[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2035-H2041]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1997
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 133 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 133
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 the Union for consideration of the
bill (H.R. 2) 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. Points of order against consideration of the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI of clause
7(b) or rule XIII are waived. 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. 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 April 29,
1997, 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
[[Page H2036]]
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: (1) postpone until a time during
further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business: Provided, That the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 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
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Florida). The gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 1 hour.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, MA [Mr.
Moakley], my very good friend and the ranking minority member. Pending
that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say that all
time that I will be yielding will be for debate purposes only.
Mr. Speaker, in the tradition of past housing rules, this rule
provides an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2, the Housing
Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997. However, the rule does
waive points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to
comply with House rules regarding the 3-day availability of committee
reports or CBO cost estimates.
The main committee report has been available for 3 days, but because
it did not include a CBO cost estimate, a supplemental report
containing that estimate was filed yesterday, thus requiring these
waivers.
The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute as
an original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be read by
title. It contains a minor waiver of points of order for appropriating
in a legislative bill, but I understand that the Committee on
Appropriations is not opposed to the waiver, Mr. Speaker.
The rule further makes in order an amendment by the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio] before other amendments are considered, which will
be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally
divided between the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject
to a demand for the division of the question. All points of order
against the Lazio amendment are waived.
If adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original
bill for the purpose of further amendment, thus ensuring an open
amendment process.
Finally, the rule strongly encourages preprinting of amendments in
the Record, and allows the Chair to postpone votes and 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
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bona fide open rule. Over the years I have had
the great honor of referring to the former chairman of the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services [Mr. Gonzalez], who is sitting right
here on the floor now, as Mr. Open Rule because of his strong
commitment to major housing bills and bringing them under an open
amendment process.
It is a distinction that, after 2 years of experience, I am now
transferring from Chairman Gonzalez to the current chairman of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio], and I know that the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Gonzalez] would strongly support me in that action. While an open rule
on a bill of this nature will be time-consuming and contentious, it is
essential that we proceed in this nature.
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 in the House.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the changes called for in the bill are
long overdue. Our public housing programs are a failure, and those
failures have been known to us now 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.
{time} 1415
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 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 H.R. 2 does not fundamentally alter the Federal Government's
intrusion into the housing market, nor does it reduce the size of the
HUD's bureaucracy, it will go a long way toward reforming our failed
public housing programs. For that I applaud the chairman, the gentleman
from New York [Mr. 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 our low-income
families.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 is a good bill that deserves our support. A
similar bill passed the House 1 week short of a year ago. More
important, this rule provides for an open amendment process, as I have
said, that will allow all of the policy issues that we will be
considering to come forward with a free debate.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this open rule come to the
floor. It is a welcome change, and I urge my colleagues to support the
rule. This rule waives points of order against failure to allow Members
3 days to review the committee report. This is the fourth time, Mr.
Speaker, in the last few weeks that the committee has waived this rule.
I hope that this trend would stop very soon, because Members really
need time to review the bills before they actually come to the floor.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is another matter entirely. This bill takes
public housing away from the poor and hands it over to the people who
can afford better. It replaces our housing programs with block grants.
It entices richer tenants into public housing and pushes poorer tenants
into homelessness.
Mr. Speaker, that is not what public housing is all about. Public
housing is about giving families a chance to live on their own, no
matter how much money they make. It is about reducing the number of
homeless children and helping low-income parents give their children
the kinds of lives they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, a long time ago, when I was a young boy growing up in
South Boston, I lived in the first public housing ever built in the
country: the Old Harbor Village, which is today called the Mary Ellen
McCormack. Back then my family's moving into the project was upward
mobility for me. There was no stigma, there was no crime in public
housing. The Old Harbor Village was part of the community in every
sense of the word. In fact, up until then, it was probably the nicest
place we ever lived.
[[Page H2037]]
Growing up in the projects, you had a strong sense of community, a
strong sense of pride, and everybody looked after everybody else. You
lived for the guy upstairs, downstairs, and over the back fence. We
were all treated as citizens and not subjects, and when a person is
respected, they respond accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, public housing has slipped a
long way since then. It has slipped a long way since I was a tenant.
