[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2042-H2052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1997

  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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2.

                              {time}  1505


                     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 further 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. Goodlatte 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
30\1/2\ minutes remained in general debate.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, each side will control 
an additional 10 minutes. Therefore, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] has 26 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy] has 24\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce].
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2. I know 
that the bill is extremely well intentioned. I have the highest 
professional respect and personal regard for its principal author, but 
I do think that this legislation will in fact undermine both our 
Nation's 60-year commitment to assisting the very poor and also the 
effective administration of our public housing programs.
  The issue before us today has been miscast. It is not whether you are 
for reform or the status quo. That is a false dichotomy that the 
majority has attempted to perpetrate. We are all for reforming this 
present situation. We all believe that reforms are necessary. In fact, 
reform of every program must in fact be a constant. But what kind of 
reform? Reform is just another word for change. We can have good 
changes or bad changes. We happen to think that the changes you have 
proposed are very, very bad.
  We are proposing a substitute to the status quo, significant reform, 
significant change. And so the battle is not as you have tried to cast 
it between your bill and the status quo. The battle is between the 
substitute that we offer and your main bill.
  I believe the substitute we offer will make the changes in a manner 
consistent with the core values and purposes of public housing. I 
believe that the changes you propose will divert public housing 
resources to serve a broader political agenda.
  I have serious concerns about many, many aspects of H.R. 2. First, 
the fact that it summarily repeals the 1937 Housing Act, on which 
Federal housing programs have been based for 60 years with little, if 
any, attention to the disruption this may cause for current housing 
assistance and the litigation that may well ensue because of it. I 
further see no reason, as H.R. 2 proposes to burden public housing 
authorities and staff and residents with new work, immigration and 
welfare reform responsibilities, all of which are unfunded, all of 
which are unenforceable, all of which are in my judgment 
discriminatory.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] makes a good point. If 
we are going to have these work requirements, why not for the investors 
in oil shelters? Why not for the investors in section 8? Why not for 
those who receive public subsidies through the Tax Code? No, we 
discriminate.
  I also strongly oppose the abrupt change in public housing admission 
and income targeting requirements.
  They will permit diversion of the best public housing facilities for 
mixed income housing and the warehousing of very poor families into the 
worst public projects.
  In addition, I must strongly oppose those provisions that could 
further politicize public housing administration. These include 
providing huge unfettered block grants of most remaining housing 
assistance to local mayors rather than independent housing authorities, 
withdrawing needed CDBG funding from cities that have troubled housing 
authorities, and allowing Governors to allocate capital improvement 
funding among smaller public housing authorities within their States. 
Each of these proposals offers the potential for the diversion of 
scarce housing funds for political objectives rather than the needs of 
our poorest families.
  I would hope that we can proceed in a bipartisan manner. That is not 
what happened in the reporting of the bill. Most amendments were 
adopted or rejected on partisan grounds. I think it is only possible to 
achieve a housing bill, and we have not seen a housing bill passed in 
over 6 years now, if we proceed in a bipartisan fashion. Hopefully at 
some point in time we will come to that realization.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I just found it curious, Mr. Chairman, that there is a discussion 
about alternatives now when this bill is on the floor and ready for 
action, the son of status quo that is now being discussed or the status 
quo substitute that is being discussed that even negates the reforms 
that the Clinton administration would put forward. It appears that 
there are some Members in this body that are clinging on desperately to 
the failure that exists in certain areas. I think again that mocks 
compassion. What we need to do is create environments where people can 
make it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Ney], the distinguished vice chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
  Mr. NEY. I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess we have heard it all today. The people I assume 
we are saying are investors make money. The people who are building 
projects, the people who are building housing should in fact, I guess, 
volunteer some time also? So I am assuming that the union working 
people that work for those companies should also volunteer time because 
they are working on the projects? Is that what we are saying? Is this 
some type of great philosophy we have today? We are talking about the 
residents.
  I have got plenty of residents in my district who would like to put 
in a little time, 2 hours a week, to feel productive, to do something 
toward the housing that in fact the Government is cooperating with them 
to provide some living situations for their family. That is all we are 
talking about. To stretch this out to who builds it and maybe the 
workers for that company should in fact put in some volunteer time, 
that is not what this is about. This debate is occurring today because 
let me tell you what the U.S. Government did from 1937 forward, when 
the poor of this country, the people that needed some housing, needed 
some assistance, came to their Government and said, ``Help me. I need 
some help for my family.''
  The Government looked at those individuals and said, ``OK, we're 
going to put you all in one category, we're going to consider you all 
the same, we'll build something called a project, then we'll create a 
bureaucracy to oversee that project. We won't try to help you out in 
neighborhoods. We'll just take you to a high-rise. We'll warehouse you. 
We'll make it effectively easy for drug dealers and thieves to have a 
captive audience to get at your families.''
  That was the philosophy. I think we should have had the attitude in 
1937 to put people in neighborhoods, just like we were raised, in 
neighborhoods with rich and with poor, and with middle-class working 
Americans.

[[Page H2043]]

  We will probably, Mr. Chairman, see some pictures shown on this floor 
today of some nice housing community projects, and there are some in 
the country. Let us look at the realities. In October 1994 in Chicago, 
IL, a 5-year-old boy was tossed to his death from a 14th floor window 
at the Ida B. Wells public housing project by two other young boys.
  Mr. Chairman, there are other nightmare stories, and there are some 
good housing units and projects in this country but it is time for a 
change. It is a big difference of how we are going to approach helping 
people that need help from their Government. The way we are going to do 
it is to give more flexibility to be able to tell drug dealers that 
they are not going to come into these projects, to be able to defend 
families that are living there, to have a voucher system to try to 
eventually have people go into neighborhoods and for the Government to 
cooperate with them, for the Government to help them, for the 
Government to help them up the economic ladder. But there are nightmare 
stories. All is not good in paradise across the United States in these 
projects. We need to help the people of this country.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick], a good friend and a new 
member of the committee and a wonderful contributor.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, first let me say that we are in change 
and want change on both sides of the aisle in public housing. We all 
agree that something needs to happen and that there needs to be changes 
made.
  I have to point out that prior to 1992 there was very little 
investment on the Federal side in public housing around our country, 
and that is why much of the decay that we see today exists. H.R. 2 in 
its present form does not address those needs. There is not a single 
line in this legislation that provides more funding for the building of 
more housing, affordable housing, for poor people. There is not a 
single line in this legislation that provides the demolition of unsafe 
and unsanitary housing. There is no requirement to serve the poor in 
public housing or beyond. This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is not in the 
interests of our country, and it is certainly not in the interests of 
poor people. As has been mentioned, the homeless population will grow. 
Currently there exists a grievance procedure, for those who are in 
public housing for minor infractions, to go before a committee of their 
peers to address those concerns as has been eliminated in H.R. 2, and 
now these people must go right to court with little resources, with the 
public defenders office overburdened.
  H.R. 2 in its present form will not create what we want in America. 
It will not allow for the poorest of the poor to have decent housing, 
for those children of those poor people to have adequate housing and a 
decent education. It should not be called and is called the Housing 
Opportunities and Responsibility Act. If it were that in fact, we would 
be addressing some of the evils, some of the concerns of this American 
society that we live in.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 2 does not do that. We have got to go to the 
drawing board. We offered several amendments in full committee to try 
to address some of these needs to make a way so these poor people could 
have safe and decent housing. We, too, want complexes, and this is a 
picture that has now been moved. Decent housing complexes all over 
America, all of them are not infested. Some of them are, and we need to 
weed them out. This legislation in its current form does not address 
much of that.
  We want good public housing, we want to take care of the people in 
America who are the poor and the poorest and have the least effect, but 
this legislation does not do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote down H.R. 2 in its present 
form.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker], an active member of 
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, this really goes back to the debate of 1937 
when under the leadership of President Roosevelt, the Housing Act was 
adopted. But even beyond that vision that the President had, there was 
the Civilian Conservation Corps which was enacted during a very 
difficult and economic period of our country. The act set up a $30-a-
month stipend for young men. Interestingly enough, no women could go to 
work for the CCC. And if they had a family, of the $30, $25 
automatically went back to the family, while $5 stayed with the worker 
who lived in tents while they labored in national forests to preserve 
our great heritage. No one viewed that program as degradation or that 
it created shame or that it demeaned the esteem of man, and yet we look 
back with great pride at the days of CCC as an innovative and bold 
program.
  Today we find our current housing circumstance in much the same as 
our Nation in 1937. We indeed face a crisis, not as a result of a 
cataclysmic event, but erosion-like, slow process of erosion where our 
building inventory has gradually deteriorated. Unfortunately it has 
ruined a great deal more than just structures. It has taken the 
character and spirit of our people.
  How so? Through the best of intentions we set out to help people, to 
give them food and shelter and what was necessary to survive. But 
children grow up. Where there is no dad, mom cannot read, she does not 
go to school, there is no job for dad if he were there, and the only 
free enterprise in the neighborhood one can see is the drug dealer 
trying to protect his market share. Some might call that slavery today, 
because when one goes in they simply do not come out.
  But today we hear the same voices, the voices fighting to preserve 
this system, the dehumanizing system that manufactures kids who know 
nothing of the world's opportunities and even have disdain for 
everything that would make them successful. These same voices defend 
the warehousing of people like used tires and care little about their 
avenue to escape. Maybe I do not understand, but as a father I know 
placing in the hands of my own children the things that they need is 
the most satisfying thing in life. There is much to achieve in life, 
but no goal is more worthy than caring for one's own.
  So what is our plan to cure the problems of our fellow man? Simply 
not to build a retirement community where the Government assures one 
has a place to stay for life, but to build an opportunity. Few 
Americans resent helping one another, but we do expect those 
individuals who receive that bounty to do something for themselves.
  The Welfare Reform Act, which a majority of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle voted for last year, requires 20 hours of work a 
week. This act simply proposes to require 2 hours of work per week. 
This proposal exempts those who are disabled and those who are elderly, 
those who happen to be subject to the Welfare Reform Act, and 
interestingly enough those who have a job. But it then is only 2 hours 
per week.
  Why is this important? Because this is a process to enable a person 
to gather the skills they need to go out and work in the workplace with 
the strange idea that money is the cure to poverty.
  We are not going to guarantee the world will change if this is 
passed, but let me read the words of President Roosevelt. The country 
needs, and unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold 
persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and 
try. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another, but above all try 
something.
  No doubt Roosevelt had a grand vision when the 1937 act was passed, 
but if he stood here today, he would no doubt be deeply troubled by 
what he sees. He would not stand for despair, degradation and poverty, 
and he would not stand for it today, and neither will I.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 
the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] and that he 
may be able to yield such blocks of time as he may deem necessary.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from

