be based upon local housing
needs and priorities, as determined by the local housing and
management authority using generally accepted data sources.
Each system of preferences established pursuant to this
section shall be based upon local housing needs and
priorities using generally accepted data sources, including
any information obtained pursuant to an opportunity for
public comment as provided under section 107(e) or under the
requirements applicable to comprehensive housing
affordability strategy for the relevant jurisdiction.
SEC. 224. ADMISSION PROCEDURES.
(a) Admission Requirements.--A local housing and management
authority shall ensure that each family residing in a public
housing development owned or administered by the authority is
admitted in accordance with the procedures established under
this title by the authority and the income limits under
section 222.
(b) Availability of Criminal Records.--
(1) Availability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal, State, or local law, upon the request of any local
housing and management authority, the National Crime
Information Center, police departments, and any other law
enforcement entities shall provide information to the
authority regarding the criminal convictions of applicants
for, or residents of, public housing for the purpose of
applicant screening, lease enforcement, and eviction.
(2) Content.--The information provided under paragraph (1)
may not include information regarding any criminal conviction
of such an applicant or resident for any act (or failure to
act) occurring before the applicant or resident reached 18
years of age.
(3) Confidentiality.--A local housing and management
authority receiving information under this subsection may use
such information only for the purposes provided in this
subsection and such information may not be disclosed to any
person who is not an officer or employee of the authority.
The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish procedures
necessary to ensure that information provided to a local
housing and management authority under this subsection is
used, and confidentiality of such information is maintained,
as required under this subsection.
(4) Penalty.--Any person who knowingly and willfully
requests or obtains any information concerning an applicant
for, or resident of, public housing pursuant to the authority
under this subsection under false pretenses, or any person
who knowingly and willfully discloses any such information in
any manner to any individual not entitled under any law to
receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not
more than $5,000. The term ``person'' as used in this
paragraph shall include an officer or employee of any local
housing and management authority.
(5) Civil action.--Any applicant for, or resident of,
public housing affected by (A) a negligent or knowing
disclosure of information referred to in this section about
such person by an officer or employee of any local housing
and management authority, which disclosure is not authorized
by this subsection, or (B) any other negligent or knowing
action that is inconsistent with this subsection, may bring a
civil action for damages and such other relief as may be
appropriate against any officer or employee of any local
housing and management authority responsible for such
unauthorized action. The district court of the United States
in the district in which the affected applicant or resident
resides, in which such unauthorized action occurred, or in
which the officer or employee alleged to be responsible for
any such unauthorized action resides, shall have jurisdiction
in such matters. Appropriate relief that may be ordered by
such district courts shall include reasonable attorney's fees
and other litigation costs.
(6) Fees.--A local housing and management authority may pay
a reasonable fee to obtain information under this subsection.
(c) Notification of Application Decisions.--A local housing
and management authority shall establish procedures designed
to provide for notification to an applicant for admission to
public housing of the determination with respect to such
application, the basis for the determination, and, if the
applicant is determined to be eligible for admission, the
projected date of occupancy (to the extent such date can
reasonably be determined). If an authority denies an
applicant admission to public housing, the authority shall
notify the applicant that the applicant may request an
informal hearing on the denial within a reasonable time of
such notification.
(d) Confidentiality for Victims of Domestic Violence.--A
local housing and management authority shall be subject to
the restrictions regarding release of information relating to
the identity and new residence of any family in public
housing that was a victim of domestic violence that are
applicable to shelters pursuant to the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act. The authority shall work with
the United States Postal Service to establish procedures
consistent with the confidentiality provisions in the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
(e) Transfers.--A local housing and management authority
may apply, to each public housing resident seeking to
transfer from one development to another development owned or
operated by the authority, the screening procedures
applicable at such time to new applicants for public housing.
SEC. 225. FAMILY RENTAL PAYMENT.
(a) Rental Contribution by Resident.--A family shall pay as
monthly rent for a dwelling unit in public housing the amount
that the local housing and management authority determines is
appropriate with respect to the family and the unit, which
shall be--
(1) based upon factors determined by the authority, which
may include the adjusted income of the resident, type and
size of dwelling unit, operating and other expenses of the
authority, or any other factors that the authority considers
appropriate; and
(2) an amount that is not less than the minimum monthly
rental amount under subsection (b)(1) nor more than any
maximum monthly rental amount established for the dwelling
unit pursuant to subsection (b)(2).
In determining the amount of the rent charged for a dwelling
unit, a local housing and management authority shall take
into consideration the characteristics of the population
served by the authority, the goals of the local housing
management plan for the authority, and the goals under the
comprehensive housing affordability strategy under section
105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act
(or any consolidated plan incorporating such strategy) for
the applicable jurisdiction.
(b) Allowable Rents.--
(1) Minimum rental.--Each local housing and management
authority shall establish, for each dwelling unit in public
housing owned or administered by the authority, a minimum
monthly rental contribution, which--
(A) may not be less than $25;
(B) shall include any portion of the cost of utilities for
the unit for which the resident is responsible; and
(C) may be increased annually by the authority, except that
no such annual increase may exceed 10 percent of the amount
of the minimum monthly rental contribution in effect for the
preceding year.
[[Page H4637]]
(2) Maximum rental.--Each local housing and management
authority may establish, for each dwelling unit in public
housing owned or administered by the authority, a maximum
monthly rental amount, which shall be an amount determined by
the authority which is based on, but does not exceed--
(A) the average, for dwelling units of similar size in
public housing developments owned and operated by such
authority, of operating expenses attributable to such units;
(B) the reasonable rental value of the unit; or
(C) the local market rent for comparable units of similar
size.
(c) Income Reviews.--If a local housing and management
authority establishes the amount of rent paid by a family for
a public housing dwelling unit based on the adjusted income
of the family, the authority shall review the incomes of such
family occupying dwelling units in public housing owned or
administered by the authority not less than annually.
(d) Review of Maximum and Minimum Rents.--
(1) Rental charges.--If the Secretary determines, at any
time, that a significant percentage of the public housing
dwelling units owned or operated by a large local housing and
management authority are occupied by households paying more
than 30 percent of their adjusted incomes for rent, the
Secretary shall review the maximum and minimum monthly rental
amounts established by the authority.
(2) Population served.--If the Secretary determines, at any
time, that less than 40 percent of the public housing
dwelling units owned or operated by a large local housing and
management authority are occupied by households whose incomes
do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income, the
Secretary shall review the maximum and minimum monthly rental
amounts established by the authority.
(3) Modification of maximum and minimum rental amounts.--
If, pursuant to review under this subsection, the Secretary
determines that the maximum and minimum rental amounts for a
large local housing and management authority are not
appropriate to serve the needs of the low-income population
of the jurisdiction served by the authority (taking into
consideration the financial resources and costs of the
authority), as identified in the approved local housing
management plan of the authority, the Secretary may require
the authority to modify the maximum and minimum monthly
rental amounts.
