[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 57 (Tuesday, May 6, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2188-H2243]
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} 1515
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 on Thursday, May
1, 1997, amendment No. 9 offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Jackson] had been disposed of, and title I was open for amendment at
any point.
Are there further amendments to title I?
Amendments offered by Mr. Lazio of New York
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be considered en bloc, Mr. Chairman, and I will read off the
following amendments:
Amendment No. 48 offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith];
amendment No. 47 as printed in the Record offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink]; amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman
from Colorado [Ms. DeGette]; amendments Nos. 23 and 24 offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]; amendment No. 49 offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor]; amendments Nos. 20 and 21
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]; amendment No. 28
offered by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign]; and amendment No. 33
offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of amendment No. 48 is as follows:
Amendment No. 48 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan: Page 15,
line 21, strike ``includes'' and insert ``may include.''
The text of amendment No. 47 is as follows:
Amendment No. 47 offered by Mr. Klink: Page 69, line 14,
after the period insert the following:
The Secretary shall require that each such agreement for
local cooperation shall provide that, notwithstanding any
order, judgment, or decree of any court (including any
settlement order), before making any amounts provided under a
grant under this title available for use for the production
of any housing or other property not previously used as
public housing, the public housing agency shall--
(1) notify the chief executive officer (or other
appropriate official) of the unit of general local government
in which the public housing for which such amounts are to be
so used is located (or to be located) of such use;
(2) pursuant to the request of such unit of general local
government, provide such information as may reasonably be
requested by such unit of general local government regarding
the public housing to be so assisted (except to the extent
otherwise prohibited by law) and consult with representatives
of such local government regarding the public housing.
The text of amendment No. 1 is as follows:
[[Page H2189]]
Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. DeGette: Page 71, line 19,
before the semicolon insert ``and including child care
services for public housing residents''.
The text of amendment No. 23 is as follows:
Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Vento: Page 104, line 24,
insert after ``program'' the following: ``, including a
family that includes a member who is an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence under the Immigration and
Nationality Act who would be entitled to public benefits but
for this IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996''.
The text of amendment No. 24 is as follows:
Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Vento: Page 193, line 21,
insert after ``program'' the following: ``, including a
family that includes a member who is an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence under the Immigration and
Nationality Act who would be entitled to public benefits but
for title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996''.
The text of amendment No. 49 is as follows:
Amendment No. 49 offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi: Page
287, after line 15, insert the following new paragraph:
(6) Treatment of common areas.--The Secretary may not
provide any assistance amounts pursuant to an existing
contract for section 8 project-based assistance for a housing
project and may not enter into a new or renewal contract for
such assistance for a project unless the owner of the project
provides consent, to such local law enforcement agencies as
the Secretary determines appropriate, for law enforcement
officers of such agencies to enter common areas of the
project at any time and without advance notice upon a
determination of probable cause by such officers that
criminal activity is taking place in such areas.
Page 287, line 16, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
The text of amendment No. 33 is as follows:
Amendment No. 33 offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut:
Page 316, after line 19, insert the following new
subsection:
(c) Ineligibility of Sexually Violent Predators for
Admission to Public Housing.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a public housing agency shall prohibit admission to
public housing for any household that includes any individual
who is a sexually violent predator.
(2) Sexually violent predator.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``sexually violent predator'' means an
individual who--
(A) is a sexually violent predator (as such term is defined
in section 170101(a)(3) of such Act); and
(B) is subject to a registration requirement under section
170101(a)(1)(B) of 170102(c) of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14071(a)(1)(B),
14072(c)), as provided under section 170101(b)(6)(B) or
170102(d)(2), respectively, of such Act.
Page 316, line 20, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 316, lines 21 and 22, strike ``and (b)'' and insert
``, (b), and (c)''.
Page 317, line 22, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
Page 318, line 13, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 321, line 9, after ``Children'' insert ``and sexually
violent predators''.
Page 321, line 11, after the comma insert ``the Federal
Bureau of Investigation,''.
Page 321, line 15, insert a comma before ``and''.
Page 321, line 18, after ``under'' insert the following:
``the national database established pursuant to section
170102 of such Act or''.
Page 321, line 19, after ``program'' insert ``, as
applicable,''.
Page 323, line 12, after ``criminal record'' insert
``(including on the basis that an individual is a sexually
violent predator, pursuant to section 641(c))''.
Page 323, line 21, strike ``641(d)'' and insert ``641(e)''.
The text of amendment No. 20 is as follows:
Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Page 332, after line 2, insert the following:
SEC. 706. REGIONAL COOPERATION UNDER CDBG ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE.