[[Page H2044]]

Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for his leadership in this area.
  Let me just make a few brief points. No. 1, at a time when this U.S. 
Congress provides $125 billion a year in corporate welfare tax breaks 
and subsidies to large multinational corporations who do not need them, 
at a time when we are spending billions on B-2 bombers that we do not 
need, at a time in which we are giving huge tax breaks to the richest 
people in America who do not need them, I am not impressed by a policy 
which over the last 4 years has cut back on public housing by 25 
percent. We seem to always have funds available to help the wealthy and 
corporate America, but when it comes to the need of working people and 
low-income people, suddenly it is on their backs that we are asked to 
balance the budget.
  The economic facts are very clear. Just the other day we read in the 
papers that the CEO's of major corporations now make 207 times what 
their workers make, while the new jobs that are being created are low-
wage jobs keeping people in poverty after 40 hours of work. In my State 
of Vermont and throughout the country there are millions of people who 
are working 40 hours a week, and then they are being asked to pay 40, 
50, 60 percent of their limited incomes for housing. There is a housing 
crisis in this country, and the way to solve the housing crisis is not 
to cut back on funding and not build more affordable housing.
  Now my friends here say on the Republican side we do not want to 
warehouse people. OK, do not warehouse them. Then why do they cut back 
on section 8 funding so that we can spread people out throughout the 
community? There are many types of models for affordable housing other 
than public housing projects, but they do not support those. So those 
are just words; that is not reality.
  Now in terms of public housing we hear these horror stories, and I 
really think that that is not a nice thing to say. Sure there are 
problems, some serious problems within the projects, but to give 
grotesque examples of what one family does is to cast aspersions on all 
of the people who live in public housing.
  So let me tell my colleagues I was mayor of the city of Burlington. 
We have public housing, and it serves its purpose well. It provides 
safe, affordable, clean housing for hundreds and hundreds of people, 
and it helps people. It allows them to get a footing in their lives.
  I resent the fact that we talk about horror stories from public 
housing. Do my colleagues know what? Rich people kill their kids, too. 
It is not just poor people. Furthermore, in terms of this work 
requirement, one of the points that was made during the discussion in 
committee was that we have a home interest mortgage deduction which 
allows multi-multimillionaires to deduct the interest up to a million 
dollars on the mansions, on the fancy houses that they are living in. 
So we have a public policy which provides a tax break for 
multimillionaires who own mansions.
  Now that is an interesting housing policy when at exactly the same 
time we are cutting back on housing for working people and poor people, 
and I think the suggestion was made that if we got to have a work 
requirement for poor people who get a subsidy, what about the 
millionaires who get a subsidy?
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time is left 
for the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] has 19 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has 15 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by commending the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Leach] and their staffs for hard work on this legislation and for their 
commitment to improving the future of the residents of public housing. 
In particular I would also like to thank Chairman Lazio for addressing 
my recommendations to improving H.R. 2, especially my concern that the 
performance of well-run housing authorities be taken into consideration 
in determining the formula allocation.
  Mr. Chairman, if housing authorities are going to be able to best 
serve the interests of their residents, they will need flexibility in 
managing Federal funds. Most important, we need community-based 
solutions.
  On the one hand, public housing officials must aim to rid residents 
in overcoming poverty and unemployment. At the same time they must work 
to preserve the interests of the elderly and disabled who rely on safe 
and well-managed housing. H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and 
Responsibility Act, is a big step in the right direction in empowering 
housing authorities to meet these diverse needs.
  H.R. 2 would empower local authorities by deregulating Federal public 
and assisted housing programs and substantially increasing local 
control over those programs and decisions about who benefits from them. 
This bill will allow well-run housing authorities, such as the ones we 
have in the State of Delaware, the authority to develop creative 
ownership programs that allow for more flexible solutions for residents 
and communities. The bill deregulates and decontrols housing 
authorities to create environments that are fiscally sound and 
physically safe, and eliminates the disincentive to work.
  This bill also addresses the financial crisis plaguing the Nation's 
most distressed authorities by providing the new management structures 
and effective Federal and State partnerships. The long term success of 
public housing will depend upon the housing authorities' ability to 
work with local governments and community organizations to better 
allocate the Federal resources available for community and economic 
development.
  I support this legislation and look forward to the continuing debate 
on the floor. I hope we can come closer to a meeting of the minds with 
respect to it because I happen to think it is as important as anything 
that we can in Congress this year do other than balancing the budget, 
and I thank the sponsor again for the yielding of the time.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in fierce opposition to 
H.R. 2, the so-called Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 
1997. Let me just say that the only thing accurate about that title is 
the date.
  Although reform is necessary to meet today's public housing needs, 
H.R. 2 is not the answer. Sixty years ago the Housing Act of 1937 began 
our commitment to provide safe, clean, affordable housing for our 
Nation's poorest families. This bill abolishes that law and abandons 
that commitment.
  H.R. 2's provisions read like a litany of injustice. One of its 
harshest proposals chips away at the cornerstone of public housing, 
targeting on their income, targeting on this bill. It will take years 
before public housing authorities will have to accept families earning 
less than $10,000 a year. These are the very families public housing 
was created to serve.
  Mr. Chairman, there are over 5 million families that do not have 
access to decent and affordable housing, yet H.R. 2 pours salt on the 
wounds of the poor by setting minimum rents between $25 and $50. That 
may not sound like much, but it will force many poor families to choose 
between food and shelter for their children.
  As if the targeting and minimum rent provisions were not heartless 
enough, H.R. 2 also imposes a time limit on how long tenants may remain 
in public housing. Once this limit is reached, families will be evicted 
even if they still are living in poverty.