But that is no reason not to try to get it back where it was. That is
no reason to change Federal housing from a program that is targeted to
the poorest of the poor to a program for everyone else. That is what
the bill will do, Mr. Speaker. This bill takes housing away from those
in most need, and pushes them further towards the fringes of society.
It will widen the already enormous gulf between the rich and poor in
this country at a time when the American children need all the help we
can give them, no matter how much money their parents make.
Mr. Speaker, there are some good ideas in this bill. There are some
provisions for flexibility and for administrative reforms that we badly
need, but the rest of the bill just goes too far. My Democratic
colleagues will propose a bill to improve our housing program by
implementing ideas that everybody agrees to. But the Democratic
substitute eliminates that risky block grant program which takes
funding away from housing and does absolutely nothing to ensure that
the funding will be available to operate and maintain the current
units. The Democratic bill keeps public housing on the side of poor
people. The Democratic bill keeps public housing on the side of the
children.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this open rule and
oppose the bill. Public housing should be a leg up for those who need
it, and not for everyone else.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce], a valued member of the
Committee on Rules.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished vice
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for both this open rule and
the Housing Opportunity Responsibility Act. First, I want to commend
the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], and the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services for crafting legislation that follows
our basic principles of, No. 1, making the American dream of affordable
housing more attainable; No. 2, empowering individuals to improve their
lives; No. 3, returning more decisionmaking authority to States and
localities where it belongs.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 does all of these things, fundamentally changing
the public housing in section 8 rental assistance programs and allowing
the Federal Government to support local communities in their decisions.
Under this bill, the emphasis is placed on providing the most service
for the least cost, and tailoring Federal assistance to fit local
needs, so the limited Federal resources are invested in ways that are
likely to achieve the greatest return.
Fundamental to the bill is the belief that those who receive Federal
assistance share a responsibility and an obligation to pursue self-
sufficiency. H.R. 2 would remove disincentives to work, while linking
continued Federal assistance to a modest amount of community service
each month.
While I support this legislation, I am concerned that H.R. 2 falls
short of fully addressing the issue of national occupancy standards.
This year I cosponsored legislation introduced by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum] to give States the authority to set their own
occupancy standards. In the absence of State law, it would allow of a
standard of two persons per bedroom plus infants. As I understand it,
the so-called McCollum language was originally included, but was later
scaled back significantly during the markup.
In my view, the housing bill offers us the perfect and appropriate
opportunity to give States the flexibility and authority to set their
own standards and to implement a reasonable standard in their place
when States fail to take action.
A major housing reform bill like H.R. 2 should take advantage of the
experience and expertise of those who deal with these issues on a daily
basis. I hope this might be addressed at some point in the process.
Mr. Speaker, promoting safe, clean, and healthy housing is central to
the American dream, especially for low-income persons. I believe this
legislation is critical to reducing the concentration of power at the
Federal level that has stifled innovation and kept local housing
authorities out of the decisionmaking process. I urge support of the
bill and the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Surfside Beach, TX [Mr. Paul].
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the gentleman's
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to support this rule coming
to the floor, and pleased that it is an open rule. We will have a
chance to debate housing. I think it is a very important debate. We
have had this debate going on now for several weeks in the Subcommittee
on Housing and Community Opportunity. Unfortunately, as far as I am
concerned, the debate has not keyed in on the real important issue of
whether or not public housing is a good idea.
This particular piece of legislation does very little more than
juggle the bureaucrats in hopes that it will do some good. Public
housing started in 1937 with the U.S. Housing Act, and we have been
living with public housing ever since. In 1965 HUD was created, and
since that time, we have spent literally hundreds of billions of
dollars.