(4) Large lhma.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``large local housing and management authority'' means a
local housing and management authority that owns or operates
1250 or more public housing dwelling units.
(e) Phase-In of Rent Contribution Increases.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), for
any family residing in a dwelling unit in public housing upon
the date of the enactment of this Act, if the monthly
contribution for rental of an assisted dwelling unit to be
paid by the family upon initial applicability of this title
is greater than the amount paid by the family under the
provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937
immediately before such applicability, any such resulting
increase in rent contribution shall be--
(A) phased in equally over a period of not less than 3
years, if such increase is 30 percent or more of such
contribution before initial applicability; and
(B) limited to not more than 10 percent per year if such
increase is more than 10 percent but less than 30 percent of
such contribution before initial applicability.
(2) Exception.--The minimum rent contribution requirement
under subsection (b)(1)(A) shall apply to each family
described in paragraph (1) of this subsection,
notwithstanding such paragraph.
SEC. 226. LEASE REQUIREMENTS.
In renting dwelling units in a public housing development,
each local housing and management authority shall utilize
leases that--
(1) do not contain unreasonable terms and conditions;
(2) obligate the local housing and management authority to
maintain the development in compliance with the housing
quality requirements under section 232;
(3) require the local housing and management authority to
give adequate written notice of termination of the lease,
which shall not be less than--
(A) the period provided under the applicable law of the
jurisdiction or 14 days, whichever is less, in the case of
nonpayment of rent;
(B) a reasonable period of time, but not to exceed 14 days,
when the health or safety of other residents or local housing
and management authority employees is threatened; and
(C) the period of time provided under the applicable law of
the jurisdiction, in any other case;
(4) require that the local housing and management authority
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 local housing and management authority
may terminate the tenancy of a public housing resident for
any activity, engaged in by a public housing 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 local housing and management authority 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);
(6) provide that any occupancy in violation of the
provisions of section 227(a)(4) shall be cause for
termination of tenancy; and
(7) specify that, with respect to any notice of eviction or
termination, notwithstanding any State law, a public housing
resident shall be informed of the opportunity, prior to any
hearing or trial, to examine any relevant documents, records
or regulations directly related to the eviction or
termination.
SEC. 227. DESIGNATED HOUSING FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED
FAMILIES.
(a) Authority To Provide Designated Housing.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a local housing and management authority for which the
information required under subsection (c) is in effect may
provide public housing developments (or portions of
developments) 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 developments (or portions of
developments) that are designated for occupancy as provided
in paragraph (1), the local housing and management authority
may make units in such developments (or portions) available
only to the types of families for whom the development is
designated.
(3) Eligibility of near-elderly families.--If a local
housing and management authority determines that there are
insufficient numbers of elderly families to fill all the
units in a development (or portion of a development)
designated under paragraph (1) for occupancy by only elderly
families, the authority may provide that near-elderly
families may occupy dwelling units in the development (or
portion).
(4) Limitation on occupancy in developments 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 development (or portion of a
development) 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 local housing and management
authority 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.
(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 local housing and management
authority may consider the factors under section 105(b).
(b) Standards Regarding Evictions.--
(1) Limitation.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
resident who is lawfully residing in a dwelling unit in a
development designated for occupancy under subsection (a)(1)
may not be evicted or otherwise required to vacate such unit
because of the designation of the development (or portion of
a development) or because of any action taken by the
Secretary or any local housing and management authority to
carry out this section.
(2) Requirement to evict nonelderly tenants in housing
designated for elderly families who have current drug or
alcohol abuse problems.--The local housing and management
authority administering a development (or portion of a
development) described in subsection (a)(4)(A) shall evict
any individual who occupies a dwelling unit in such a
development and who currently illegally uses a controlled
substance or whose current use of alcohol provides a
reasonable cause for the authority 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 local housing and management authority to evict any
other individual who occupies the same dwelling unit as the
individual required to be evicted.
(c) Required Inclusions in Local Housing Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--A local housing and management authority
may designate a development (or portion of a development) for
occupancy under subsection (a)(1) only if the authority, as
part of the authority's local housing management plan--
(A) establishes that the designation of the development is
necessary--
(i) 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 (or any consolidated plan incorporating such
strategy); and
(ii) to meet the housing needs of the low-income population
jurisdiction; and
(B) submits a description of--
(i) the development (or portion of a development) to be
designated;
(ii) the types of residents for which the development is to
be designated;
(iii) any services designed to meet the special needs of
residents to be provided to residents of the designated
development (or portion);
(iv) how the design and related facilities (as such term is
defined in section 202(d)(8) of the Housing Act of 1959) of
the development accommodate the special environmental needs
of the intended occupants.
(2) 5-year effectiveness.--The information required under
paragraph (1) shall be effective for purposes of designation
of a public housing development (or portion thereof) under
this section only for the 5-year period that begins upon
[[Page H4638]]
notification under section 108(a) of the local housing and
management authority that the information complies with the
requirements under section 107 and this subsection. A local
housing and management authority may extend the effectiveness
of the designation and information 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 updating such information in the local housing
management plan for the authority.
(3) Treatment of existing plans.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, a local housing and management
authority shall be considered to have submitted the
information required under this subsection if the authority
has submitted to the Secretary an application and allocation
plan under this section (as in effect before the date of the
enactment of this Act) that have not been approved or
disapproved before such date of enactment.
(4) Savings provision.--Any application and allocation plan
approved under section 7 of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (as in effect before the date of the enactment of this
Act) before such date of enactment shall be considered to be
information required under this subsection that is in effect
for purposes of this section for the 5-year period beginning
upon such approval.
(d) Relocation Assistance.--A local housing and management
authority that designates any existing development 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 authority and the person or family;
(2) comparable housing (including appropriate services and
design features), which may include rental assistance under
title III, 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.
(e) 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.
Subtitle C--Management
SEC. 231. MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES.
(a) Sound Management.--A local housing and management
authority that receives grant amounts under this title shall
establish and comply with procedures and practices sufficient
to ensure that the public housing developments owned or
administered by the authority are operated in a sound manner.
(b) Management by Other Entities.--Except as otherwise
provided under this Act, a local housing and management
authority may contract with any other entity to perform any
of the management functions for public housing owned or
operated by the local housing and management authority.
SEC. 232. HOUSING QUALITY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Each local housing and management
authority that receives grant amounts under this Act shall
maintain its public housing in a condition that complies--
(1) in the case of public housing located in a jurisdiction
which has in effect laws, regulations, standards, or codes
regarding habitability of residential dwellings that provide
protection to residents of the dwellings that is equal to or
greater than the protection provided under the housing
quality standards established under subsection (b), with such
applicable laws, regulations, standards, or codes; or
(2) in the case of public housing located in a jurisdiction
which does not have in effect laws, regulations, standards,
or codes described in subparagraph (A), with the housing
quality standards established under subsection (b).