                              {time}  1530

  Coupled with the welfare reform laws passed last year, families will 
be forced out into the street. It is hard to believe, but the list 
continues.
  Instead of providing opportunities for job creation, this legislation 
will also force the poor into unpaid community service. How can we 
expect people to make the transition from welfare to work if we force 
them into unpaid labor? We should be creating real jobs with living 
wages, not threatening families with eviction.
  Mr. Chairman, we must reform public housing, but we must do so in a 
fair

[[Page H2045]]

and reasonable way. We must make safe, affordable housing available to 
those in need, and we must provide real economic opportunities so that 
public housing can help families become self-sufficient.
  Last year, the Republicans called our Nation's public housing system 
the last bastion of socialism. If H.R. 2 becomes law, we may recall our 
new system the first bastion of heartlessness.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Snowbarger].
  Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and 
Responsibility Act. H.R. 2 provides comprehensive overhaul of the 
currently troubled public housing system. It eliminates the 
disincentives to work, increases accountability of public housing 
accountability authorities and balances the privileges and 
responsibilities of residents. In particular, I am supportive of the 
community work and self-sufficiency requirements that are central 
components to the bill.
  H.R. 2 requires that public housing residents spend 8 hours each 
month volunteering in their community. Their assistance is an 
invaluable resource in ensuring that public housing communities are 
safe, clean, and healthy places to live. Furthermore, residents must 
set a target date for obtaining self-sufficiency and moving out of 
public housing.
  Mr. Chairman, several weeks ago I visited the Olathe Salvation Army 
Family Lodge in my district. The lodge currently provides housing for 
11 families who in exchange for their housing participate in a self-
sufficiency program. The lodge has an 82 percent success rate in 
residents finding permanent private sector housing. This high success 
rate is attributed to the work requirements built into the program. I 
believe this type of success is a model for public housing authorities 
across America.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2 and the community work 
requirements.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Chicago, IL [Mr. Jackson].
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me first begin by congratulating the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Leach], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] and the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Lazio] for working together on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2, a bill which I 
fear will add to the millions of Americans who are currently homeless, 
at risk of being homeless, or suffering under severe housing 
conditions.
  If H.R. 2 is passed in the form it was reported out of the Committee 
on Banking and Financial Services, it will, in essence, destroy the 
last remnant of the social safety net constructed to protect our 
Nation's most vulnerable citizens. While we all agree that 
comprehensive reform of our public and assisted housing system is of 
paramount importance, this bill, unfortunately, is not the vehicle to 
meet the needs of our Nation's housing needs. In fact, H.R. 2 will make 
worse an already bad condition.
  H.R. 2 will fundamentally repeal the underlying premise and principle 
of the Housing Act of 1937, legislation which encompassed President 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's righteous position that safe, sanitary, and 
adequate housing is a human right and not a privilege. The abandonment 
of this 60-year commitment is a travesty for this technologically 
advanced industrial country, which is considered to be an economic 
superpower among nations.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer amendments to this bill which will 
enable us to protect against one of its more onerous and demeaning 
consequences: the community work provisions of section 105, which I 
might add are uniformly opposed by virtually every housing authority in 
the Nation because in the first year alone it will cost $65 million and 
create the contradictory requirement of mandated volunteerism, an 
oxymoron. By requiring public housing residents to perform 8 hours of 
community work on top of the rent that they already pay or risk 
eviction from public housing, we are imposing a burden on low-income 
recipients of housing assistance that we do not likewise impose on 
middle and upper class recipients of housing subsidies like the 
millions of Americans who receive the benefit of a homeowner deduction 
each year. My amendments will ensure that H.R. 2 does not force tenants 
from their homes if they fail to meet this requirement.
  Mr. Chairman, if we mandate volunteerism in exchange for government 
assistance in the form of public housing, why not require the same for 
those who receive any form of Federal assistance, foreign subsidies, 
corporate welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, food 
stamps, mortgage deductions or mining rights.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2 vilifies public housing residents solely because 
they are poor. In the final analysis, we measure ourselves as a society 
by how we treat the least of these and the most vulnerable.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, a bill which I fear 
will add to the millions of Americans who are currently homeless, at 
risk of being homeless, or suffering under severe housing conditions. 
If H.R. 2 is passed in the form it was reported out of the Banking 
Committee, it will, in essence, destroy the last remnant of the social 
safety net constructed to protect our Nation's most vulnerable 
citizens.
  While we all agree that comprehensive reform of our public and 
assisted housing system is of paramount importance to this nation, this 
bill unfortunately is not the vehicle to meet the magnitude of our 
housing needs. In fact, H.R. 2 will only make worse an already bad 
situation.
  H.R. 2 will fundamentally repeal the underlying premise and principle 
of the Housing Act of 1937--legislation which encompassed FDR's 
righteous position that safe, santiary, and adequate housing is a human 
right and not a privilege. The abandonment of this 60-year commitment 
is a travesty for this technologically advanced industrial country 
which is considered to be an economic superpower among nations.
  Without a firm commitment to this principle, we will never attain our 
stated objective of adequately housing our citizens, as is demonstrated 
by our history. In the late 1960's a White House conference on housing 
and urban issues called for 26 million new housing starts over the next 
10 years in order to meet the housing needs of our Nation. That goal 
translated into 2.6 million housing starts each year, with 600,000 of 
those starts to be federally subsidized each year. The Nation has never 
even approximated that goal, and currently, the figure is only slightly 
over 1.5 million new housing starts annually.
  We know that we face an affordable housing crisis in this Nation--
5.3 million Americans live under worst case housing needs scenarios--
that is they are forced to pay more than 50 percent of their income in 
rent and/or live under deplorable conditions. H.R. 2 will exacerbate 
this crisis through making public housing available to higher income 
residents who can pay higher rents at the expense of thousands of low 
income families.

  When we talk about our priorities of enabling mixed income 
communities--which I believe is a laudable goal under ideal 
circumstances--we must be sure not to pull the housing safety net out 
from underneath the poorest and most vulnerable Americans. Over the 
course of this debate, we will speak at length about the dangerous 
targeting provisions in this bill which set aside only 35 percent of 
public housing units for those earning below 30 percent of area median 
income, leaving the remainder of units to house people who earn up to 
80 percent of the area median income. In Chicago, that means 65 percent 
of all public housing units could be set aside for people earning 
$44,650. Should we be displacing full-time minimum wage workers to make 
room for professionals who can better afford to find housing in the 
private market? Even at this point, this is a false debate.
  Let me be clear. When we target low-income tenants as those with 
incomes under 30 percent of the median income, in a large metropolitan 
area like Chicago we are talking about those who earn $16,312. This is 
$5,000 more than a full-time minimum wage worker earns in a year, and 
nearly $10,000 more than a welfare recipient. People who will 
necessarily be displaced by the proposed income-mix equation, will 
include vast numbers of the working poor. As a result, low wage workers 
and Americans who we are ostensibly encouraging to successfully make 
the transition from welfare to work will either be forced into 
homelessness or to forgo basic human necessities like health care, 
groceries, and clothing in order to find alternative shelter.
  We must be vigilant in our efforts to ensure that just at the time 
that we are requiring the most from the most vulnerable among us, we do 
not remove the stability and security of