Section 108(q)(4) (42 U.S.C. 5308(q)(4)) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in subparagraph
(C);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) when applicable as determined by the Secretary, the
extent of regional cooperation demonstrated by the proposed
plan; and''.
The text of amendment No. 21 is as follows:
Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Page 335, after line 6, insert the following new section:
SEC. 708. HOUSING COUNSELING.
(a) Extension of Emergency Homeownership Counseling.--
Section 106(c)(9) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(9)) is amended by striking
``September 30, 1994'' and inserting ``September 30, 1999''.
(b) Extension of Prepurchase and Foreclosure Prevention
Counseling Demonstration.--Section 106(d)(13) of the Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701(d)(12)) is
amended by striking ``fiscal year 1994'' and inserting
``fiscal year 1999''.
(c) Notification of Delinquency on Veterans Home Loans.--
Subparagraph (C) of section 106(c)(5) of the Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1968 is amended to read as follows:
``(C) Notification.--Notification under subparagraph (A)
shall not be required with respect to any loan for which the
eligible homeowner pays the amount overdue before the
expiration of the 45-day period under subparagraph
(B)(ii).''.
The text of amendment No. 28 is as follows:
Amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. ENSIGN:
Page 333, after line 2, insert the following new section:
SEC. 708. TREATMENT OF PHA REPAYMENT AGREEMENT.
(a) Limitation on Secretary.--During the 2-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, if the
Housing Authority of the City of Las Vegas, Nevada, is
otherwise in compliance with the Repayment Lien Agreement and
Repayment Plan approved by the Secretary on February 12,
1997, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall
not take any action that has the effect of reducing the
inventory of senior citizen housing owned by such housing
authority that does not receive assistance from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(b) Alternative Repayment Options.--During the period
referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary shall assist the
housing authority referred to in such subsection to identify
alternative repayment options to the plan referred to in such
subsection and to execute an amended repayment plan that will
not adversely affect the housing referred to in such
subsection.
(c) Rule of Construction.--This section may not be
construed to alter--
(1) any lien held by the Secretary pursuant to the
agreement referred to in subsection (a); or
(2) the obligation of the housing authority referred to in
subsection (a) to close all remaining items contained in the
Inspector General audits numbered 89 SF 1004 (issued January
20, 1989), 93 SF 1801 (issued October 30, 1993), and 96 SF
1002 (issued February 23, 1996).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, for the purposes of clarification, would the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Housing repeat just by number the various amendments,
because I was having a hard time following exactly which ones they
were.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, in the printed Record it would
be amendment No. 1, amendment No. 48, amendment No. 47, amendment No.
23, amendment No. 24, amendment No. 49, amendment No. 20, amendment No.
21, amendment No. 28, and amendment No. 33.
I would mention also to the gentleman that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden] has offered an amendment listed in the Record
as amendment No. 45. We are attempting to revise that amendment. That
is presently at the desk. If I can, when I am recognized, I will ask
for an additional unanimous-consent request to include the amendment of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania in the en bloc application.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Continuing to reserve my right to
object, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is asking for unanimous consent to
do so?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. When I am recognized, or if the gentleman
would like, we can include the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden] in the en bloc request. We simply did not
have it at the time we offered this. The language had not been drafted.
But I am willing to include that en bloc to help accommodate the
minority on this.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
clarification of the gentleman from New York on those various
amendments. Those are the ones that I think his staff and my staff had
agreed to offer en bloc. I appreciate the chairman's willingness
[[Page H2190]]
to cooperate on this, the start of what could be a long day, or might
not be so long if we continue along those lines.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] if all of the other amendments other than amendment No. 45 are
as printed in the Record.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they are as printed in the
Record. When it is appropriate, I would ask for recognition for another
unanimous-consent request.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman, and I hope I am not planning to object, I just wanted to be
clear. I missed the description of what was included.
The specific thing that I want to find out whether it is included is
whether the gentleman has included the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] on the occupancy standard.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not offered en
bloc at this time. It is my understanding that the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. McCollum] is offering that under title VII. I do not
anticipate offering it en bloc.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Continuing my reservation of objection,
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, everything in this en bloc
amendment is in title I?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr.