(b) Federal Housing Quality Standards.--The Secretary shall
establish housing quality standards under this subsection
that ensure that public housing dwelling units are safe,
clean, and healthy. Such standards shall include requirements
relating to habitability, including maintenance, health and
sanitation factors, condition, and construction of dwellings,
and shall, to the greatest extent practicable, be consistent
with the standards established under section 328(b). The
Secretary shall differentiate between major and minor
violations of such standards.
(c) Determinations.--Each local housing and management
authority providing housing assistance shall identify, in the
local housing management plan of the authority, whether the
authority is utilizing the standard under paragraph (1) or
(2) of subsection (a) and, if the authority utilizes the
standard under paragraph (1), shall certify in such plan that
the applicable State or local laws, regulations, standards,
or codes comply with the requirements under such paragraph.
(d) Annual Inspections.--Each local housing and management
authority that owns or operates public housing shall make an
annual inspection of each public housing development to
determine whether units in the development are maintained in
accordance with the requirements under subsection (a). The
authority shall submit the results of such inspections to the
Secretary and the Inspector General for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development and such results shall be
available to the Housing Foundation and Accreditation Board
established under title IV and any auditor conducting an
audit under section 432.
SEC. 233. EMPLOYMENT OF RESIDENTS.
A local housing and management authority may employ public
housing residents in any activities engaged in by the
authority. The Secretary shall require local housing and
management authorities, in using grant amounts provided under
this title, to make their best efforts to enter into
agreements with contractors and subcontractors of the
authority to provide residents of public housing with
employment opportunities, job training, and internships.
SEC. 234. RESIDENT COUNCILS AND RESIDENT MANAGEMENT
CORPORATIONS.
(a) Resident Councils.--The residents of a public housing
development may establish a resident council for the
development for purposes of consideration of issues relating
to residents, representation of resident interests, and
coordination and consultation with a local housing and
management authority. A resident council shall be an
organization or association that--
(1) is nonprofit in character;
(2) is representative of the residents of the eligible
housing;
(3) adopts written procedures providing for the election of
officers on a regular basis; and
(4) has a democratically elected governing board, which is
elected by the residents of the eligible housing.
(b) Resident Management Corporations.--
(1) Establishment.--The residents of a public housing
development may establish a resident management corporation
for the purpose of assuming the responsibility for the
management of the development under section 235 or purchasing
a development.
(2) Requirements.--A resident management corporation shall
be a corporation that--
(A) is nonprofit in character;
(B) is organized under the laws of the State in which the
development is located;
(C) has as its sole voting members the residents of the
development; and
(D) is established by the resident council for the
development or, if there is not a resident council, by a
majority of the households of the development.
SEC. 235. MANAGEMENT BY RESIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION.
(a) Authority.--A local housing and management authority
may enter into a contract under this section with a resident
management corporation to provide for the management of
public housing developments by the corporation.
(b) Contract.--A contract under this section for management
of public housing developments by a resident management
corporation shall establish the respective management rights
and responsibilities of the corporation and the local housing
and management authority. The contract shall be consistent
with the requirements of this Act applicable to public
housing development and may include specific terms governing
management personnel and compensation, access to public
housing records, submission of and adherence to budgets, rent
collection procedures, resident income verification, resident
eligibility determinations, resident eviction, the
acquisition of supplies and materials and such other matters
as may be appropriate. The contract shall be treated as a
contracting out of services.
(c) Bonding and Insurance.--Before assuming any management
responsibility for a public housing development, the resident
management corporation shall provide fidelity bonding and
insurance, or equivalent protection. Such bonding and
insurance, or its equivalent, shall be adequate to protect
the Secretary and the local housing and management authority
against loss, theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent acts on the
part of the resident management corporation or its employees.
(d) Block Grant Assistance and Income.--A contract under
this section shall provide for--
(1) the local housing and management authority to provide a
portion of the block grant assistance under this title to the
resident management corporation for purposes of operating the
public housing development covered by the contract and
performing such other eligible activities with respect to the
development as may be provided under the contract;
(2) the amount of income expected to be derived from the
development itself (from sources such as rents and charges);
(3) the amount of income to be provided to the development
from the other sources of income of the local housing and
management authority (such as interest income, administrative
fees, and rents); and
(4) any income generated by a resident management
corporation of a public housing development that exceeds the
income estimated under the contract shall be used for
eligible activities under section 203(a).
(e) Calculation of Total Income.--
(1) Maintenance of support.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
amount of assistance provided by a local housing and
management authority to a public housing development managed
by a resident management corporation may not be reduced
during the 3-year period beginning on the date on which the
resident management corporation is first established for the
development.
(2) Reductions and increases in support.--If the total
income of a local housing and management authority is reduced
or increased, the income provided by the local housing and
management authority to a public housing development managed
by a resident management corporation shall be reduced or
increased in proportion to the reduction or increase in the
total income of the authority, except that any reduction in
block grant amounts under this title to the authority that
occurs as a result of fraud, waste, or mismanagement by the
authority shall not affect the amount provided to the
resident management corporation.
SEC. 236. TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN HOUSING TO
INDEPENDENT MANAGER AT REQUEST OF RESIDENTS.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary may transfer the
responsibility and authority for management
[[Page H4639]]
of specified housing (as such term is defined in subsection
(h)) from a local housing and management authority to an
eligible management entity, in accordance with the
requirements of this section, if--
(1) such housing is owned or operated by a local housing
and management authority that is--
(A) not accredited under section 433 by the Housing
Foundation and Accreditation Board; or
(B) is designated as a troubled authority under section
431(a)(2); and
(2) the Secretary determines that--
(A) such housing has deferred maintenance, physical
deterioration, or obsolescence of major systems and other
deficiencies in the physical plant of the project;
(B) such housing is occupied predominantly by families with
children who are in a severe state of distress, characterized
by such factors as high rates of unemployment, teenage
pregnancy, single-parent households, long-term dependency on
public assistance and minimal educational achievement;
(C) such housing is located in an area such that the
housing is subject to recurrent vandalism and criminal
activity (including drug-related criminal activity); and
(D) the residents can demonstrate that the elements of
distress for such housing specified in subparagraphs (A)
through (C) can be remedied by an entity that has a
demonstrated capacity to manage, with reasonable expenses for
modernization.
Such a transfer may be made only as provided in this section,
pursuant to the approval by the Secretary of a request for
the transfer made by a majority vote of the residents for the
specified housing, after consultation with the local housing
and management authority for the specified housing.
(b) Block Grant Assistance.--Pursuant to a contract under
subsection (c), the Secretary shall require the local housing
and management authority for specified housing to provide to
the manager for the housing, from any block grant amounts
under this title for the authority, fair and reasonable
amounts for operating costs for the housing. The amount made
available under this subsection to a manager shall be
determined by the Secretary based on the share for the
specified housing of the total block grant amounts for the
local housing and management authority transferring the
housing, taking into consideration the operating and capital
improvement needs of the specified housing, the operating and
capital improvement needs of the remaining public housing
units managed by the local housing and management authority,
and the local housing management plan of such authority.