[[Page H2046]]

adequate housing--an essential resource as people attempt to move from 
welfare to work. When we considered this legislation in the last 
Congress, welfare reform had not yet been enacted; 70 percent of the 
residents of the Chicago Housing Authority receive public assistance 
and half of all residents are children. If there are not enough jobs to 
meet the welfare-to-work requirements, the potentially devastating 
implications of this bill are magnified.
   Mr. Speaker, I intend to offer amendments to this bill which will 
enable us to protect against one of its more onerous and demeaning 
consequences. The community work provisions of section 105--which, I 
might add, are uniformly opposed by virtually every public housing 
authority in the Nation because in the first year alone, it will cost 
them $65 in the first year alone--create the contradictory requirement 
of ``mandated volunteerism.'' By requiring public housing residents to 
perform 8 hours of community work on top of the rent they pay or risk 
eviction from public housing, we are imposing a burden on low-income 
recipients of housing assistance that we do not likewise impose upon 
middle and upper class recipients of housing subsidies, like the 
millions of Americans who receive the benefit of homeownership 
deductions each year. My amendments will leave the section intact, yet 
will ensure that H.R. 2 does not force tenants from their homes if they 
fail to meet this requirement.
  In light of the Colin Powell summit elevating a sound concept, 
``volunteerism,'' why refer to such a ``mandated condition'' as 
``voluntary.'' Why give volunteerism a bad name? Why not call it what 
it is, a mandatory condition for living in public housing? The second 
concern is practical. While section 105 of H.R. 2 is technically legal, 
where will the poor go if they are evicted from public housing? Will 
they join the ranks of a growing homeless community on the streets of 
America? Will they move in with friends or relatives, adding to those 
already living in overcrowded and unsafe circumstances? What are the 
real alternatives of the poor if they are evicted from public housing?
  If we mandate volunteerism in exchange for Government assistance in 
the form of public housing, why not require the same from those who 
receive any form of federal assistance, farm subsidies, corporate 
welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, Food Stamps, 
mortgage deductions, or mining rights? Why do we require this only from 
the poor living in public housing? Are public housing residents being 
denied equal protection under the law?
   Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2 vilifies public housing residents because they 
find themselves in the unfortunate predicament of being poor. In the 
final analysis, we are measured as a society by the way that we treat 
our most vulnerable. Let us not require the most from those who are in 
the most in need. I urge a ``no'' vote on this mean-spirited and 
dangerous bill.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance 
of my time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and that he may 
be able to yield blocks of time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that we clarify a point. This 
bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, saves $100 million 
in administrative expenses. It is a net saver. That includes the 
community service requirement. So any statement to the contrary is not 
accurate and does not reflect the Congressional Budget Office figures.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Cook].
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for giving me a minute 
to rise in strong support of H.R. 2. Salt Lake City, Utah's capital and 
the largest city in my district, has a public commitment to mixing 
middle-income and low-income housing. Last year the city set aside 
$300,000 of its own money to provide developers with incentives to mix 
housing. City officials have been flooded with phone calls from 
interested developers. Soon, the city will select a middle-class 
development that will designate 20 percent of its projects for low-
income families. I believe mixed income housing is the only way to 
avoid inner-city blight.
  But my district can only select one or two developments for this 
approach because we could not find any Federal program that supported 
this creative approach. I say to my colleagues, this housing bill helps 
adopt such a creative approach. This housing bill can help preserve the 
dignity of their impoverished residents, the integrity of their 
neighborhoods, and perhaps most important of all, provide opportunities 
to poor young people who have for too long been isolated from the 
opportunities that middle-income children enjoy, opportunities that 
could at last break the cycle of poverty that threatens to cripple this 
country.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds 
for clarification purposes.
  I would just like to say that the chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services asked me to file a report yesterday that 
suggests that the cost of this work requirement would be $65 million 
the first year, would be $35 million each additional year. The 100 
million dollars' worth of savings that is accounted for by the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, the 100 
million dollars' worth of savings is accounted for by virtue of the 
fact that we are raising the income levels on the poor people in these 
housing projects, thereby collecting additional rents, thereby 
confirming the contention of the Democratic position that this bill is 
fundamentally flawed because we take richer people instead of poorer 
people into public housing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. I am 
appalled at some of the representations of my colleagues from the other 
side of the aisle accusing us of wanting to protect the status quo. We 
do not like homelessness. We do not like poverty. We do not like 
substandard housing. We are trying to change the plight of poor people 
in this Nation.
  Yes, we need to do something about troubled housing, but this is not 
the answer. Let us talk about how troubled housing became troubled 
housing. Not because of the attacks on the poor that were made here 
today but, rather, because we have had public housing with poor people 
concentrated in locations with no services, we have had poor people 
piled on top of each other in some of these city locations. There are 
no clinics in many of these, no child care, no job training, and guess 
what? Many of the local police departments do not even want to provide 
police services.
  We are trying to correct this situation. We have had public housing 
with no investment for rehabilitation, no money to fix up those places. 
Yet we have those who stand on the floor, attack the poor, people who 
have two and three houses, people who live not only in Washington, DC, 
but houses spread perhaps all over the Nation, people who come here and 
talk about forcing people to do some kind of community service work, 
people who are getting a large paycheck. Nowhere in the contract with 
the people are we forced to even have to come to work, and many do not. 
How we can stand here and talk about forcing people to work and 
disrespecting the poorest of the poor, and talking about having them 
somehow give their time, it is not volunteering, it is forced 
servitude.
  This bill is not worth the paper it is written on. This is a bill 
that does nothing for the poor. This is a bill that follows the 
direction of the Republicans of this House cutting HUD by over 25 
percent, cutting housing by some 20 percent. We cannot support this 
bill. We tried to make it better with amendments. We were beaten back 
in committee with many of the amendments we attempted to make in order 
to make it a better bill.
  What we have at this particular time is targeting in ways that will 
cause the poorest of the poor to be driven from the only housing they 
can afford. With welfare reform, with people with less income to 
purchase housing for their children, for their families, they will join 
the homeless on the streets of America, one of America's greatest 
shames.
  We have Republicans on the other side of the aisle who say they care 
about children. Where do they think children live? Where do they think 
poor children live? Where do they think they are going to go when they 
are driven out of this housing, the only housing that they can afford?
  I ask my colleagues to reject this legislation. Again, it is worse 
than the bill that we had last year.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from the great

[[Page H2047]]