We have no evidence of any sort to show that public housing is a good
idea. It causes a great deal of problems and actually takes housing
away from many, many poor people. But it costs a lot of money and costs
a lot of hardship to a lot of people. The principle of public housing
is what needs to be debated. Hopefully, in the general debate and in
the debate over the amendments, we will be able to direct a debate in
that area.
One thing that I think our side, the side that I represent, that is
the free market and the constitutional approach to housing, we have, I
would grant you, done a very poor job in presenting the views on how
poor people get houses in a free society. Since we have had 30 years of
experience and there is proof now that it leads to corruption and drug-
ridden public housing projects that do not last very long and it costs
too much money, we ourselves who present the market view have not done
a good job, emphasizing lower tax, less regulation and growth economy,
sound monetary policy, low interest rates; this is what will eventually
give housing to the poor people.
But I think it is very important that we not construe anybody who
opposes this bill as being one that has endorsed the notion or rejects
the idea.
Mr. Speaker, the one other point that I would like to make is one of
the arguments in favor of this bill is that it is going to be saving
some money in the bureaucratic process. But if this is the case, one
must look very closely at the CBO figures, because last year the HUD
budget took $25-plus billion. This year, with this wonderful new
program, we will be asking, according to CBO, $30.4 billion, an
increase of about $5 billion. And this is not the end, it is just the
beginning. So this is an expansion of the spending on public housing.
By the year 2002, it goes up to $36 billion. So the best I can tell
is we were working on the fringes, we are not dealing with the real
issues, we are not dealing with the principle of whether or not public
housing is a good program.
I, for one, think we can do a lot more for the poor people. There are
more homeless now, after spending nearly $600 billion over these last
20 years, than we had before. So I am on record for saying we must do
more but we can do more by looking more carefully at the market.
[[Page H2038]]
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have a couple Members who are very
enthusiastic in expressing their desire to speak, but I am having a
challenging time to educate them right now; and I do not know if my
friend, the gentleman from South Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley] has anyone.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, if it makes the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier] feel any better, after we pass the rule, I would be glad
to listen to their conversation seated here in the Chamber.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of this rule, which
will allow for a free and fair debate under an open amendment process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 133 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. 2.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. LaHood] to assume the chair temporarily.
{time} 1430
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.
2) 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. LaHood (Chairman pro
tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is
considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] and the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and
Responsibility Act of 1997. I want to thank the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Lazio] for his extraordinary leadership on this bill as well as
the constructive commentary of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy], who is the ranking member on the subcommittee, as well as the
distinguished ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Gonzalez].
H.R. 2 is the product of numerous hearings that were held by the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services as well as 4 days of markup
which included more than 70 amendments, with some 20 amendments from
the minority side adopted.
H.R. 2 was reported by the committee by a vote of 28 to 19. In the
last Congress, a similar bill, H.R. 2406, was reported out of the
committee and passed the full House by a bipartisan vote of 315 to 107.
Reforming our Nation's public housing programs, regardless of one's
philosophical beliefs, is a priority both for the Congress and the
administration. The committee was encouraged when Secretary Cuomo
appeared before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
on March 6 and stated that he will work night and day to enact historic
public housing reform legislation. Likewise, the committee has been
committed to working with Secretary Cuomo to reform rather than
eviscerate HUD and the programs under its jurisdiction. Members may
recall that 2\1/2\ years ago many in the administration and some in
this body favored elimination of HUD. The Committee on Banking and
Financial Services prefers to maintain a credible public housing
commitment, recognizing that moneys are short and that disappointments
in some areas may be significant.
Nevertheless, we believe that reform and rehabilitation are
preferable to stultification and decay.
Virtually all interested parties agree that the current public
housing system does not serve the tenants of public housing well, nor
does it efficiently or effectively utilize taxpayer dollars that are
appropriated for public housing programs.
Quite simply, H.R. 2 is as much about improving the lives of low-
income families and individuals as it is about fiscal responsibility
and Government accountability.
H.R. 2 replaces outdated laws and programs with a new empowering
approach for communities designed to be relevant to the 21st century.