Chairman, this en bloc amendment is a cross-title application, and some
of these amendments are outside of the title that we are in, which is
still title I, as I recall.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. As long as I am assured that it does not
include the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
McCollum].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. That is correct.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation
of objection.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
amendment No. 45, as modified, be included in the unanimous-consent
request of amendments to be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Holden:
Sec. 709. For the Tamaqua Highrise project in the Borough
of Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development may require the public housing agency to convert
the tenant-based assistance under section 8 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 to project-based rental assistance
under section 8(d)(2) of such Act, notwithstanding the
requirement for rehabilitation or the percentage limitations
under section 8(d)(2). The tenant-based assistance covered by
the preceding sentence shall be the assistance for families
who are residing in the project on the date of enactment of
this Act and who initially received their assistance in
connection with the conversion of the section 23 leased
housing contract for the project to tenant-based assistance
under section 8 of such Act. The Secretary may not take
action under this section before the expiration of the 30-day
period beginning upon the submission of a report to the
Congress regarding the proposed action under this section.
Mr. LAZIO of New York (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio] that amendment No. 45, as modified, be included in
the en bloc request?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the original request of the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] that the amendments be considered
en bloc?
There was no objection.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, these are 11 amendments that
have been offered by Members on both sides of the aisle that will
serve, I think, to strengthen the bill and eliminate issues of
controversy that we could accommodate. I am appreciative of the Members
who have offered these amendments.
If I can go through briefly what we have done here, and I mean
briefly, we have the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Smith] that changes the definition of resident programs to include
certain listed activities. I understand he worked with the gentleman
from Massachusetts on that, and that that amendment now is not
controversial.
There is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Klink], amendment No. 47 and the other gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Doyle] which requires local cooperation and agreement when
production of public housing on property not previously used as public
housing is anticipated.
There is amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado
[Ms. DeGette], and that provides that child care services for tenants
is an eligible activity for operating expenses. I think that is
certainly an appropriate amendment, and clarifies the intent of the
sponsor of the legislation.
There is amendment No. 23 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Vento], that clarifies that a family which includes a lawfully
admitted resident would be eligible for the hardship exemptions for
minimum rents in public housing as long as that person is a member of
the family.
There is amendment No. 24 offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Vento], again, another amendment that speaks to hardship
exemptions regarding choice-based or vouchers, and the other amendment
spoke to public housing.
There is amendment No. 49 offered by the gentleman from Mississippi
[Mr. Taylor], a very strong amendment that provides that section 8
project-based assistance will not be provided to projects unless the
owners consent to allow law enforcement officials into the common areas
of projects without advanced notice if they believe that a criminal
activity is occurring.
There are amendments Nos. 20 and 21 offered by the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. Amendment No. 20 increases and enhances our
protections to ensure that there is regional cooperation under CDBG,
the community development block grant, and this is an effort to try and
encourage regional planning and economic development, which I think is
a very strong amendment as well; and amendment No. 21 offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], which extends home ownership
counseling, and requires notification of availability of owner
ownership counseling to veterans, a very strong amendment, speaking to
our veterans and making sure they understand the availability of this
counseling.
There is amendment No. 28 offered by the gentleman from Nevada [Mr.
Ensign], which speaks to a problem that could conceivably require an
adverse action involving some senior projects in the State of Nevada;
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden],
which we have discussed; and the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], amendment No. 33, a particularly
strong amendment.
I want to mention that some of these amendments speak to the issue of
making sure there is safety and order in public housing. Simply because
one has limited means in order to afford a rental unit or to purchase
their own place does not mean that they should not have the absolute
right to have peaceful enjoyment of those units.
There are several of these amendments that speak to that ability, and
particularly that of the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson],
amendment No. 33, which prohibits the admission of sexually violent
predators to public housing. I am sure she will be speaking to that. It
is a very important amendment. I wish we would have thought about it
earlier, but I compliment the gentlewoman for having done it.
That is a description, generally speaking, of the amendments, 11 all
told, offered by Members on both sides of the aisle, that I think again
strengthens and enhances this bill and will allow us to move this bill
forward from the strongest possible posture.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
[[Page H2191]]
Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which has been included in today's en
bloc amendment, would ban violent sexual predators from public housing
in this country. These are people who have been convicted of the worst
crimes imaginable, and who have been identified as likely to repeat the
offense. It is simply wrong for taxpayer dollars to be used to allow
people who have stalked and attacked women and children to live where
the majority of tenants are children and single mothers.
At a public housing project in Chicago recently, according to press
reports, a previously convicted sex offender was charged with
assaulting and molesting a 9-year-old girl who lived in the same
building.
First, he allegedly abducted her as she was walking upstairs. Then he
took her into an apartment, molested her, choked her until she was
unconscious. He poured poisonous liquid down her throat and left her.
{time} 1530
Mr. Chairman, my legislation will not eliminate violence against
children. I wish it were that easy. But it will send a clear message
that Congress is not going to use taxpayers' hard-earned money to
provide subsidized public housing to people who have committed
unspeakable acts of evil against children.