State of Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich], a member of the Committee on Banking 
and Financial Services.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2, and I commend 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], the chairman, for his great 
work again this year as he did before in the 104th Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a bold step forward with respect 
to our housing policy at the Federal level. But that is not why I am 
getting up this afternoon. I am getting up because of some of the 
things I hear from the other side of the aisle.
  This is not about good or bad, Mr. Chairman. It is not about who 
cares about the poor and who does not care about the poor; it is not 
about class welfare and who is middle class and what parents you came 
from or if you have a trust fund or not. It is about a profound 
philosophical difference between the parties in this town.
  I see my friend from Baltimore sitting over there, he is going to 
speak in a minute. We served in the Maryland legislature together and 
we did not agree on much. We are friends. We both have a common 
motivation, which is to help people. We have a philosophical difference 
on how we get there, and that is what this debate is all about. No one 
is good or bad, regardless of how they come down on the philosophical 
side of this issue. It is about self-sufficiency and self-help, and 
opportunity and responsibility and accountability. It is about 
accountability and responsibility and how we get there.
  On this side of the aisle, we think a work requirement is good for 
people. Some folks disagree. We all come to this in good faith.
  H.R. 2 removes disincentives to work, it creates pride where pride 
should be, it creates healthy environments to live it, and it is 
consistent with the Republican philosophy that local communities should 
be able to propose and implement local solutions.
  I understand there are folks in this town, folks over there, friends 
of mine, who do not share that philosophical orientation. I think they 
have had a lot of time to be in power. We think on this side of the 
aisle their solutions have not worked. We all bring good faith, Mr. 
Chairman.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to talk to my friend, the gentleman from 
Baltimore, and my friend on the third floor of the Cannon House Office 
Building later on this as well.
  I want to commend the subcommittee, I want to commend the full 
committee, and I want to commend the opposition. This is a good debate. 
It certainly shows the different beliefs that we, each of us 
respectively, bring to this very important issue for the American 
people.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my 
good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, the 
Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act. Simply stated, the bill 
fails to help those whom public and assisted housing was created to 
serve. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and support the Kennedy 
substitute to ensure that local housing authorities serve Americans 
with the greatest housing needs.
  Mr. Chairman, there is bipartisan consensus that public housing needs 
to improve. We all agree that public housing must be safer and work 
better. We all agree that HUD must be streamlined and refocused. But 
true reform, true reform, would not abandon our Nation's most 
vulnerable citizens, and that is what this bill does.
  Not only does this bill fail in its most basic mission, helping the 
poorest of the poor, but it also creates new obstacles to finding 
shelter. The bill institutes mandated voluntarism for residents of 
public housing. This bill requires forced labor in exchange for 
subsidized shelter, a requirement that does not exist for any other 
Federal assistance.
  The only acceptable use of forced labor is as a punishment for a 
crime, and it is not a crime to be poor. We do not require the CEO's of 
the major lumber companies to volunteer in exchange for subsidizing 
their logging on public lands. We do not require tobacco farmers to 
volunteer in exchange for Federal crop insurance. We do not force flood 
victims to volunteer when we help them to rebuild their communities. 
Public and assisted housing residents are not criminals. They hold 
jobs. They raise families. Many participate in residential and 
community activities.
  H.R. 2 is bad policy. My colleague earlier talked about who is bad 
and who is good. The individuals are not bad or good, but there is good 
policy and there is bad policy. This is bad policy. It provides 
assistance to families with the means already available to them to find 
housing. It takes shelter away from the poorest of the poor. It adds 
mandates on local housing authorities. Be assured, this bill would keep 
children and elderly individuals out of public and assisted housing. 
Please oppose H.R. 2 and support the Kennedy substitute.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul].
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, it was mentioned earlier that we have two visions about 
the housing program. Unfortunately, I see so little difference between 
these two visions. One, I see that the bureaucracy is centralized, 
spending a lot of money and not doing a very good job. The other vision 
is that if we decentralized bureaucracy and spent even more money, that 
somehow or another we will improve the public housing of America.
  However, I do want to challenge the statements here that all of a 
sudden something is being cut, because the way I read the figures, 
actually we are increasing the amount of money. That should satisfy 
some opposition, but it would not satisfy me if we are spending more 
money. We are supposed to be spending less money. But according to the 
CBO figures, we spent $25 billion last year on HUD funds, most of it 
going into public housing, and this year the proposal is that there 
will be $30 billion. As we look at these figures on out, by the time we 
get to the year 2002 we are up to $36 billion.
  So there are no cuts. There is a 20-percent increase this year. So I 
do not see how these funds are being slashed. I would like to see the 
funds cut and spent a different way. I think private enterprise is a 
much better way to build houses. There is no proof that this 30-year 
experimentation of $600 billion has been worth anything. We have spent 
$5 trillion on the war on poverty, and rightfully so. There are a lot 
of people complaining there is still a lot of poverty, still a lot of 
homeless, still a lot of people not getting medical care. I think that 
is true, but I think it represents the total failure of the welfare 
state.
  It is coming to an end. Unfortunately, no matter how well intended, 
and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has done tremendous work, 
and has worked very hard to improve this situation, I wish I could 
share his optimism. There is no reason, Mr. Chairman, to be optimistic 
about this bill, if it is passed or not passed. We have to address the 
subject of how we deal with this problem.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf], who also heads 
the housing caucus in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2. H.R. 2 will 
fundamentally change public housing throughout this Nation. For too 
long Washington, DC, has regulated public housing authorities, tying 
the hands of local housing authorities with Federal preferences and 
excessive regulations. Today we are taking steps to deregulate, to 
decentralize public housing, to give local housing agencies greater 
flexibility and control, and reduce the concentration of the poorest 
families in the worst housing projects.
  H.R. 2 will reward well-run public housing authorities, but will not 
tolerate chronically bad public housing authorities that have used 
taxpayers' dollars irresponsibly. This is not just a quick fix or an 
extreme solution, it is a real solution that will end public housing as 
we know it, and begin a new era of greater personal responsibility for 
residents and local responsibility for communities.
  Without these changes now, our public housing stock will continue to 
deteriorate. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Leach], and the subcommittee chairman, the

[[Page H2048]]

gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for their work on passing a public 
housing bill that works.
  Transforming public housing evokes strong emotions from both sides of 
the aisle. Throughout this debate Members will hear about the need for 
compassion. Our problem is that we have measured compassion by how much 
money we have thrown at the problem. That does not do it. We need to 
fix the problem at the core, and begin helping those people in public 
housing move up the economic ladder.
  I am fortunate to live in a district with good public housing 
agencies that will continue to serve those who need affordable housing. 
Whether it is the Everett Housing Authority or the Island County 
Housing Authority, they express the same message: Give us greater 
flexibility and less Federal interference. That is what we intend to do 
with this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support commonsense legislation.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation that is 
at issue here today. Almost any bill, even if we did not read it, did 
not analyze it, or did not look at the provisions, but recognized that 
the committee that worked on it was attempting to improve the current 
situation in housing, would be acceptable if it is placed against the 
last 40 years of non-success.
  Every single legislative congressional district in our country has a 
public housing unit. Almost every single one is failing to meet the 
stated purpose of the housing needs of the people that it is intended 
to serve. There are excellent public housing authorities that have done 
their job and have provided the needed help for housing inhabitants in 
every single one of the districts, but the housing authorities 
themselves have constantly badgered us Members of the Congress to bring 
about improvements, some of which are included in this bill. We must 
help the housing authorities help the poor in the housing arena.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has extra time, would he yield to a 
question from the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, if 
he would yield, that we started out with the same amount of time. I 
tried to accommodate by giving the gentleman an extra 10 minutes. We 
have several Members who are on their way and will need the time when 
they get in the Chamber. So if we have extra time at the end, I would 
be happy to try to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from the great State of Maryland [Mr. Cummings], 
a fellow who I think represents my older sister.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, for as long as I have been an elected 
official, my guiding principle has been to empower people to serve as a 
link that brings the resources of government to the people. It is 
because of these principles that I voted against last year's version of 
this bill.
  This year's bill, H.R. 2, is not much better. It would repeal the 
United States Housing Act of 1937, which has provided the underpinning 
for the Department of Housing and Urban Development's basic purpose for 
more than 60 years.
  Rather than improving upon the 1937 Housing Act, this year's bill 
abandons the basic tenets of the original bill to provide every 
American with safe, sanitary, and affordable housing. Abandoning these 
basic goals would be a disservice to every American who is struggling 
to provide adequately for his or her family.
  Housing is essential if families are to be safe and if those 
responsible for food and shelter are to seek and find permanent 
employment. The Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act lacks 
compassion. I believe that, in its current form, this bill will force 
thousands of needy persons onto the streets and leave many more 
teetering on the brink of homelessness. This measure will force our 
poorest citizens to pay increased rents to live in public housing 
units, while it allows individuals with higher incomes to receive 
increased governmental benefits.
  The bill's income targeting provisions also are tilted too far in 
favor of higher-income families. This will exacerbate the shortage of 
affordable housing for every low-income family. Our Nation is already 
experiencing a shortage of affordable housing for low-income families.
  More than 5.6 million low-income families currently pay more than 50 
percent of their income for rent. We have lost 43 percent of this 
Nation's affordable housing supply over the last two decades. This bill 
in its current form will only make the problem worse by reducing the 
main source of housing affordable to very poor, namely public and 
assisted housing.
  Additional resources must be provided to increase the number of 
housing units available to the poor. Otherwise, local housing 
authorities will charge higher rents to attract higher-income tenants. 
This will result in lower-income tenants being pushed into 
homelessness.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon] a member of the 
Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2, 
the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act, which I believe 
addresses the last bastion of our failed experiment with the welfare 
state by ending our tragically broken Federal public housing system.
  The public housing system created by decades of Federal 
micromanagement has actually harmed those it was meant to help by 
penalizing work and family unity and championing never-ending 
bureaucracy. H.R. 2 will encourage self-sufficiency, ending the rent 
provisions which have illogically and disasterously penalized public 
housing tenants for working and at the same time encouraging community 
involvement and responsibility by requiring 8 hours a month of 
community service for unemployed individuals receiving housing 
assistance.
  I believe this legislation will create a healthier environment in 
public housing by admitting more working families into housing and stop 
the Federal Government from artificially sustaining communities mired 
in hopelessness and devoid of opportunity. I encourage all my 
colleagues to support H.R. 2, and I commend the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Lazio] for his leadership in this legislative initiative.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon] has 
expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has any more speakers?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would say we have additional 
speakers out of the Chamber but on the way.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman be 
willing to yield to me an extra 30 seconds to respond to some of the 
points that have been made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio]?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, 
again, we started out with equal time. We could debate this out, but we 
have x amount of time. I think we are going to be needing that time for 
our Members who are not yet in the Chamber.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as long as the Chairman 
of the committee would understand that this particular amount of time 
is coming out of the time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], I 
would be happy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not understand that. The gentleman has 
not yielded the time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity for yielding 
me the time.
  I want to make it clear what this debate tomorrow will not be about, 
because it really has surprised me what the general debate has tried to 
posture as an issue.