Along with welfare reform efforts, this bill is a critical step on the
path to revitalizing empowerment programs that were crafted decades ago
in a different social, legal, and economic environment.
Without question, there are a number of important issues where the
majority and minority part ways on philosophical grounds. These issues
were debated and considered in an open forum at the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services, and I am pleased that the rule for this
bill provides for the same opportunity in the full House.
While I do not wish to review all the issues where there are
disagreements at this time, I would like to briefly touch upon one
issue where there appears to be an inconsistency within the ranks on
the congressional minority and the Democratic administration. H.R. 2
provides that each adult member of a family residing in a public or
assisted housing project contribute not less than 8 hours per month in
community service activities. Individuals who would be exempt from this
requirement include the disabled, the elderly, persons who are employed
and others who are otherwise physically impaired from performing such
services.
Also, the provision is structured so as not to duplicate community
work requirements under local welfare reform efforts.
This provision is generally based upon the long held American precept
that those who receive assistance from a community should give back to
that community in some way. Some of our Democratic colleagues argue
that this provision is punitive and demeaning. Yet it is worth noting
that the administration's public housing bill that was provided by
Secretary Cuomo and introduced by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] by request
included the same provision to require 8 hours of community service.
Also, the public housing bill that passed the House in the last
Congress by a resounding 315 to 107 vote, which was submitted by former
HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, included the same community service
requirements to which our colleagues on the other side are now raising
objections.
It is true there could be a slight administrative cost increase in
this work component, but it would be our hope that this cost could in
part be borne by those asked to fulfill a work commitment. In the
larger picture, the bill is deregulation oriented with the CBO
estimating administrative savings of $100 million over 5 years.
As for funding, this bill matches the administration request for
fiscal year 1998 and is consistent with the fiscal year 1997 enacted
levels. In other words, our approach represents a freeze on spending
with greater administrative discretion allowed at the housing authority
level.
Given efforts to balance the budget, this bill represents an
administration congressional consensus. The minority is correct that
the bill moves to more mixed income housing with housing authorities,
at their strong request, allowed to provide housing to the near poor as
well as the poor. While all poor currently in housing are legislatively
protected, it must be understood that there are many aspects of current
public housing programs which have been judged by experts as well as
the public as a failure. To concentrate the very poor alone in public
housing, particularly high-rise housing, is to condemn them in many
instances to poverty segregation.
Single dimension, lowest income housing simply has not worked. For
the sake of decent standards of housing for the poor, more local
discretion is needed.
[[Page H2039]]
Mr. Chairman, I urge consideration of this reform approach as common
sense.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I first want to begin my remarks by complimenting the
gentleman from Massachusetts for his superb leadership that he has
demonstrated in housing issues. He knows the subject matter, which is
complex, very well. Equally important, though, he does deeply and
sincerely care about the people who depend on public housing. He seeks
to create a positive reform and works tirelessly on behalf of people
who have few advocates and really no political resources.
He is a model of decency and compassion. I salute his courage, his
energy, his imaginative efforts, all of which reflects great credit to
him, the people that he represents and serves, and this House.
The bill before us, H.R. 2, can best be described as a series of good
slogans but unworkable or undesirable policies. The bill before us is
no more likely to be enacted than last year's failed effort, which it
very closely resembles, incidentally. We will offer a substitute that
makes, I believe, far more sense and which deserves the support of our
Members.
I will predict that in the final analysis, any bill that is enacted
will look very much like the substitute that we will offer.
H.R. 2 creates strong incentives for local housing authorities to
stop renting available units to those who are in the greatest need of
them. Under the bill, housing authorities will henceforth rent units
only to people who can afford to pay more. The reason for this is
simple: The Congress has cut operating subsidies far below what the
housing authorities need, so the only way to keep public housing units
from falling into ruin is to rent fewer units to the poorest class of
applicants.
To be perfectly frank, this bill abandons those who are in the
greatest need and for whom this whole thing was intended in the
beginning.