H.R. 2 for the first time gives housing authorities access to State
information on registered sex offenders, and allows public housing
officials to reject an application for subsidized housing if they have
reason to believe the applicant poses a threat to other tenants. That
is a giant step forward, and I commend the committee on their action.
But in addition, my zero tolerance amendment would mandate that
public housing officials automatically reject any application from
sexually violent predators.
Mr. Chairman, study after study has shown that many people, most
people, in fact, guilty of violent sexual crimes against children
repeat their offenses and attack many, many children. According to one
report, 71 percent of all pedophiles knew their victims prior to the
crime. The typical offender molests on average, on average, hear that,
on average 117 children. That is right. Members heard it right, 117
children.
Nearly 40 percent of the inmates serving time in State prisons for
violent sex offenses said their victims were 12 years old or younger.
These statistics were supplied to me by the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children, which supports my amendment. What these
statistics say really loud and clear is that it is time for zero
tolerance.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and keep our children
safe.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Johnson-Castle-Foley
amendment, which the gentlewoman from Connecticut just spoke about,
which is contained as part of the en bloc amendment, as was suggested
by the sponsor of the legislation.
Under the zero tolerance for sexual predators amendment I am offering
with the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Foley], housing authorities and owners of public
housing would be required to reject any application submitted to them
by violent sexual predators.
Less than 2 weeks ago in my home State of Delaware, I spent the day
with Delawareans living in Federal-assisted housing. I spoke with
parents and children and got a firsthand look at life in public
housing. During my visit I was approached by a little 4-year-old boy
named Danny, who wanted me to toss a ball around with him. Danny's
family lives in good, well-maintained public housing, working very hard
to make ends meet.
I thought to myself, the last thing Danny's family needs to worry
about is whether he could be stalked by a dangerous sexual predator
living near them in public housing.
Mr. Chairman, according to HUD, there are currently over 1 million
children nationwide living in public housing. In Delaware alone, over
3,500 children reside in taxpayer-subsidized housing.
According to an analysis published by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, two-thirds of convicted rape and sexual assault offenders
said their victims were under the age of 18; nearly half said their
victims were 12 years of age or younger.
Mr. Chairman, our amendment would require public housing authorities
to automatically reject any application received from a convicted
violent sexual predator. These individuals would have had to commit the
most egregious crime against a child, as defined by the Jacob
Wetterling provisions passed by this House and signed into law in 1994,
in order to be denied public housing.
Under H.R. 2 as currently written, housing officials are given the
authority to screen out applicants and their family members who are
engaged in criminal activity. I amended the legislation in committee to
give authorities access to State sex offender registration rolls,
arming them with the most up-to-date and accurate information in order
to properly screen out sex offenders. The zero tolerance amendment goes
one step further by requiring public housing authorities to deny public
housing to those individuals, violent sex offenders, who prey upon our
children.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that parents have the right to sleep better
at night, knowing that housing authorities are screening out and
denying housing to the most violent sexual predators. If my colleagues
believe in this right also, I urge them to support the zero tolerance
amendment as part of the en bloc amendment to bar violent sexual
predators from our country's public housing.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] and the Democratic handlers of this bill for including an
amendment. It was brought to my attention when traveling the streets of
Bay St. Louis with one of our police officers, Officer Ernest Taylor,
the great frustration that he had come to witness, and that is that in
the publicly owned, publicly operated housing areas of the city, they
were able to, in a contract with those people who moved in, get their
permission to search the common grounds of those publicly owned public
housing areas at any time. Through that they had virtually eliminated
crime in that part of town.
Unfortunately, it had shifted the crime, in particular, drug sales,
to those things that were privately owned but publicly leased housing
areas because similar contracts were not available under section 8
housing.
This amendment would allow for the consensual agreement between a
landlord and a tenant, and this would require a consensual agreement
between a landlord and a tenant that those privately owned but publicly
leased properties, the common areas of them such as parking lots,
courtyards, grounds, streets that run through a development, picnic
facilities, the resident centers, basketball grounds, would be
available so that with probable cause the police could search those
people for any violation of the law and, in particular, drug sales.
The amendment that I am offering and the manager has been nice enough
to accept would make owner consent a condition of participation in the
section 8 program for property owners who are either entering a new
contract or renewing an expiring contract. The Department of Housing
and Urban Development estimates that 1.8 million section 8 contracts
assisting a total of 4.4 million low-income persons are set to expire
this year.
Currently law enforcement officials are allowed access to common
areas of public housing units. However, the police must be invited on
to section 8 housing projects by either the property owner or tenants
in order to respond to a complaint.
This problem was pointed out to me by Officer Taylor of the Bay St.