[[Page H2049]]

  We worked very hard in the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services to try to make this a better bill. And what this debate will 
not be about is a choice between whether we are in favor of reform or 
the status quo. The bill itself can be improved. And to posture this 
bill as the only version of reform that anybody can support and the 
alternative is that we are supporting the status quo is just a very, 
very, very bad thing to do, and I hope my colleagues on the other side 
will not do it.
  Second, this debate is not about flexibility because, while all of us 
support more flexibility for local housing authorities, time after time 
after time in this bill we are taking away flexibility from local 
housing authorities by mandating that they do a number of different 
things, not the least of which is to require occupants in public 
housing to volunteer. Now, how we require somebody to volunteer and 
call it volunteerism, I simply do not understand.
  What this debate is about is how the Republicans would like to 
posture the poorest people in this country against those who are also 
working poor or the near poor, as I will call them, because that is the 
dilemma that this bill will put all of us in.
  What they want to do is to put more and more working poor in public 
housing, and that will be at the expense of the most poor people in 
this country and will deprive them of housing. And we are providing no 
funds for any additional housing under this bill.
  This is a paternalistic, inflexible, so-called reform bill. I ask my 
colleagues to oppose it if it is not amended in this process.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I will say, once again, the same voices in defense of 
what we have now, the status quo, are opposing this bill. We had 100 
Democrats who stood up last year for change and reform to recognize the 
failure of the system. What we have here again is defense of what 
exists, the failure that exists in many of our communities, the 
poverty, the superconcentration of poverty in the very backyards of 
some of the Members who are speaking out against this bill. I will tell 
my colleagues it is an outrage in this Chamber to talk about community 
service as something that is to be mocked or denigrated.
  I ask, where were the voices in this Chamber when we asked for people 
who got medical scholarships to give their service to low income areas? 
Where were the voices in this Chamber to oppose the President's 
AmeriCorps program because the only way somebody could get education is 
to expect them to give back to community service.
  I would say to this Chamber, where is the compassion for people who 
are just as poor who cannot get into public housing but have got to 
work 40 or 50 or 60 hours just to make ends meet?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Jones], a distinguished member of the Committee on Banking and 
Financial Services.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, no, I will not yield to the gentleman from 
North Carolina.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, for 60 years this country has essentially 
run its public housing program the same way year after year. For 60 
years public housing has gotten worse and worse. People living in 
public housing should have a right to live in clean and safe 
conditions, and taxpayers should have a right to know that their money 
is being well invested. For that to happen, we must make changes. This 
bill will eliminate the 60-year-old law which has given us rundown and 
unsafe public housing projects. It will give more local control, and it 
will require more responsibility from public housing residents.
  Mr. Chairman, for too long we have concentrated the poorest families 
in the worst housing. For too long we have punished public housing 
residents who work. We have had generations of children who have grown 
up in public housing complexes and never seen a parent or anyone else 
get up and go to work.
  They have only lived in projects that are covered with graffiti, 
overgrown with weeds and littered with empty wine bottles. The only 
business people they have ever known are drug dealers, prostitutes and 
food stamp hustlers.
  Mr. Chairman, that is wrong. With this bill we will begin to change 
the reality of life for poor children across America. For the first 
time in many of their lives, they will live in communities with people 
who work and who take responsibility for their behavior. They will live 
in public housing complexes that are held accountable.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill may not be perfect, but it makes the right 
changes in the right direction, and changing the way we conduct our 
public housing policy is the first step to getting positive results. I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] has expired.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time 
remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I will not yield.
  I say, at the outset, again, that both sides have equal amounts of 
time. Both sides need to manage it correctly.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 
on that issue?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I will not yield to the 
gentleman. I gave the gentleman an extra 20 minutes to try and work out 
his time problems.
  I would say to the Chamber this is about whether we are going to 
embrace and accept and keep and look the other way when we see failure. 
It is about whether we are going to continue to punish people who are 
working. It is about whether we are going to side with the drug 
dealers, with the criminals, with the abusers of the system or whether 
we are going to side with the decent families, with the people that 
want to live in peaceful enjoyment in public housing. It is about 
whether we are screening, and let me say something, Mr. Chairman. We 
are going to hear about the so-called substitute, the phantom 
substitute. This has been a group, the Members that are going to vote 
for the substitute are the same Members who have been fighting change 
and reform for 30 years. They are the same Members who have fought 
against the administration in an effort to try and take down buildings 
because it was a Republican Congress that gave the administration the 
authority for the first time to demolish vacant hulks of despair in our 
Nation's cities.
  This is an opportunity for us to stand up with the working people, 
the working poor in urban areas to say, we are not going to cower, we 
are not going to be intimidated, we are going to stand firm for what we 
believe in, for the principles of work and responsibility and decency. 
We believe in those things. We are going to reward and incentivize 
people to live by the rules.
  As for the people who do not live by the rules, for the people who 
continue to be disruptive, for the system that continues to fail, for 
the housing authorities that continue to waste money and to force their 
families to live in despair, we are going to say, that era is now over. 
We stand for excellence, for success. We expect no less. We expect to 
get value for our dollar.
  I do not know where it was written, Mr. Chairman, just because we 
were using public dollars, that somehow we should tolerate waste, that 
we should look the other way when there was failure, that we should not 
expect the same level of competence of excellence, value that we expect 
when we use our own private dollars. Yet there are Members in this 
Chamber that say that the only thing we need now is more public 
dollars. Baloney. Because in Chicago, in New Orleans, in the worst 
housing authorities in the country, they have been taken over with 
money left in the bank. That money has not even been spent, tens of 
millions of dollars unspent while people live with broken windows, 
broken doors, crime infested complexes. That is the outrage. That is 
what lacks compassion.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my comments is 
to clarify the purpose of section 622 of H.R. 2, the Housing 
Opportunity and Responsibility Act of

[[Page H2050]]