I sincerely believe, as I have all along, that it is possible to
maintain sound housing authorities without taking the radical and
callous steps provided in H.R. 2. The substitute that we will offer
will target housing assistance in what I believe is a sensible and
humane way.
H.R. 2 imposes huge new bureaucratic burdens on local housing
agencies but provides no money for these schemes. The authors of H.R. 2
apparently believe that residents of public housing are defective or
derelict and in need of social engineering. Therefore, they require
that tenants sign and adhere to a personal improvement contract. If
these agreements are to have any meaning or effect, they will need to
be individually and expertly designed. The tenants would have to be
carefully monitored, and there would have to be resources available to
carry out the various components of the self-improvement plan.
But there is no money provided in this bill for any of this, nor is
it clear how the housing authorities are supposed to do a better job
for free than schools and social welfare agencies can do with actual
money.
Likewise, the bill requires public housing residents to do at least 2
hours a week of community service. No doubt this is a well-intended
thing, but, again, the bill provides no money to carry out this
mandatory public service. Somebody will have to provide and create and
keep the records to be sure that the residents do the required work.
Somebody will have to check to be sure the work is being done, and
somebody will have to be sure that the work is actually beneficial to
the community.
Without some kind of administrative support, this mandatory work
scheme will collapse in a welter of confusion and fakery.
These prescriptions on H.R. 2 make fine slogans but they are
unworkable. There is no money for them. They are not in any way
integrated with any other program or policy. They ignore the complex
reality of life at the bottom of the heap. The sad reality is that H.R.
2 represents a further and a much faster retreat from efforts to
provide decent and affordable housing to the millions who desperately
need help. Those most in need of help will be turned away. And those
who get help will pay more for it.
I have highlighted only a few of this bill's defects. There are, of
course, many more. I urge my colleagues to study the Democratic
substitute. They will find that it is sensible and workable. The
Democratic substitute is a realistic, good-faith effort to reproduce a
bill that both parties can and should be able to agree on. I urge
support of the substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, and I ask unanimous
consent that he be allowed to control the time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], and I ask unanimous consent that
he be allowed to control the time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, over the next several days we will be discussing two
different visions for the American community. One vision will be a
portrait of the failed past. Imagine in this portrait mile after mile
of 20-story projects stained by age, crumbling from neglect, isolated
from jobs and business. The entry doors to the buildings are wide open,
security locks punched out. Inside only the red light of an exit sign
illuminates the hallway revealing an accumulation of debris. Outside
after dark, the court yard is silent, and moms and dads trapped in
their apartments instruct their children to stay away from windows for
fear of stray bullets. Such a portrait is an all too familiar picture
of life in public housing. It exists even here in our Nation's Capital.
There is another vision of the American community. This vision is one
filled with neighbors working together to create an environment where
children can grow up safely, surrounded by working role models and with
the hope that one day, one day they can climb their own economic ladder
to success.
{time} 1445
Mr. Chairman, during the next several days, some here will talk of
efforts to deprive our most vulnerable populations of affordable
housing opportunities. Some will express outrage at involvement in
community while ignoring the reciprocal relationships that exist
throughout the rest of society. Mr. Chairman, it is fair to ask where
these defenders were when communities and neighborhoods were falling
into disrepair and neglect in their very own backyards.
With this bill, Mr. Chairman, we end the practice of looking the
other way in the name of compassion when we see failure. To condemn
another generation to a life without hope, a life without any sense of
community, a life without the rewards of individual achievement or
success, to defend this status quo mocks compassion and it is
unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, we are at a critical point in the debate over how we
define the relationship of the Federal Government with local
communities and neighborhoods. We begin today to end the cruel process
of rewarding failure and punishing success. We cannot and we will not
force children to grow up in an environment of violent crime where they
are isolated from the economic and social opportunities of mainstream
America.
And let me be clear. This legislation, this debate, is not about
money. Our efforts over the next several days, no matter what we do,
cannot alter the fiscal realities of the world. Money has not solved
the problems of Chicago, of New Orleans, of San Francisco. It is the
system itself that is broken.