(c) Contract Between Secretary and Manager.--
(1) Requirements.--Pursuant to the approval of a request
under this section for transfer of the management of
specified housing, the Secretary shall enter into a contract
with the eligible management entity.
(2) Terms.--A contract under this subsection shall contain
provisions establishing the rights and responsibilities of
the manager with respect to the specified housing and the
Secretary and shall be consistent with the requirements of
this Act applicable to public housing developments.
(d) Compliance With Local Housing Management Plan.--A
manager of specified housing under this section shall comply
with the approved local housing management plan applicable to
the housing and shall submit such information to the local
housing and management authority from which management was
transferred as may be necessary for such authority to prepare
and update its local housing management plan.
(e) Demolition and Disposition by Manager.--A manager under
this section may demolish or dispose of specified housing
only if, and in the manner, provided for in the local housing
management plan for the authority transferring management of
the housing.
(f) Limitation on LHMA Liability.--A local housing and
management authority that is not a manager for specified
housing shall not be liable for any act or failure to act by
a manager or resident council for the specified housing.
(g) Treatment of Manager.--To the extent not inconsistent
with this section and to the extent the Secretary determines
not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, a manager of
specified housing under this section shall be considered to
be a local housing and management authority for purposes of
this title.
(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
(1) Eligible management entity.--The term ``eligible
management entity'' means, with respect to any public housing
development, any of the following entities that has been
accredited in accordance with section 433:
(A) Nonprofit organization.--A public or private nonprofit
organization, which shall--
(i) include a resident management corporation or resident
management organization and, as determined by the Secretary,
a public or private nonprofit organization sponsored by the
local housing and management authority that owns the
development; and
(ii) not include the local housing and management authority
that owns the development.
(B) For-profit entity.--A for-profit entity that has
demonstrated experience in providing low-income housing.
(C) State or local government.--A State or local
government, including an agency or instrumentality thereof.
(D) Local housing and management authority.--A local
housing and management authority (other than the local
housing and management authority that owns the development).
The term does not include a resident council.
(2) Manager.--The term ``manager'' means any eligible
management entity that has entered into a contract under this
section with the Secretary for the management of specified
housing.
(3) Nonprofit.--The term ``nonprofit'' means, with respect
to an organization, association, corporation, or other
entity, that no part of the net earnings of the entity inures
to the benefit of any member, founder, contributor, or
individual.
(4) Private nonprofit organization.--The term ``private
nonprofit organization'' means any private organization
(including a State or locally chartered organization) that--
(A) is incorporated under State or local law;
(B) is nonprofit in character;
(C) complies with standards of financial accountability
acceptable to the Secretary; and
(D) has among its purposes significant activities related
to the provision of decent housing that is affordable to low-
income families.
(5) Local housing and management authority.--The term
``local housing and management authority'' has the meaning
given such term in section 103(a), except that it does not
include Indian housing authorities.
(6) Public nonprofit organization.--The term ``public
nonprofit organization'' means any public entity that is
nonprofit in character.
(7) Specified housing.--The term ``specified housing''
means a public housing development or developments, or a
portion of a development or developments, for which the
transfer of management is requested under this section.
The term includes one or more contiguous buildings and an
area of contiguous row houses, but in the case of a single
building, the building shall be sufficiently separable
from the remainder of the development of which it is part
to make transfer of the management of the building
feasible for purposes of this section.
SEC. 237. RESIDENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to encourage
increased resident management of public housing developments,
as a means of improving existing living conditions in public
housing developments, by providing increased flexibility for
public housing developments that are managed by residents
by--
(1) permitting the retention, and use for certain purposes,
of any revenues exceeding operating and project costs; and
(2) providing funding, from amounts otherwise available,
for technical assistance to promote formation and development
of resident management entities.
For purposes of this section, the term ``public housing
development'' includes one or more contiguous buildings or an
area of contiguous row houses the elected resident councils
of which approve the establishment of a resident management
corporation and otherwise meet the requirements of this
section.
(b) Program Requirements.--
(1) Resident council.--As a condition of entering into a
resident opportunity program, the elected resident council of
a public housing development shall approve the establishment
of a resident management corporation that complies with the
requirements of section 234(b)(2). When such approval is made
by the elected resident council of a building or row house
area, the resident opportunity program shall not interfere
with the rights of other families residing in the development
or harm the efficient operation of the development. The
resident management corporation and the resident council may
be the same organization, if the organization complies with
the requirements applicable to both the corporation and
council.
(2) Public housing management specialist.--The resident
council of a public housing development, in cooperation with
the local housing and management authority, shall select a
qualified public housing management specialist to assist in
determining the feasibility of, and to help establish, a
resident management corporation and to provide training and
other duties agreed to in the daily operations of the
development.
(3) Management responsibilities.--A resident management
corporation that qualifies under this section, and that
supplies insurance and bonding or equivalent protection
sufficient to the Secretary and the local housing and
management authority, shall enter into a contract with the
authority establishing the respective management rights and
responsibilities of the corporation and the authority. The
contract shall be treated as a contracting out of services
and shall be subject to the requirements under section 234
for such contracts.
(4) Annual audit.--The books and records of a resident
management corporation operating a public housing development
shall be audited annually by a certified public accountant. A
written report of each such audit shall be forwarded to the
local housing and management authority and the Secretary.
(c) Comprehensive Improvement Assistance.--Public housing
developments managed by resident management corporations may
be provided with modernization assistance from grant amounts
under this title for purposes of renovating such
developments. If such renovation activities (including the
planning and architectural design of the rehabilitation) are
administered by a resident management corporation, the local
housing and management authority involved may not retain, for
any administrative or other reason, any portion of the
assistance provided pursuant to this subsection unless
otherwise provided by contract.
(d) Waiver of Federal Requirements.--
(1) Waiver of regulatory requirements.--Upon the request of
any resident management corporation and local housing and
management authority, and after notice and an opportunity to
comment is afforded to the affected residents, the Secretary
may waive (for both the resident management corporation and
the local housing
[[Page H4640]]
and management authority) any requirement established by the
Secretary (and not specified in any statute) that the
Secretary determines to unnecessarily increase the costs or
restrict the income of a public housing development.
(2) Waiver to permit employment.--Upon the request of any
resident management corporation, the Secretary may, subject
to applicable collective bargaining agreements, permit
residents of such development to volunteer a portion of their
labor.
(3) Exceptions.--The Secretary may not waive under this
subsection any requirement with respect to income eligibility
for purposes of section 222, rental payments under section
225, tenant or applicant protections, employee organizing
rights, or rights of employees under collective bargaining
agreements.
(e) Operating Assistance and Development Income.--
(1) Calculation of operating subsidy.--Subject only to the
exception provided in paragraph (3), the amount grant amounts
received under this title by a local housing and management
authority used for operating costs under section 203(a)(2)
that is allocated to a public housing development managed by
a resident management corporation shall not be less than per
unit monthly amount of such assistance used by the local
housing and management authority in the previous year, as
determined on an individual development basis.
