[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.

                          ____________________