Let us commit today on the floor to refuse to accept as legitimate
the thinking that money is the answer to everything. But within those
parameters let me strongly suggest that with the implementation of
these reforms,
[[Page H2040]]
we will begin to be able to serve an even greater number of low-income
Americans than we do today.
And so we begin. H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility
Act is, I believe, the embodiment of three central themes.
First, it removes Federal rules that punish working families in
public housing. It removes rent requirements that discourage work and
encourage the breakup of families. Families with the opportunity to
earn more income are able to enjoy the full rewards of their efforts,
and vulnerable residents are protected from harmful increases in rent.
This bill permanently eliminates regulations that have concentrated
the poorest families in the very worst housing, and this is the second
theme. Decades of warehousing poor families in high-rise projects have
destroyed neighborhoods and condemned generations to live in a world
much different than that which many Americans enjoy.
Our legislation allows for the creation of mixed-income environments
where working people who serve as role models live alongside unemployed
families. Instead of stark isolation from the economics of society,
families become engaged in the activities of their neighborhoods,
afforded a sense of accountability and responsibility for their own
lives. And we are able to accomplish this without, and I repeat,
without shutting out the poorest of American families from affordable
housing opportunities.
Third, this legislation is about demanding accountability and
performance from the thousands of housing authorities across the
country. For those housing authorities that have chronically failed in
their mission to provide affordable housing to low-income families, we
contract out the management of the agency, take over the authority, or
petition for a court-appointed receiver.
For too many years we have preserved and defended environments where
drugs, rape, and murder proliferate throughout our neighborhoods. Today
we say no more. We ask this: Should we allow this way of life to
continue for our Nation's poor, or should low-income families expect no
less than any one of us here expects in terms of the basic values of
life: an opportunity to improve our own lives, a home where our
children are safe and grow up learning the rewards of success.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, this House moved dramatically into the
future by adopting, by an overwhelming majority, a housing overhaul
that captured many of the reforms that are in the bill before us today.
Last year's bill was supported by almost 100 Democratic Members and
virtually all Republicans who saw the desperate need to break with the
status quo and embrace positive reform.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is less about shelter than it is about
the creation of an environment where we can begin to successfully
address poverty. Instead of a world of broken doors, broken windows,
broken promises and broken dreams, we say to families in public
housing, ``We respect you, and we will provide you with the
opportunities and incentives to succeed.'' And in return, we expect
responsibility and a contribution to the binding fabric of society.
This is a fair deal.
Our goal is plain. We work to build a Nation of communities where
every neighbor and every neighborhood can rise above the expectations
of mediocrity and isolation to success. We promote civic responsibility
that emphasizes we rather than me, an affirmation of rights, and the
assumption of responsibility. Our efforts in this Chamber will seek
inspiration for honesty and hard work and reflect the timeless values
of discipline and respect.
I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach],
for his guidance, for his help and for his support, as well as thank
all the members of the committee who have participated in the
consideration of this bill.
I would also like to thank the majority leader who scheduled this
time and allowed this bill to come to the floor in an expeditious
manner, and I wanted to thank my good friend whom I greatly appreciate,
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the ranking Democratic
member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, for
his constructive additions to this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
First of all, let me return the compliment to my good friend from New
York, Mr. Lazio, who has worked very hard on trying to fashion the
bill. I believe very strongly that it is time for the Congress of the
United States to get a bill passed. The question is which bill we get
passed.
We heard a lot of talk and rhetoric about the fact that one view on
how we ought to deal with public housing is to continue the policies of
the past, and another view, which is a new vision of the future. I do
not believe that that is, in fact, an accurate representation of the
Democratic view as a continuation of the policies of the past.
Everyone is very clear that we need real reforms of public housing,
of assisted housing in this country, and that we need to give HUD and
local housing authorities a great deal of additional flexibility. Those
are contained in the Democratic view on how we should handle housing
issues.