(2) Contract requirements.--Any contract for management of
a public housing development entered into by a local housing
and management authority and a resident management
corporation shall specify the amount of income expected to be
derived from the development itself (from sources such as
rents and charges) and the amount of income funds to be
provided to the development from the other sources of income
of the authority (such as operating assistance under section
203(a), interest income, administrative fees, and rents).
(f) Resident Management Technical Assistance and
Training.--
(1) Financial assistance.--To the extent budget authority
is available under this title, the Secretary shall provide
financial assistance to resident management corporations or
resident councils that obtain, by contract or otherwise,
technical assistance for the development of resident
management entities, including the formation of such
entities, the development of the management capability of
newly formed or existing entities, the identification of the
social support needs of residents of public housing
developments, and the securing of such support.
(2) Limitation on assistance.--The financial assistance
provided under this subsection with respect to any public
housing development may not exceed $100,000.
(3) Prohibition.--A resident management corporation or
resident council may not, before the award to the corporation
or council of a grant amount under this subsection, enter
into any contract or other agreement with any entity to
provide such entity with amounts from the grant for providing
technical assistance or carrying out other activities
eligible for assistance with amounts under this subsection.
Any such agreement entered into in violation of this
paragraph shall be void and unenforceable.
(4) Funding.--Of any amounts made available for financial
assistance under this title, the Secretary may use to carry
out this subsection $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.
(5) Limitation regarding assistance under hope grant
program.--The Secretary may not provide financial assistance
under this subsection to any resident management corporation
or resident council with respect to which assistance for the
development or formation of such entity is provided under
title III of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in
effect before the date of the enactment of this Act).
(g) Assessment and Report by Secretary.--Not later than 3
years after the date of the enactment of the United States
Housing Act of 1996, the Secretary shall--
(1) conduct an evaluation and assessment of resident
management, and particularly of the effect of resident
management on living conditions in public housing; and
(2) submit to the Congress a report setting forth the
findings of the Secretary as a result of the evaluation and
assessment and including any recommendations the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
(h) Applicability.--Any management contract between a local
housing and management authority and a resident management
corporation that is entered into after the date of the
enactment of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Amendments Act of 1988 shall be subject to this section and
any regulations issued to carry out this section.
Subtitle D--Homeownership
SEC. 251. RESIDENT HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--A local housing and management authority
may carry out a homeownership program in accordance with this
section and the local housing management plan of the
authority to make public housing dwelling units, public
housing developments, and other housing projects available
for purchase by low-income families.
(b) Participating Units.--A program under this section may
cover any existing public housing dwelling units or projects,
and may include other dwelling units and housing owned,
operated, or assisted, or otherwise acquired for use under
such program, by the local housing and management authority.
(c) Eligible Purchasers.--
(1) Low-income requirement.--Only low-income families
assisted by a local housing and management authority, other
low-income families, and entities formed to facilitate such
sales shall be eligible to purchase housing under a
homeownership program under this section.
(2) Other requirements.--A local housing and management
authority may establish other requirements or limitations for
families to purchase housing under a homeownership program
under this section, including requirements or limitations
regarding employment or participation in employment
counseling or training activities, criminal activity,
participation in homeownership counseling programs, evidence
of regular income, and other requirements.
(d) Financing and Assistance.--A homeownership program
under this section may provide financing for acquisition of
housing by families purchasing under the program or by the
local housing and management authority for sale under this
program in any manner considered appropriate by the authority
(including sale to a resident management corporation).
(e) Downpayment Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Each family purchasing housing under a
homeownership program under this section shall be required to
provide from its own resources a downpayment in connection
with any loan for acquisition of the housing, in an amount
determined by the local housing and management authority.
Except as provided in paragraph (2), the authority shall
permit the family to use grant amounts, gifts from relatives,
contributions from private sources, and similar amounts as
downpayment amounts in such purchase,
(2) Direct family contribution.--In purchasing housing
pursuant to this section, each family shall contribute an
amount of the downpayment, from resources of the family other
than grants, gifts, contributions, or other similar amounts
referred to in paragraph (1), that is not less than 1 percent
of the purchase price.
(f) Ownership Interests.--A homeownership program under
this section may provide for sale to the purchasing family of
any ownership interest that the local housing and management
authority considers appropriate under the program, including
ownership in fee simple, a condominium interest, an interest
in a limited dividend cooperative, a shared appreciation
interest with a local housing and management authority
providing financing.
(g) Resale.--
(1) Authority and limitation.--A homeownership program
under this section shall permit the resale of a dwelling unit
purchased under the program by an eligible family, but shall
provide such limitations on resale as the authority considers
appropriate for the authority to recapture--
(A) from any economic gain derived from any such resale
occurring during the 5-year period beginning upon purchase of
the dwelling unit by the eligible family, a portion of the
amount of any financial assistance provided under the program
by the authority to the eligible family; and
(B) after the expiration of such 5-year period, only such
amounts as are equivalent to the assistance provided under
this section by the authority to the purchaser.
(2) Considerations.--The limitations referred to in
paragraph (1) may provide for consideration of the aggregate
amount of assistance provided under the program to the
family, the contribution to equity provided by the purchasing
eligible family, the period of time elapsed between purchase
under the homeownership program and resale, the reason for
resale, any improvements to the property made by the eligible
family, any appreciation in the value of the property, and
any other factors that the authority considers appropriate.
(h) Inapplicability of Disposition Requirements.--The
provisions of section 261 shall not apply to disposition of
public housing dwelling units under a homeownership program
under this section, except that any dwelling units sold under
such a program shall be treated as public housing dwelling
units for purposes of subsections (e) and (f) of section 261.
Subtitle E--Disposition, Demolition, and Revitalization of Developments
SEC. 261. REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION AND DISPOSITION OF
DEVELOPMENTS.
(a) Authority and Flexibility.--A local housing and
management authority may demolish, dispose of, or demolish
and dispose of nonviable or nonmarketable public housing
developments of the authority in accordance with this
section.
(b) Local Housing Management Plan Requirement.--A local
housing and management authority may take any action to
demolish or dispose of a public housing development (or a
portion of a development) only if such demolition or
disposition complies with the provisions of this section
and is in accordance with the local housing management
plan for the authority.