1997. I think it is important that the record on this legislation 
reflect the considerable thought and sensitivity to the needs and 
concerns of residents, owners, and managers alike that accompanied the 
decision to include this provision in the bill. This is the third 
Congress in which I have worked to secure for residents of public 
housing the opportunity to own pets; last year, by a vote of almost 8 
to 1, the House adopted an amendment based on a bill that my colleague 
from New York, Ms. Molinari, and I had introduced. I wish to thank Mr. 
Lazio, my colleague from New York and the chairman of the Housing 
Subcommittee, for his efforts to include an expanded version of that 
amendment in the housing reform legislation.
  For many years, residents of federally assisted housing designated 
for senior citizens and disabled persons have been allowed to own 
common household pets, such as dogs, cats, and birds. This has worked 
extremely well; even the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
has had to admit that the problems it forecast have never come to pass. 
Building on that success, section 622 will extend that privilege to 
residents of most other forms of federally assisted rental housing. It 
is not intended that this provision will in any way subject elderly or 
disabled persons who now own pets under current law to additional fees 
or requirements, nor will it change the terms of or otherwise 
jeopardize the continued ownership of those pets.
  One of the purposes of H.R. 2 is to renew American neighborhoods, or, 
as one hearing witness put it, to create caring, cohesive communities. 
Pet ownership adds much to the quality of life of both families and 
communities. Those persons who can demonstrate that they can be 
responsible pet-owning tenants should not be denied that opportunity 
simply because their incomes limit their housing options.
  At the same time, those of us who have argued for pet ownership 
privileges for residents of federally assisted rental housing recognize 
that owners and managers of that housing have an enormous 
responsibility to provide safe, clean, and healthy homes for their 
tenants and are thus rightly concerned that they have the authority to 
regulate the conditions of pet ownership. H.R. 2 provides that 
authority. Housing owners may establish pet policies appropriate to 
their properties. For instance, tenants wishing to keep pets may be 
charged a nominal fee and pet deposit. Without making the cumulative 
financial burden prohibitive, such a mechanism would help to defray the 
added expense of administering a pet policy and to cover any property 
damage their pets may cause.
  Furthermore, it is reasonable to ask pet owners to demonstrate that 
they can comply with the pet ownership requirements of their housing 
complex and also to limit the number of animals any one resident may 
own or keep. Integral components of responsible pet ownership policies 
in federally assisted rental housing include the spaying or neutering 
of dogs and cats and providing pets with proper nutrition and 
appropriate veterinary care. It is important to emphasize, however, 
that residents should not be required to subject their pets to an 
inhumane procedure, such as debarking or declawing, as a condition for 
ownership.
  In keeping with another of H.R. 2's goals; that is, to increase 
community control within the public housing program, owners and 
managers of federally assisted rental housing should find ways to 
delegate to the residents themselves the maximum possible amount of 
responsibility for implementing the pet policy in a given housing 
complex. H.R. 2 recognizes the importance of tenant participation; much 
like the resident councils provided for in section 234, pet committees 
would enable residents to take an active role in implementing a 
responsible pet ownership program and ensure fair consideration and a 
careful balancing of the needs of everyone in the complex: The housing 
manager, maintenance staff, and pet owners, and nonpet owners alike. 
Housing owners and managers would do well to emulate the components of 
the highly successful program in Massachusetts, developed to ease the 
introduction of pet ownership into State-assisted public housing. In 
addition to pet committees, these elements include reasonable tenant 
and management obligations.
  Experience offers ample evidence that no-pets-allowed policies fail 
to keep animals out of housing complexes; they also fail to offer any 
constructive avenues for addressing the problems that arise. Instead, 
by welcoming responsible pet owners under a system based on the 
Massachusetts model, the owners, managers, and tenants of federally 
assisted rental housing complexes will be able to implement section 622 
successfully.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2. Although 
pragmatically I would like to support a public and assisted housing 
reauthorization bill, this bill takes the positive ideas of reform and 
distorts them beyond recognition. H.R. 2 starts by repealing the 
pivotal underpinning of all Federal housing law--the 1937 Housing Act--
for the symbolism and the sake of looking like reform. This key law is 
referred to in approximately 650 laws. It is a foundation that should 
not be casually tossed aside.
  But that, Mr. Chairman, is from the dry pages of statute. In the real 
world, H.R. 2 will toss aside the underhoused in this country in much 
the same way.
  The basis for these reforms has been in the works in Congress since 
1993. That's right. Democrats put forth a bipartisan bill in 1994 that 
providef for mixed income developments, restructured rents, and more 
flexibility for Public Housing Authorities [PHA's]. Democrats support 
reforming and restructuring public and assisted housing. But not at the 
expense of the very people it was designed to serve.
  The Republican majority, however, has chosen to solve the problems of 
public and assisted housing not by addressing need and the population 
that most needs housing, but by redefining who will be served. As if it 
were not bad enough that the 104th Congress--the last Congress--HUD's 
funding, cutting HUD's baseline by some 25 percent, this bill will now 
renege on who we are going to serve with the ever shrinking HUD budget. 
More mixing of income in public housing is great. However, given the 
extent of the housing crisis that exists in this country, we must be 
judicious in our policies so that we serve those with the greatest 
needs. H.R. 2 retreats from the problem, wrapped in the rhetoric of 
reform and local control.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress may be illuminated with photos and 
stories of some bad public housing developments once again during this 
debate. Despite the rhetoric, Democrats do not support keeping bad 
public housing bad. This is ludicrous. It is misleading and dishonest.
  I, for one, am proud of the work and results of the public housing 
agency in St. Paul and the others in my district. Much of it is being 
renewed from a 40-year contract. The majority of public housing is 
good, even excellent, anchoring neighborhoods and providing affordable 
housing opportunities for low-income people. In fact, in my area, it is 
the private multifamily units that represent the greatest problem and 
challenge. Much of public housing is housing like those shown in the 
photo and illustrations being presented. It is good, safe, decent and 
clean housing.
  Most PHA's are effectively managing their units with decreasing 
funds. Most continue to be innovative and creative with the resources 
they have and the partnerships they build. For their sake and the sake 
of current and future tenants, we must preserve and protect the 
taxpayers' $90 billion public investment in public housing stock. 
Indeed, I would argue that because of the extraordinary need for 
permanent housing, we should be talking about increasing this 
affordable housing resource.
  Currently, 1.4 million units of public housing serve only 25 percent 
of the people eligible for assistance. Yet analysis shows that more 
than 5.3 million American families are paying 50 percent or more of 
their income for rental housing. Over 3,300 public housing agencies in 
community after community in this Nation are serving those with great 
housing needs and serving them well.
  Unfortunately, the 75 troubled public housing authorities are the 
highest profile and tend to be employed by some to shape a negative 
public perception of public housing. No one, Mr. Chairman, no one wants 
to permit these units to persist, nor the hardship visited upon the 
families who reside in such projects to continue. Under then-Secretary 
Cisneros, the situation in many of these cities suffering with poor 
housing management had begun to change dramatically. Now, Secretary 
Cuomo is following through with a ``can do'' HUD. However, Congress 
should not legislate as if all 3,400 PHA's share the same problems. 
While 75 PHA's are troubled and require vigilant financial and 
management oversight, 3,325 PHA's should not be subjected to punitive 
cumbersome rules and policy.
  Over the past few years, policymakers have struggled with the budget 
deficit. HUD has not shared the political clout enjoyed by other 
agencies like DOD or NASA. Democratic members of the Banking Committee 
have strongly fought for additional funding, yet, we have had to face 
the budget realities. That has forced us to try to balance the goal of 
providing quality housing for low-income tenants with less funding, to 
fix deteriorating housing stock; to provide new opportunities such as 
home ownership; and to provide services to make the housing successful.
  Public housing needs to continue its mission to provide decent, safe, 
and sanitary housing that is affordable to very-low and low-income 
tenants. However, as policymakers, we have recognized the wisdom of 
mixing tenant incomes and encouraging working families to live in 
public housing to provide role models and stable communities. We must 
also improve management and allow more local control of the resources 
while maintaining our Federal interest.