Louis Police Department. I recently accompanied him on his beat as a
civilian participating in a ride-along program, and Officer Taylor is
one example, also, of how the Cops Program works.
Officer Taylor explained to me that he and his colleagues have been
able to eradicate nearly all the drugs and drug-related crimes in the
city's publicly owned housing units through the success of the Cops
Programs and HUD's Drug Elimination Grant Program.
[[Page H2192]]
Unfortunately, because of the increased police presence in the public
housing common areas, many of the city's criminals have moved their
drug trade and related criminal activities to the city's section 8
housing.
This is just not right. They are both publicly paid for. They are
both a privilege for those people who live there. And it just makes
common sense that people should be willing to give up a little bit in
order to get subsidized housing and in order to eradicate crime from
that part of town.
This amendment would provide local law enforcement with the
flexibility they need to protect residents of section 8 housing
programs from those who sell drugs and perpetrate violent crimes, the
sort of crimes that the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] was
talking about.
In addition, the amendment is mindful of property owners' rights
because the amendment does not apply to existing contracts, only those
that are either new or those that are being renewed after expiring.
It is also mindful of the rights of citizens who live in public
assisted housing, in that the police must have probable cause of a
criminal activity taking place before they are allowed to venture into
section 8 properties.
I want to thank Officer Taylor for bringing this problem to my
attention. I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] and
the other managers of this bill for being willing to address it.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], for the fine job he has done, and
appreciate the fact that he has worked with me and my staff to work out
a couple of important amendments.
I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for
also concurring with the chairman. I appreciate the job that he has
done.
I would like to talk briefly about the two amendments. The first one
deals with economic development initiative grants. It has a number of
criteria but one of those criteria is not, let me say, is not getting
the administration to look at regional cooperation.
Too many of our cities have become islands, set right in the middle
with the outside unattached, and my simple little amendment says, let
us look at the regional application when we decide if we are going to
give these grants, and let us start involving all in that general
metropolitan area that could help to turn things around.
The second one, though, I think is very important for veterans, it is
very important for family homes, and it is very important to stave off
foreclosures. Years ago, I had occasion to be sheriff in Mahoning
County, OH, and I had noticed a couple unemployed steelworkers that
missed one payment and the banks were moving on their homes.
So I resisted and I went and signed those transfer deeds, and they
could not in fact foreclose on the homes without signing those transfer
deeds. Little did I know they would end up putting me in jail. But they
put me in jail, and it brought a spotlight to the whole problem, and we
have been able to mitigate that.
When I came to Congress, we passed a little, simple law. That law
says they have to give a 45-day notice of delinquency, and there shall
be a 1-800 number given to that borrower that is behind and delinquent
so that perhaps they could work out to save the family home. That has
worked. The Traficant amendment deals with the issue that right now
veterans, VA loans, the veteran does not get a notice until 105 days.
Here are the simple statistics. FHA-backed loans have much higher
delinquency, but VA-backed loans have almost as much foreclosure. The
reason is that 105-day notice is not timely. By that time it has gone
so far delinquent, they cannot work it out. By applying that 45-day
notice, it will provide for intervention and the saving of the family
home by stopping foreclosures. In addition to that, it will also, in
fact, save our Government an awful lot of money.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
I just want to speak in favor of this amendment. The gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Traficant] put himself at great personal risk before he came
to the Congress by standing up for the people in his district that were
unfairly losing their homes.
I have seen in my own congressional district the same kind of actions
taken by predatory practices of banks that send people, send
individuals up to the statehouse. They find these deeds where elderly
people have paid off all of their mortgages. They go in. They bang on
the elderly individual's door, tell them that they need a new roof or
new siding and the like, and the next thing we know they are paying
these unbelievable rates of interest on the loan payments. And as a
result, within 2 or 3 months, they end up losing their homes.
We actually had legislation that was passed in the Congress that
would have prevented those kinds of actions in the last Congress.
Unfortunately, on a very narrow vote on the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services, this provision was knocked out. It is something
that I note if the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] served on the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, he would have fought with
us.
But it was unfortunate that a Member who offered the amendment to
knock out that provision happened to come from his own district, the
company that was sponsoring the legislation, which was ultimately too
bad. And those are the kinds of, if somebody wants to do investigative
reporting, that is the kind of investigative reporting that would be
very helpful around here.
In any event, it seems to me that this is an important provision. I
want to thank my good friend from Ohio for the fine work he does here
in general and the work he has done on this bill.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member. I
want to thank the Congress, thank the chairman and ranking member for
accommodating this language. I think it will help to save family homes.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on the en bloc amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is the amendments offered by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Lazio].