(c) Purpose of Demolition or Disposition.--A local housing
and management authority may demolish or dispose of a public
housing development (or portion of a development) only if the
authority provides sufficient evidence to the Secretary
that--
(1) the development (or portion thereof) is severely
distressed or obsolete;
(2) the development (or portion thereof) is in a location
making it unsuitable for housing purposes;
(3) the development (or portion thereof) has design or
construction deficiencies that make cost-effective
rehabilitation infeasible;
(4) assuming that reasonable rehabilitation and management
intervention for the development has been completed and paid
for, the anticipated revenue that would be derived from
charging market-based rents for units in the development (or
portion thereof) would not cover the anticipated operating
costs and replacement reserves of the development (or
portion) at full occupancy and the development (or portion)
would constitute a substantial burden on the resources of the
local housing and management authority;
[[Page H4641]]
(5) retention of the development (or portion thereof) is
not in the best interests of the residents of the local
housing and management authority because--
(A) developmental changes in the area surrounding the
development adversely affect the health or safety of the
residents or the feasible operation of the development by the
local housing and management authority;
(B) demolition or disposition will allow the acquisition,
development, or rehabilitation of other properties which will
be more efficiently or effectively operated as low-income
housing; or
(C) other factors exist that the authority determines are
consistent with the best interests of the residents and the
authority and not inconsistent with other provisions of this
Act;
(6) in the case only of demolition or disposition of a
portion of a development, the demolition or disposition will
help to ensure the remaining useful life of the remainder of
the development; or
(7) in the case only of property other than dwelling
units--
(A) the property is excess to the needs of a development;
or
(B) the demolition or disposition is incidental to, or does
not interfere with, continued operation of a development.
(d) Consultation.--A local housing and management authority
may demolish or dispose of a public housing development (or
portion of a development) only if the authority notifies and
confers regarding the demolition or disposition with--
(1) the residents of the development (or portion); and
(2) appropriate local government officials.
(e) Use of Proceeds.--Any net proceeds from the disposition
of a public housing development (or portion of a development)
shall be used for--
(1) housing assistance for low-income families that is
consistent with the low-income housing needs of the
community, through acquisition, development, or
rehabilitation of, or homeownership programs for, other low-
income housing or the provision of choice-based assistance
under title III for such families;
(2) supportive services relating to job training or child
care for residents of a development or developments; or
(3) leveraging amounts for securing commercial enterprises,
on-site in public housing developments of the local housing
and management authority, appropriate to serve the needs of
the residents.
(f) Relocation.--A local housing and management authority
that demolishes or disposes of a public housing development
(or portion of a development thereof) shall ensure that--
(1) each family that is a resident of the development (or
portion) that is demolished or disposed of is relocated to
other safe, clean, healthy, and affordable housing, which is,
to the maximum extent practicable, housing of the family's
choice or is provided with choice-based assistance under
title III;
(2) the local housing and management authority does not
take any action to dispose of any unit until any resident to
be displaced is relocated in accordance with paragraph (1);
and
(3) each resident family to be displaced is paid relocation
expenses, and the rent to be paid initially by the resident
following relocation does not exceed the amount permitted
under section 225(a).
(g) Right of First Refusal for Resident Organizations and
Resident Management Corporations.--
(1) In general.--A local housing and management authority
may not dispose of a public housing development (or portion
of a development) unless the authority has, before such
disposition, offered to sell the property, as provided in
this subsection, to each resident organization and resident
management corporation operating at the development for
continued use as low-income housing, and no such organization
or corporation purchases the property pursuant to such offer.
A resident organization may act, for purposes of this
subsection, through an entity formed to facilitate
homeownership under subtitle D.
(2) Timing.--Disposition of a development (or portion
thereof) under this section may not take place--
(A) before the expiration of the period during which any
such organization or corporation may notify the authority of
interest in purchasing the property, which shall be the 30-
day period beginning on the date that the authority first
provides notice of the proposed disposition of the property
to such resident organizations and resident management
corporations;
(B) if an organization or corporation submits notice of
interest in accordance with subparagraph (A), before the
expiration of the period during which such organization or
corporation may obtain a commitment for financing to purchase
the property, which shall be the 60-day period beginning upon
the submission to the authority of the notice of interest; or
(C) if, during the period under subparagraph (B), an
organization or corporation obtains such financing commitment
and makes a bona fide offer to the authority to purchase the
property for a price equal to or exceeding the applicable
offer price under paragraph (3).
The authority shall sell the property pursuant to any
purchase offer described in subparagraph (C).
(3) Terms of offer.--An offer by a local housing and
management authority to sell a property in accordance with
this subsection shall involve a purchase price that reflects
the market value of the property, the reason for the sale,
the impact of the sale on the surrounding community, and any
other factors that the authority considers appropriate.
(h) Information for Local Housing Management Plan.--A local
housing and management authority may demolish or dispose of a
public housing development (or portion thereof) only if it
includes in the applicable local housing management plan
information sufficient to describe--
(1) the housing to be demolished or disposed of;
(2) the purpose of the demolition or disposition under
subsection (c) and why the demolition or disposition complies
with the requirements under subsection (c);
(3) how the consultations required under subsection (d)
will be made;
(4) how the net proceeds of the disposition will be used in
accordance with subsection (e);
(5) how the authority will relocate residents, if
necessary, as required under subsection (f); and
(6) that the authority has offered the property for
acquisition by resident organizations and resident management
corporations in accordance with subsection (g).
(i) Site and Neighborhood Standards Exemption.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local housing
and management authority may provide for development of
public housing dwelling units on the same site or in the same
neighborhood as any dwelling units demolished, pursuant to a
plan under this section, but only if such development
provides for significantly fewer dwelling units.
(j) Treatment of Replacement Units.--In connection with any
demolition or disposition of public housing under this
section, a local housing and management authority may provide
for other housing assistance for low-income families that is
consistent with the low-income housing needs of the
community, including--
(1) the provision of choice-based assistance under title
III; and
(2) the development, acquisition, or lease by the authority
of dwelling units, which dwelling units shall--
(A) be eligible to receive assistance with grant amounts
provided under this title; and
(B) be made available for occupancy, operated, and managed
in the manner required for public housing, and subject to the
other requirements applicable to public housing dwelling
units.
(k) Permissible Relocation Without Plan.--If a local
housing and management authority determines that public
housing dwelling units are not clean, safe, and healthy or
cannot be maintained cost-effectively in a clean, safe, and
healthy condition, the local housing and management authority
may relocate residents of such dwelling units before the
submission of a local housing management plan providing for
demolition or disposition of such units.
(l) Consolidation of Occupancy Within or Among Buildings.--
Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent a local
housing and management authority from consolidating occupancy
within or among buildings of a public housing development, or
among developments, or with other housing for the purpose of
improving living conditions of, or providing more efficient
services to, residents.
(m) De Minimis Exception to Demolition Requirements.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in any
5-year period a local housing and management authority may
demolish not more than the lesser of 5 dwelling units or 5
percent of the total dwelling units owned and operated by the
local housing and management authority, without providing for
such demolition in a local housing management plan, but only
if the space occupied by the demolished unit is used for
meeting the service or other needs of public housing
residents or the demolished unit was beyond repair.
SEC. 262. DEMOLITION, SITE REVITALIZATION, REPLACEMENT
HOUSING, AND CHOICE-BASED ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR
DEVELOPMENTS.
