[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 77 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E970-E971]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 HOUSING ACT AMENDMENT JEOPARDIZES HOMELESS ASSISTANCE USE OF FEDERAL 
                                PROPERTY

                                 ______


                          HON. CARDISS COLLINS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 30, 1996

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express deep concern 
over a provision that first appeared in the manager's amendment to H.R. 
2406, the U.S. Housing Act of 1996. This legislation passed the House 
on May 9, 1996. The provision, which is section 506, would seriously 
jeopardize an important form of assistance to the homeless provided by 
the title V of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. Under 
that title, providers of homeless assistance have a priority in 
obtaining Federal surplus real property for such use.
  The language of section 506 was not the subject of any committee 
hearings. It was not the subject of prior consultation with the 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee, the jurisdictional committee 
for such a matter. It was not the subject of advance discussions either 
with the General Services Administration or with the Department of 
Health and Human Services. Each of these agencies has specific 
responsibilities with respect to the implementation of title V.
  Mr. Speaker, during the 101st Congress, I chaired a subcommittee of 
the Committee on Government Operations and was a principal author of 
title V. I know the importance of the work being done by dozens of 
homeless representatives throughout the country that have obtained use 
of Federal surplus real property. These properties are helping the 
providers bring shelter, food, job training, and job search assistance 
to thousands of homeless men, women, and children.
  My concern is that section 506 seems to reflect insensitivity or 
indifference not only toward the homeless but toward the sacrifices and 
achievements of numerous provider groups, private and public, that have 
used and will use title V to serve our less fortunate sisters and 
brothers. I would note that the same might be said about one of 
mandatory policy assumptions of the Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Resolution, 
namely, that title V be repealed.
  Let us look at some of the things section 506 does. It gives GSA 
discretionary authority to disregard title V and transfer surplus real 
property to a nonprofit organization for homeless shelters, or, and I 
emphasize that ``or'', for occupancy or construction by low-income 
individuals and families. Any such transfer, however, must be concurred 
in by the appropriate local governmental authorities. Yet once GSA 
makes a transfer of a portion of the property that is significant as 
the section defines ``significant'', transfers of that portion and all 
other portions of the property will be deemed to be in compliance with 
title V. This is so, no matter how great the overall size or value of 
the property is. The term ``significant'' is defined in terms of a 
finite size or value or a given fraction of overall size or value.
  In using a fractional value criterion, GSA would be in the position 
of having to appraise the entire property and then make the figure 
known. The reason is that GSA, in cooperation with the local 
authorities, would need to predetermine and then announce to potential 
nonprofit organizations what portion or portions of the property could 
be viewed as significant and available for a section 506 transfer. This 
would create a problem. Any such revelation would prejudice GSA's 
ability to get top dollar in disposing of other portions of the 
property by negotiated or public sale.
  Under section 506, a qualified nonprofit organization is one that 
exists chiefly to provide housing or housing assistance either for the 
homeless or, and I again emphasize that ``or'', for low-income 
individuals or families. Housing for low-income persons is certainly a 
worthy purpose. Under section 506, however, GSA and the local 
authorities would have the option of using that purpose to displace 
homeless assistance in the forms for which title V provides, such as 
shelters.

  Section 506 gives GSA broad authority, which includes issuance of 
implementing regulations. GSA would undoubtedly choose to issue such 
regulations. Logically, the regulations would provide for some kind of 
suspension or delay of the existing title V screening or application 
process. Otherwise, groups wishing to take advantage of the section 506 
authority would not have an effective opportunity to do so. It is 
likely that GSA and the local authorities more often than not would end 
up concluding a section 506 transfer arrangement. Impelling them would 
be a mutual desire to avoid involvement with title V processes. 
Meanwhile, of course, other homeless assistance representatives would 
be discouraged from planning or acting with respect to any portion of 
the property.
  Mr. Speaker, no case has been made that the title V priority for 
homeless use should be set aside in this manner or that surplus 
property use for low-income housing should become for GSA and the local 
authorities an alternative to meeting basic homeless assistance needs.
  Moreover, the language of 506 is full of surprises and ambiguities. 
Instances of imprecision or omission are quite numerous. It is simply 
not clear how the language would operate or whether it could operate at 
all. Here are some of these deficiencies:
  First. Section 506 involves only GSA. It gives authority to no other 
Federal agency. Yet it would impose on GSA strange new functions, 
including the evaluation of a homeless assistance plan, a low-income 
housing project, and a qualified nonprofit organization. In contrast to 
section 506, existing surplus property transfer programs require GSA to 
rely on the review and approval of the Departments of Interior, Health 
and Human Services, Education, Transportation, or Justice, depending on 
whether the property is to be used for recreation, historic monuments, 
public health (including homeless assistance), education, public 
airports, or correctional facilities.
  Second. There is nothing said in section 506 about the mode of 
disposal, that is, whether it should be by gift, public benefit 
discount conveyance, lease, or sale.
  Third. There is nothing in section 506 about terms and conditions of 
transfer, about restricting future use of the property, about its 
resale, or about compliance action and reversion in the event of nonuse 
or default.
  Fourth. The section authorizes transfers only to nonprofit 
organizations irrespective of their tax-exempt status. Most title V 
applicants are required to have such status. In addition the section 
fails to include as possible transferees local public bodies, such as 
public

[[Page E971]]

housing authorities, or welfare departments. Public bodies are among 
the eligible transferees under almost every other Federal property 
transfer program.
  Mr. Speaker, section 506 was not well crafted or adequately 
considered before it was allowed to creep into H.R. 2406. Therefore, I 
ask all my colleagues who wish to do the right thing by the homeless 
and their representatives to join me in urging that the substantive 
mistakes and the technical deficiencies of this provision be fully 
addressed when the measure comes before a committee of conference.

                          ____________________