The amendments were agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Waters
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 26 offered by Ms. Waters:
Page 57, strike lines 14 through 22 and insert the
following:
(b) Exclusion From Administrative Procedure of Grievances
Concerning Evictions From Public Housing Involving Health,
Safety, or Peaceful Enjoyment.--A public housing agency may
exclude from its procedure established under subsection (a)
any grievance, in any jurisdiction which requires that prior
to eviction, a tenant be given a hearing in court, which the
Secretary determines provides the basic elements of due
process (which the Secretary shall establish by rule under
section 553 of title 5, United States Code), concerning an
eviction from or termination of tenancy in public housing
that involves any activity that threatens the health, safety,
or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of other
tenants or employees of the public housing agency or any
drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along with my
distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick]
to retain current law relating to the administrative grievance
procedure used in public housing agencies throughout the country.
Specifically, we propose that evictions, excepting those for criminal
or drug-related activities, remain under the purview of the grievance
procedure. The grievance procedure, in place since 1971 and amended in
1990 and 1994, has proven to be an efficient, low-cost procedure for
resolving disputes.
H.R. 2 repeals current law by mandating that public housing agencies
exclude all evictions from the grievance
[[Page H2193]]
procedure, not merely drug or criminal related activity.
{time} 1545
This mandate is bad public policy, inefficient and unfair and causes
undue Federal interference.
Any concerns that the grievance procedure might not be appropriate in
certain circumstances were addressed in 1990, when the law was changed
to allow housing authorities to exclude evictions involving drug-
related and criminal activity from the grievance procedure.
The negative effects of soaring litigation costs and an increasingly
adversarial justice system are other reasons to encourage the use of
the grievance process. To force the tenant who faces an eviction into a
civil proceeding is to deny most tenants any opportunity for a just and
mutually beneficial resolution to the problem. Study after study shows
that tenants not represented by attorneys are at a tremendous
disadvantage in civil proceedings.
Finally, the fact that this exclusion is mandated by the Federal
Government on local public housing authorities flies in the face of
local control that has informed much of this debate. There is plenty
that needs changing in public housing. The grievance procedure is not
one of them.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to cosponsor this amendment
with our esteemed colleague from California, Ms. Waters, who has
provided leadership in this Congress for several years.
We are in a very intense debate on H.R. 2. We spent a couple days
last week really talking about the issues, understanding that America
has a very large poor, homeless population, many of whom have no homes
and are homeless, others who will be homeless if H.R. 2 passes in its
current form.
As the gentlewoman from California just stated, the grievance
procedure, which is now a part of housing law, allows those with minor
infractions, and I might highlight minor infractions, an avenue where
they can discuss their concerns. As H.R. 2 allows HUD now to move much
of the responsibility to local housing authorities, I believe it is
imperative that we keep those grievance procedures intact.
The law also says that major infractions, that would include a breach
of law or harm to health, those automatically would be evicted. But
without a grievance procedure, public housing residents would have to
go directly to court.
Our courts are already overburdened. The public defender's office has
been cut drastically. The lawyers are overworked. And the people will
be evicted. There is no avenue for those in public housing if H.R. 2
passes in its current form. So I support the Waters-Kilpatrick
amendment. I would hope the rest here in the House support it.
We had a lot of debate last week about the work requirement, the 8
hours of volunteer work over the 25 hours that are already required for
many people who live in public housing. Without this grievance
procedure, I predict, and I hope it will not become law, that we will
have more people who now have an avenue for minor infractions, such as
noise, misplaced garbage, unruly children, to go to a tenants' council,
a jury of their peers and decide what type of penalty short of eviction
should be administered.
So I hope my colleagues support H.R. 2, the amendment that both the
gentlewoman from California and myself are offering.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Waters] has expired.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
It is important that as we continue our debate on H.R. 2 that we
think of the least in America. We all want changes in the public
housing statutes, but what we do not want is to move people from their
homes, move their children in the street and increase the homeless
population.
The gentlewoman from California and I have thought this out
thoroughly. It is a part of current law, the grievance procedure. As
HUD moves to give more authority to local housing authorities, if we
ask around the country, they want the procedure, they want to be able
to deal with minor infractions so that their people can remain in
public housing, become good citizens, and serve the public well.
So again, Mr. Chairman, we ask that our colleagues support the
Waters-Kilpatrick amendment. Keep the grievance procedure and move to
accept our amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague from California, Maxine Waters, and I
offered this amendment during committee consideration of H.R. 2. The
amendment is very simple. The Waters/Kilpatrick amendment to H.R. 2
will reinstate current law. Residents of public housing agencies who
have minor infractions would not be subject to a court hearing or
immediate eviction. Residents who are guilty of activities that involve
criminal activity, a threat to public health or safety, or the right to
peaceful enjoyment would still be subject to eviction and a court
procedure under the Waters/Kilpatrick amendment.