(a) Purposes.--The purpose of this section is to provide
assistance to local housing and management authorities for
the purposes of--
(1) reducing the density and improving the living
environment for public housing residents of severely
distressed public housing developments through the demolition
of obsolete public housing developments (or portions
thereof);
(2) revitalizing sites (including remaining public housing
dwelling units) on which such public housing developments are
located and contributing to the improvement of the
surrounding neighborhood; and
(3) providing housing that will avoid or decrease the
concentration of very low-income families; and
(4) providing choice-based assistance in accordance with
title III for the purpose of providing replacement housing
and assisting residents to be displaced by the demolition.
(b) Grant Authority.--The Secretary may make grants
available to local housing and management authorities as
provided in this section.
(c) Contribution Requirement.--The Secretary may not make
any grant under this section to any applicant unless the
applicant certifies to the Secretary that the applicant will
supplement the amount of assistance provided under this
section with an amount of funds from sources other than this
section equal to not less than 5 percent of the amount
provided under this section, including amounts from other
Federal sources, any State or local government sources, any
private contributions, and the value of any in-kind services
or administrative costs provided.
(d) Eligible Activities.--Grants under this section may be
used for activities to carry out revitalization programs for
severely distressed public housing, including--
(1) architectural and engineering work, including the
redesign, reconstruction, or redevelopment of a severely
distressed public housing development, including the site on
which the development is located;
(2) the demolition, sale, or lease of the site, in whole or
in part;
[[Page H4642]]
(3) covering the administrative costs of the applicant,
which may not exceed such portion of the assistance provided
under this section as the Secretary may prescribe;
(4) payment of reasonable legal fees;
(5) providing reasonable moving expenses for residents
displaced as a result of the revitalization of the
development;
(6) economic development activities that promote the
economic self-sufficiency of residents under the
revitalization program;
(7) necessary management improvements;
(8) leveraging other resources, including additional
housing resources, retail supportive services, jobs, and
other economic development uses on or near the development
that will benefit future residents of the site;
(9) replacement housing and housing assistance under title
III;
(10) transitional security activities; and
(11) necessary supportive services, except that not more
than 10 percent of the amount of any grant may be used for
activities under this paragraph.
(e) Application and Selection.--
(1) Application.--An application for a grant under this
section shall contain such information and shall be submitted
at such time and in accordance with such procedures, as the
Secretary shall prescribe.
(2) Selection criteria.--The Secretary shall establish
selection criteria for the award of grants under this
section, which shall include--
(A) the relationship of the grant to the local housing
management plan for the local housing and management
authority and how the grant will result in a revitalized site
that will enhance the neighborhood in which the development
is located;
(B) the capability and record of the applicant local
housing and management authority, or any alternative
management agency for the authority, for managing large-scale
redevelopment or modernization projects, meeting construction
timetables, and obligating amounts in a timely manner;
(C) the extent to which the local housing and management
authority could undertake such activities without a grant
under this section;
(D) the extent of involvement of residents, State and local
governments, private service providers, financing entities,
and developers, in the development of a revitalization
program for the development;
(E) the amount of funds and other resources to be leveraged
by the grant; and
(F) whether the applicant local housing and management
authority has been awarded a planning grant under section
24(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect
immediately before the date of the enactment of this Act).
(f) Cost Limits.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, the Secretary--
(1) shall establish cost limits on eligible activities
under this section sufficient to provide for effective
revitalization programs; and
(2) may establish other cost limits on eligible activities
under this section.
(h) Demolition and Replacement.--Any severely distressed
public housing demolished or disposed of pursuant to a
revitalization plan and any public housing produced in lieu
of such severely distressed housing, shall be subject to the
provisions of section 261.
(i) Administration by Other Entities.--The Secretary may
require a grantee under this section to make arrangements
satisfactory to the Secretary for use of an entity other than
the local housing and management authority to carry out
activities assisted under the revitalization plan, if the
Secretary determines that such action will help to effectuate
the purposes of this section.
(j) Withdrawal of Funding.--If a grantee under this section
does not proceed expeditiously, in the determination of the
Secretary, the Secretary shall withdraw any grant amounts
under this section that have not been obligated by the local
housing and management authority. The Secretary shall
redistribute any withdrawn amounts to one or more local
housing and management authorities eligible for assistance
under this section.
(k) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
(1) Applicant.--The term ``applicant'' means--
(A) any local housing and management authority that is not
designated as troubled pursuant to section 431(a)(2)(D);
(B) any local housing and management authority or private
housing management agent selected, or receiver appointed
pursuant, to section 438; and
(C) any local housing and management authority that is
designated as troubled pursuant to section 431(a)(2)(D)
that--
(i) is so designated principally for reasons that will not
affect the capacity of the authority to carry out a
revitalization program;
(ii) is making substantial progress toward eliminating the
deficiencies of the authority; or
(iii) is otherwise determined by the Secretary to be
capable of carrying out a revitalization program.
(2) Private nonprofit corporation.--The term ``private
nonprofit organization'' means any private nonprofit
organization (including a State or locally chartered
nonprofit organization) that--
(A) is incorporated under State or local law;
(B) has no part of its net earnings inuring to the benefit
of any member, founder, contributor, or individual;
(C) complies with standards of financial accountability
acceptable to the Secretary; and
(D) has among its purposes significant activities related
to the provision of decent housing that is affordable to very
low-income families.
(3) Severely distressed public housing.--The term
``severely distressed public housing'' means a public housing
development (or building in a development)--
(A) that requires major redesign, reconstruction or
redevelopment, or partial or total demolition, to correct
serious deficiencies in the original design (including
inappropriately high population density), deferred
maintenance, physical deterioration or obsolescence of major
systems and other deficiencies in the physical plant of the
development;
(B) is a significant contributing factor to the physical
decline of and disinvestment by public and private entities
in the surrounding neighborhood;
(C)(i) is occupied predominantly by families who are very
low-income families with children, are unemployed, and
dependent on various forms of public assistance; and
(ii) has high rates of vandalism and criminal activity
(including drug-related criminal activity) in comparison to
other housing in the area;
(D) cannot be revitalized through assistance under other
programs, such as the public housing block grant program
under this title, or the programs under sections 9 and 14 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before
the date of the enactment of this Act), because of cost
constraints and inadequacy of available amounts; and
(E) in the case of individual buildings, the building is,
in the Secretary's determination, sufficiently separable from
the remainder of the development of which the building is
part to make use of the building feasible for purposes of
this section.
(4) Supportive services.--The term ``supportive services''
includes all activities that will promote upward mobility,
self-sufficiency, and improved quality of life for the
residents of the public housing development involved,
including literacy training, job training, day care, and
economic development activities.
(l) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the
Congress an annual report setting forth--
(1) the number, type, and cost of public housing units
revitalized pursuant to this section;
(2) the status of developments identified as severely
distressed public housing;
(3) the amount and type of financial assistance provided
under and in conjunction with this section; and
(4) the recommendations of the Secretary for statutory and
regulatory improvements to the program established by this
section.