Before we get into the guts of the bill, I would like to personally
acknowledge and thank the former chairman of this committee, who was
chairman of the Housing Committee in the Congress of the United States
for perhaps longer than any other Member in the history of this
country, someone who has dedicated his life to assisting the poorest
people in our country and helping them attain decent and affordable
shelter, who knows perhaps more than any other Member ever has about
the issues pertaining to housing policy in this country. I would like
to acknowledge the contributions of our great former chairman, the
gentleman from Texas, Henry B. Gonzalez.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Leach], for the
leadership that he has shown in trying to make certain that this bill
has had the open and honest debate that I think did occur, although
perhaps the votes ultimately fell short by one or two on a number of
very important issues at the full committee level.
Let me take a brief moment to also thank the wonderful contributions
of the staff of this committee in Nancy Libson, Armando Falcon, Angie
Garcia, Rick Maurano, Eric Olsen, and, of course, Kelsay Meek, who has
guided us through so many of these fights in the past. I want to thank
them very much for the efforts they have made, as well.
Mr. Chairman, when we look at the housing policies of this country,
there is no question that we need change. We have not had a new housing
bill in this Congress in over 6 years. It is time we get a housing bill
and it is time we get a fair housing bill. It is time we get a housing
bill that recognizes that we need to do an awful lot to change the way
housing works in this country.
There are 3,400 public housing authorities in the United States of
America. Over 100 of those 3,400 are in trouble, and we ought to take
action and give the Secretary the authority to move in and take over
those badly run housing authorities and do so immediately. In addition,
within well-run housing authorities, we ought to give the Secretary the
flexibility of moving in and taking control of badly run housing
projects within well-run housing authorities.
What we ought not to do is condemn the entire public housing of our
country simply because it has become fashionable for politicians to
identify some God-awful monstrosity where we have warehoused the
poorest of the poor, never provided the necessary subsidies to, in
fact, take care of those poor people, then walk in front of these awful
buildings and say, ``Gosh, this is a terrible condemnation of the
Lyndon Johnson Democratic commitment to the poor and it obviously does
not work.''
So what is the basic solution that we have come to in the Congress of
the United States to deal with this problem? Our solution is very
simple. Our solution says what we ought to do is we ought to cut
funding. So we have cut the funding that goes to public housing in this
country and that goes to HUD from about $28 billion to about $19 or
[[Page H2041]]
$20 billion, a 25-percent cut across the board in housing spending.
Now, if that is supposed to solve our housing problems, it is going
to be news to a lot of the poor people that live in that housing. It
will be news to a lot of the housing authorities that have to take care
of those poor people.
So what does the housing authority do? The housing authority, in
order to stay solvent itself, says our only solution, obviously, is to
throw out the very poor people that we are taking care of and to try to
jack up the rents that we are going to receive that will stick to our
back pocket by taking in wealthier individuals, by raising rents on
those people that are currently paying and thereby allowing the housing
authority to stay solvent.
Well, that is not accomplishment and, by God, we might end up with
nicer public housing, but the price of that nicer public housing will
have been very simply to throw more and more poor people out on the
street. Now, we never hear from them. They do not vote. They do not
participate in American society in too great a number. But it is
unconscionable, it is unconscionable that the Congress of the United
States, in view of its solutions or attempts to find solutions to our
Nation's housing policy, is to simply throw more poor people out on the
street and say that they do not count, we do not care, but as long as
we can stand up before the American people and say, ``Gosh, we have
gotten rid of all this bad public housing,'' we have a victory.
It is a hollow victory. It is a victory that is defined by ignoring
the victim. At a certain point we have to reach inside ourselves,
within our own consciences, and say to ourselves that we believe that
our Nation's commitment to housing the poor is fundamental. It is
fundamental to the basic principles that are laid out in our
Constitution and in our Bill of Rights. It is what makes us the envy of
the rest of the world. It is our commitment to compassion and to caring
for others.
That is what I believe is really at work in this housing bill. It is
an abandonment of that commitment.