[[Page H2051]]

  However, H.R. 2 twists the mission of public housing, creates new 
bureaucracies, provides for new and onerous micromanagement of PHA's 
and residents, adds punitive CDBG sanctions that will, in the end, 
further harm low-income communities, and symbolically throws out the 
fundamental housing law of 1937. In the name of reform, H.R. 2 goes on 
to basically assure that public housing will not continue to assist 
those with less. The measure before us insures public housing's success 
by abandoning the challenge and the mission of serving even a portion 
of the poorest of the poor.
  Mr. Chairman, I have several amendments that I will offer throughout 
the course of the floor debate. I hope to reduce some of the 
duplicative bureaucracy that this bill creates by offering an amendment 
to strike the new accreditation board but keeping the study of ways to 
make public housing authorities more effective, better managers. I also 
have an amendment to assure that we link the homeless assistance 
provider community with the plans being developed by the PHA's. The 
answer to much of homelessness is permanent housing. And, finally, Mr. 
Chairman, I have refined amendments that I offered in committee to 
assure that legal immigrants negatively affected by the welfare reform 
law will not face a double whammy the first of every month, when they 
would be required to pay minimum rents of up to $50.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Kennedy substitute 
that preserves our promise to provide decent, safe, and sanitary 
housing options to our Nation's poor and should that amendment not 
prevail, to vote against H.R. 2 on final passage.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to call for all of my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in strong support 
for H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997. I 
would like to thank Chairman Lazio and all of the members of the House 
Committee on Banking for their hard work on H.R. 2 which we passed with 
a bipartisan vote last week.
  H.R. 2 is a piece of well thought out, comprehensive legislation that 
will make a real difference in public housing in America. We have based 
this legislation upon simple goals that will move our public housing 
programs in a strong new direction to empower the residents.
  These goals are:
  First, personal responsibility that extends to a mutual obligation 
between the provider and the recipient. One of the ways we accomplish 
this is through 8 hours a month work requirements for residents, 
exempting the elderly, the disabled, the employed, those who are in 
school or are receiving training, and those who are already involved in 
a welfare reform program.
  Second, retention of protections for the residents. One way this is 
accomplished is through the exclusion of income for the first few 
months of a new job and the income of minors from the determination of 
a resident's income level.
  Third, removal of disincentives to work and empowerment of the 
individual and family tenant through choices that I believe will lead 
them to economic independence. One of the ways we do this is by giving 
residents a choice between a flat rent or a percentage of their income.
  I would like to emphasize that everyone has the same, shared 
objective: clean, safe, affordable housing that empowers the have-nots 
in our society to become people who can realize their own American 
dream. We all want to realize this goal, but we just have different 
ideas on how to get us there. So, if we all keep this vitally important 
objective in mind, we will be able to move forward in a unified effort 
to make sure that the benefits of this legislation become a reality.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2, 
the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997. As a member of 
the Banking Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to commend 
the gentleman from New York for his leadership and his successful 
efforts in bringing this important legislation to the floor.
  Families in this country have found themselves caught in a housing 
system designed as a short-term solution that, instead, has become a 
long-term problem. The Depression-era United States Housing Act of 1937 
has evolved into creating a centralized housing program that is both 
very complex and ineffective in serving the needs of the distinct 
communities across the United States. It was never the intent of the 
Federal Government to have 57 percent of the residents of public 
housing to stay there for at least 5 years.
  The cookie-cutter housing policy created by bureaucrats in Washington 
does not always successfully serve rural communities like the ones I 
represent in the Third District of Alabama. H.R. 2 will return the 
housing policy decisionmaking to the local level through the 
deregulation of the well-run public housing authorities.
  Under this legislation, local communities and their PHA's will have 
the flexibility to create mixed-income environment by admitting low-
income families, as opposed to only very-low-income families. Mr. 
Speaker, we are talking about helping working families who simply 
cannot afford housing without some temporary assistance.
  Not only will the Federal Government help these working families by 
allowing income mixing, it will create an environment where a working 
resident may be looked upon as a role model and inspire another 
neighbor to seek employment. This will allow us to break the cycle of 
dependency on the Federal Government which has trapped so many of the 
residents of public housing.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Housing Opportunity and 
Responsibility Act of 1997 so that we can, once and for all, turn the 
Federal housing program into a temporary assistance program instead of 
a permanent solution.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of 
H.R. 2. As a member of the House Banking Committee and its Subcommittee 
on Housing and Community Development, this Member has actively 
participated in the drafting and consideration of this legislation. The 
gentleman from New York, Rick Lazio should be complemented for the hard 
work and perseverance he has shown over the past 3 years as chairman of 
the Housing Subcommittee. His leadership has allowed this bill to come 
to the floor today and he should be commended.
  For too long, the Nation's public housing programs have been run by a 
centralized bureaucracy with little to no input by local officials. 
H.R. 2 provides a new paradigm for the provision of Federal public 
housing programs. Rather than centralizing decisionmaking in 
Washington, the bill provides greater flexibility for local elected 
officials to work with public housing agencies to determine the housing 
needs of the community and decide the best way to meet these needs. 
Further, many of the Federal mandates which have been added over the 
years are eliminated. This again is in the spirit of moving control out 
of Washington. Additionally, the bill makes positive changes in the 
current policy of warehousing the poorest of the poor in inadequate 
housing by promoting mixed-income communities.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to read from the 
declaration of policy contained in H.R. 2, which clearly states the 
goals the bill sets, specifically:

       ``(1) the Federal government has a responsibility to 
     promote the general welfare of the nation by using Federal 
     resources to aid families and individuals seeking affordable 
     homes that are safe, clean, and healthy and, in particular, 
     assisting responsible, deserving citizens who cannot provide 
     fully for themselves because of temporary circumstances or 
     factors beyond their control; by working to ensure a thriving 
     national economy and a strong private housing market; and by 
     developing effective partnerships amount the Federal 
     Government, State and local governments, and private entities 
     that allow government to accept responsibility for fostering 
     the development of a healthy marketplace and allow families 
     to prosper without government involvement in their day-to-day 
     activities. (2) The Federal Government cannot through its 
     direct action alone provide for the housing of every American 
     citizen, or even a majority of its citizens, but it is the 
     responsibility of the Government to promote and protect the 
     independent and collective actions of private citizens to 
     develop housing and strengthen their own neighborhoods. (3) 
     The Federal Government should act where there is a serious 
     need that private citizens or groups cannot or are not 
     addressing responsibly. (4) Housing is a fundamental and 
     necessary component of bringing true opportunity to people 
     and communities in need, but providing physical structures to 
     house low-income families will not by itself pull generations 
     up from poverty. (5) It is a goal of our Nation that all 
     citizens have decent and affordable housing and our Nation 
     should promote the goal of providing decent and affordable 
     housing for all citizens through the efforts and 
     encouragement of Federal, State and local governments, and by 
     the independent and collective actions of private citizens, 
     organizations, and the private sector.''

Again, this Member rises in support of H.R. 2 and urges his colleagues 
to join him in supporting this important legislation.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the 
Housing and Responsibility Act of 1997 and commend its sponsor, the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] for all of his 
diligent work in bringing this important legislation to the floor. This 
bill will allow for greater community control and involvement over 
various housing programs. Ultimately, programs run by local officials 
who understand the needs of their communities, will be directed toward 
those individuals who need assistance the most.
  In addition, I thank the committee for including language to correct 
the improper median income calculation for Westchester and Rockland 
Counties. Currently, the median incomes of Westchester and Rockland 
Counties are

[[Page H2052]]

calculated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a part 
of the primary metropolitan statistical area which includes the income 
data from New York City. For this reason, HUD is listing the median 
income of these two counties as being far less than they truly are.
  Since HUD's income levels are used in calculating eligibility for 
almost all State and Federal housing programs, these inaccurate 
statistics have drastically reduced the access of both Rockland and 
Westchester County residents to many needed programs. A myriad of 
programs have artificially low income caps, thus residents, financial 
institutions, realtors, and builders from these two counties are at a 
severe disadvantage in relation to their counterparts in neighboring 
counties.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee and Chairman Lazio for their 
great work in reforming the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 and attending to 
this extremely important local need. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues 
to support H.R. 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has 
expired.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore, Mr. (Bob 
Schaffer of Colorado) 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 U.S. 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.

                          ____________________