(m) Funding.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for grants under this section such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal year 1996.
(2) Technical assistance.--Of the amount appropriated
pursuant to paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, the Secretary
may use not more than 0.50 percent for technical assistance.
Such assistance may be provided directly or indirectly by
grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, and shall
include training, and the cost of necessary travel for
participants in such training, by or to officials of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, of local housing
and management authorities, and of residents.
(n) Sunset.--No assistance may be provided under this
section after September 30, 1996.
Subtitle F--General Provisions
SEC. 271. CONVERSION TO BLOCK GRANT ASSISTANCE.
(a) Savings Provisions.--Any amounts made available to a
public housing agency for assistance for public housing
pursuant to the United States Housing Act of 1937 (or any
other provision of law relating to assistance for public
housing) under an appropriation for fiscal year 1996 or any
previous fiscal year shall be subject to the provisions of
such Act as in effect before the enactment of this Act,
notwithstanding the repeals made by this Act, except to the
extent the Secretary provides otherwise to provide for the
conversion of public housing and public housing assistance to
the system provided under this Act.
(b) Modifications.--Notwithstanding any provision of this
Act or any annual contributions contract or other agreement
entered into by the Secretary and a public housing agency
pursuant to the provisions of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (as in effect before the enactment of this Act), the
Secretary and the agency may by mutual consent amend,
supersede, modify any such agreement as appropriate to
provide for assistance under this title, except that the
Secretary and the agency may not consent to any such
amendment, supersession, or modification that substantially
alters any outstanding obligations requiring continued
maintenance of the low-income character of any public housing
development and any such amendment, supersession, or
modification shall not be given effect.
SEC. 272. PAYMENT OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE.
Rental or use-value of buildings or facilities paid for, in
whole or in part, from production, modernization, or
operation costs financed under this title may be used as the
non-Federal share required in connection with activities
undertaken under Federal grant-in-aid programs which provide
social, educational, employment, and other services to the
residents in a project assisted under this title.
SEC. 273. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Acquisition cost.--The term ``acquisition cost'' means
the amount prudently expended by a local housing and
management authority in acquiring property for a public
housing development.
(2) Development.--The terms ``public housing development''
and ``development'' mean--
(A) public housing; and
(B) the improvement of any such housing.
(3) Eligible local housing and management authority.--The
term ``eligible local housing
[[Page H4643]]
and management authority'' means, with respect to a fiscal
year, a local housing and management authority that is
eligible under section 202(b) for a grant under this title.
(4) Group home and independent living facility.--The terms
``group home'' and ``independent living facility'' have the
meanings given such terms in section 811(k) of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.
(5) Operation.--The term ``operation'' means any or all
undertakings appropriate for management, operation, services,
maintenance, security (including the cost of security
personnel), or financing in connection with a public housing
development, including the financing of resident programs and
services.
(6) Production.--The term ``production'' means any or all
undertakings necessary for planning, land acquisition,
financing, demolition, construction, or equipment, in
connection with the construction, acquisition, or
rehabilitation of a property for use as a public housing
development, including activity in connection with a public
housing development that is confined to the reconstruction,
remodeling, or repair of existing buildings.
(7) Production cost.--The term ``production cost'' means
the costs incurred by a local housing and management
authority for production of public housing and the necessary
financing for production (including the payment of carrying
charges and acquisition costs).
(8) Resident council.--The term ``resident council'' means
an organization or association that meets the requirements of
section 234(a).
(9) Resident management corporation.--The term ``resident
management corporation'' means a corporation that meets the
requirements of section 234(b).
(10) Resident program.--The term ``resident programs and
services'' means programs and services for families residing
in public housing developments. Such term includes (A) the
development and maintenance of resident organizations which
participate in the management of public housing developments,
(B) the training of residents to manage and operate the
public housing development and the utilization of their
services in management and operation of the development, (C)
counseling on household management, housekeeping, budgeting,
money management, homeownership issues, child care, and
similar matters, (D) advice regarding resources for job
training and placement, education, welfare, health, and other
community services, (E) services that are directly related to
meeting resident needs and providing a wholesome living
environment; and (F) referral to appropriate agencies in the
community when necessary for the provision of such services.
To the maximum extent available and appropriate, existing
public and private agencies in the community shall be used
for the provision of such services.
SEC. 274. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BLOCK GRANTS.
There is authorized to be appropriated, for block grants
under this title, $6,300,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.
SEC. 275. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATION SAFE
HOME.
There is authorized to be appropriated, for assistance for
relocating residents of public housing under the operation
safe home program of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (including assistance for costs of relocation and
housing assistance under title III), $700,000 for each of
fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. The Secretary
shall provide that families who are residing in public
housing, who have been subject to domestic violence, and for
whom provision of assistance is likely to reduce or eliminate
the threat of subsequent violence to the members of the
family, shall be eligible for assistance under the operation
safe home program.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to title II?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word to try to make certain that we understand what our business is
going to be.
Mr. Chairman, I want to try to enter into a colloquy with the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], my friend and chairman about our
plans for the rest of the evening, and I hope for our plans involving
tomorrow's business.
I wonder if the gentleman might enlighten us as to what his plans for
the subcommittee are for the rest of the evening.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I
would be happy to enter into a discussion with my friend, the
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Kennedy.
I will be happy to make the unanimous consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on all amendments
to the bill, and any amendment thereto, be limited to 10 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, except
that: the modified amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts be considered under the terms of the previous order of
the committee, amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts
be debatable for 1 hour, amendments Nos. 33 and 34 offered by Ms.
Velazquez of New York may be considered en bloc and debatable for 20
minutes, amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Roemer of Indiana be debatable
for 20 minutes, and amendment No. 9 by Mr. Hayworth of Arizona be
debatable for 20 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I appreciate the efforts that the gentleman from New York and
the staff of the committee have made to try to get this bill under
control for tomorrow's business. I think we have an agreement in terms
of the committee's work that everyone that has offered or intends to
offer an amendment can work within.
I would also like to put on the Record the minority's understanding
of the floor schedule for testimony. That the House intends to meet at
10 a.m. That the House will take up the housing bill until completion
and that the House will vote on the product liability veto override.
Then the House will take up the rule on general debate only on the
adoption bill and the House may take up the science rule only, and that
will be it in terms of the order of business for the day.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, it
is my understanding that the schedule will follow closely, or
approximately, what the gentleman has simply set forth.
It looks like those issues will be resolved and I think we will
probably only get to the rule vote on the science bill, tomorrow so we
are hoping to wrap up. And I also want to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for working cooperatively to ensure that we have a
rational debate process for the remained of this bill before us right
now.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, although I am a little
suspect about approximatelys and hopefuls, but anyway, I appreciate
working with the gentleman from New York and look forward to a shorter
day tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hayworth) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hobson, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R.
2406), to repeal the United States Housing Act of 1937, deregulate the
public housing program and the program for rental housing assistance
for low-income families, and increase community control over such
programs, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________