Now, we have seen additional approaches. We have seen where,
obviously, we have cut the funding in the budget by 25 percent. We are
now saying that in terms of the number of poor people that are going to
be targeted to live in public and assisted housing, where 75 percent of
those individuals today live with incomes below 30 percent of the
median income, we are going to raise that to 80 percent of the median
income.
Eighty percent of the median income in many of the cities of this
country are incomes of $40,000 a year or more. Now what will we do?
Will we solve the housing problem by taking in people that are earning
$40,000 a year into public and assisted housing, and that will solve
the housing problems of the very poor?
It will not solve the housing problems of the very poor. It will make
us look good as legislators because we are going to eliminate the very
awful public housing dinosaurs that ought to be eliminated in both the
Republican as well as in the Democratic bills.
We have this ridiculous mandatory work requirement. All I say is,
listen, if we are going to establish a new policy in this country that
anybody that gets a Federal benefit ought to contribute and volunteer
in terms of America's future, I say that is great. Let us start with
the oil and gas industry. Let us ask those boys, when they get a big
tax write-off on their oil and gas leases, let us ask them to do a
little volunteering.
Let us start with the people that invest in project-based section
8's. Let us say to every investor that makes money off of the HUD
programs, let us see them volunteer as well.
Why do we just pick on the poor? Why do we just target these
instances of saying we are going to wag our finger at the very poor and
say they are the problem in America. They are not the problem in
America. We spend less money helping poor people than any other account
of the Government.
I would just say to my fellow Members of Congress that whether it is
the personal improvement program or the accreditation boards or even
the block grant process, these are not real reforms to getting at
changing the public housing policies of this country. These are window
dressing that enable us to stand up and make fancy dancy speeches to
make us look like we have changed policy, when we have done nothing but
get at the very poor by saying to them that we are no longer going to
make them eligible for these programs. We will throw them out on the
street and leave them to rot so we can look good before the American
people.
That is the truth of what is behind the Republican bill, and that is
why I offer the Democratic substitute and look forward to gaining
support for that over the next few days.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make 3 quick points to
clarify the Record. One, no one for reasons of poverty alone will be
eliminated from public housing, only for violations of terms of the
lease, such as criminal behavior.
Second, the money in this bill is precisely the same as the
administration requested. Third, we have to be very careful about this,
but experience has shown, verified by experts as well as public
consensus, that to concentrate the very poor alone in public housing is
to condemn them to a kind of poverty segregation. Single dimension,
lowest income housing simply has not worked anywhere in America,
particularly high-rise housing.
Finally, I would say that to object to reform is to endorse the
status quo. This of all Federal programs is one in which there is
virtual consensus that the failure rate has been very high.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield myself 30 seconds to respond,
Mr. Chairman.
First and foremost, when we raise the eligibility standards and we
create an incentive by the public housing authorities to go out and
take wealthier people in because more money sticks to the local housing
authority, we do in fact displace poor people. That is the net result
of the policies that my colleagues are pursuing.
Second, it is nice to say that we ought to have mixed income
communities. It was my amendment at the full committee level that
allowed us to do that under this legislation. It was opposed by the
chairman of the committee. We end up in a negotiation achieving an
accommodation on that issue, but I am glad to see that the chairman now
supports that.
I would just say to the gentleman that in no way am I suggesting that
we continue the status quo. I suggested in my opening remarks that we
need to change dramatically those that live in public housing, but we
cannot do it by simply turning our back on the poor, and you are right
in pointing out the administration's funding levels are far too low for
this bill as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
We are going to hear in this Chamber the same litany of things, that
we are throwing the poor out. There are no poor people who are going to
be thrown out because of this bill. The half of the Democratic Caucus
that opposed this bill the last time may oppose it again this time, but
they are doing exactly what the gentleman from Iowa said they were
going to do, which is to defend the status quo, the super
concentrations of poverty that destroy jobs, destroy hope, and destroy
opportunity. Why anybody would stand for that and align themselves and
associate themselves with that level of failure is beyond this Member.
That is exactly what we are fighting against.
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.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman 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. 2) 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.
____________________