Currently, housing authorities administer grievance hearings in order
to expeditiously and fairly resolve landlord/tenant disputes except
those that involve evictions resulting from criminal activity or
activity that threatens other tenant's health, safety, or right to
peaceful enjoyment. The grievance process is presided over by an
independent arbitrator and is similar to the popular alternative
dispute resolution processes that precede or replace judicial action in
many jurisdictions today. H.R. 2 amends current law by terminating a
tenant's right to a grievance hearing if the hearing might result in an
eviction and the tenant would have the right to pursue the issue in a
court of law.
For example:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Waters/
Infraction Under H.R. 2 Kilpatrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't put the trash in the bin. Go to court/ Grievance hearing.
eviction.
Kept a cow in your apartment.... Go to court/ Go to court/
eviction. eviction.
Children playing in the grass... Go to court/ Grievance hearing.
eviction.
Selling drugs................... Go to court/ Go to court/
eviction. eviction.
Painted the walls the wrong Go to court/ Grievance hearing.
color. eviction.
Disturbing the peace............ Go to court/ Go to court/
eviction. eviction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2 does away with grievance processes for non-criminal eviction
in almost every State. Public housing tenants would be forced into
court to resolve minor lease infractions. Grievance procedures protect
tenants from homelessness. Finally, the grievance process is informal,
non-intimidating, and saves taxpayers money.
In the interest of fairness, equality, and efficiency, I urge the
adoption of my amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise regretfully in opposition to the gentlewomen's
amendment. This amendment would continue to create a dual system of
resolving complaints, one for those people who may be equally poor,
equally struggling but be in market rate units whose recourse is
through the courts, and the current system that allows the most
troublesome tenants to have two bites of the apple, both through the
grievance procedure and then after that to elongate the whole process
and move through the courts.
In this sense, the tenants that are potentially problem tenants are
not easily removed. The housing authorities cannot quickly bring them
before the court because they must go through this additional
administrative grievance process that can be easily gamed.
We are saying both people in public housing and people outside of
public housing must live by the same set of rules; that we have a
common way of redressing grievances and violations of the law and
violation of leases, and that is through the State court system.
The Waters amendment, which I think is well-intentioned, would allow
a housing authority to exclude at its discretion only those individuals
who were involved in activity that threatens the health, safety or
right to peaceful enjoyment. That leaves a whole list or litany of
other items that a tenant may be in violation of their lease for and
for which they can force the housing authority to go first through this
administrative grievance procedure and then, after that, they have the
second bite of the apple, which is to go into the court system.
That is not available to anybody else throughout the country. If a
tenant is a problem tenant elsewhere in the country outside of public
housing, they must use the court system, which has been established to
try and resolve these type of tenancy problems. That is the correct way
of resolving these problems.
[[Page H2194]]
By creating a dual system that allows people in public housing to
have two bites of the apple, to be able to go to first the grievance
procedure and then through the court system, it perpetuates the
potential trouble that is caused within the unit and potentially
outside of the unit; it imposes additional burdens on the housing
authority and on the management of the housing authority when they are
desperately trying to struggle to ensure that there is peaceful
enjoyment throughout the units and that the units are maintained in an
appropriate way so that they can be easily let to somebody else when
the need arises.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman did state correctly that not
included in the grievance procedure at this time are those criminal
acts and drug offenses. So we make sure that the most egregious
offenses are not in the grievance procedure.
Would the gentleman agree that an offense such as not putting the
trash in the bin or children playing on the grass should have to go to
court rather than appearing before a grievance procedure that could be
resolved?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would
suggest that, in fact, the gentlewoman's amendment, as I read it, as I
said before, I believe does affect those activities that threaten the
health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises.
There are incidents, however, that may fall slightly below that
threshold or may be questions of controversy as to whether they do or
do not, and it shifts the burden to management to have to go through
not one but two different processes. The point is that anybody else in
life, when they are violating a part of the lease, are subject to
having their differences resolved through the landlord-tenant courts.
That is still available for people who are in public housing.
We encourage people in public housing, as we do with the management,
to resolve their differences short of going to court. That is
absolutely still possible.
We still want people in cases where there is minor differences to
resolve them short of the judicial process. But if they cannot be
resolved informally, then what we ought not be allowing is to have
people who are problem people to have two bites of the apple and shift
that burden entirely to the housing authorities.
And the people that are really burdened are not the managers or
administrators of the housing authorities, but in fact the other
residents that come perhaps after in that unit, that need that unit. It
may not be available to them in the condition they may want or in other
situations. It may in fact affect the whole unit.
The gentlewoman mentioned situations about trash and garbage. That
may affect all the other tenants, if that has not been disposed of in
an appropriate way.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am not certain I am
understanding the gentleman.
Is the gentleman saying if there are these minor infractions, that
there will still remain in place a grievance procedure under H.R. 2?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous
consent, Mr. Lazio of New York was allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentleman
that just as the case is now, we would encourage informal ways of
resolving short of an administrative process with different procedures
and prescriptions and short of the courts. We want people to work
together to work out the most minor infractions. If they cannot be
resolved, however, then certainly they have the courts to seek redress.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, I appreciate the gentleman suggesting that that is a
process he would like to pursue. My understanding is that is exactly
what the grievance procedure is.
In other words, the grievance procedure is set up to allow people
that have a grievance, not a serious legal problem, but a grievance, to
take that short of a legal case. So I think that procedure is set up to
deal with exactly the kinds of cases that the gentleman described.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point
again is that those issues can be resolved informally short of a formal
process with rules and procedures.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
continue to yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, what kind of procedure
would this be informally resolved with?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has
again expired.
(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous
consent, Mr. Lazio of New York was allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentleman
we do not need a procedure in order to resolve some of these smaller
problems.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
yield just on that point, how would the gentleman suggest that these
are going to get resolved? The grievance procedure, I believe, is set
up specifically to allow for a resolution of those disputes that are
short of going to court.
As I understand it, we have not heard a lot of complaints about the
grievance procedure, so my understanding is this is exactly the kind of
procedure that I would think all of us in this Chamber would tend to
support. Because what we want to do is say let us not overcrowd the
court system if you do not like the color of the paint or if you have
fish or dogs or something like that. We need some kind of procedure to
solve this stuff.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we would
suggest that people resolve these issues the way they do in nonpublic
housing, informally, working together, consensually, hopefully; if not,
using whatever tools they have. There are people who have been involved
in rent strikes, things like that, in order to resolve their problems.
And if not, go to the courts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my
two friends, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters], and the
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick].
I think their amendment is exactly on the money for exactly the
reasons we just heard described. No one suggests that if there is a
case that actually involves criminal activities that this should be
resolved by a grievance procedure, but it does seem to me to be
perfectly reasonable to suggest that we do not necessarily have to have
every single dispute end up in court.
The notion, as anybody that has been in a dispute with a landlord,
and having spent a few years in college and going through a few testy
moments with landlords along the way, the truth is everybody has had
problems and disputes with landlords. I think it is important that we
set up an alternative procedure.
This is exactly where the courts nationally are going in terms of
trying to suggest that we find alternatives to having every case end up
in the court system.
I would also like to point out to the gentleman, my friend from New
York, that there is, in fact, I think, an intimidation factor that
takes place in this procedure. In far too many States, housing courts
do not necessarily provide an attorney to a member of public housing.
So what happens is, in all cases the housing authority is going to be
represented by counsel.
{time} 1600
The notion that if you paint the inside of your apartment the wrong
color, if you happen to have dogs, this bill would prevent you from
being able to have a dog, if you happen to have fish or other kinds of
minor disputes. It
[[Page H2195]]
does not seem to me that every one of these cases automatically ought
to end up in a court situation. There is going to be a grave concern on
behalf of the tenants if they have to end up going down to court in
order to get a minor situation resolved that it is an unfair and
unequal system.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Michigan.
Ms. KILPATRICK. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding. That is the crux of the amendment, exactly as the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Lazio] suggests. That when there is a minor dispute,
when there is a minor disturbance, when there is some small infraction,
that there is an avenue for the tenants to resolve it. If the current
law which allows that is taken out, then there is no way to resolve it
but to go to court, but to find an attorney.
That is the very reason why we want to keep the grievance procedures,
for those minor situations, so the parties can talk them out. As we
move from HUD to the housing authorities the administration's ability
and the ability to watch over, to keep the property safe and clean,
that has to be there. It has to be there.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If I could reclaim my time very
briefly, if the chairman of the committee would rise for a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from New York, the chairman
of the committee, might consider having the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Waters] and the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick] work
with his staff to see whether or not there is a way to resolve this
short of this amendment. Maybe we might be able to withdraw this
amendment for the purposes of entertaining an opportunity and maybe go
into one of the subsequent amendments and then come back to this debate
if we cannot find a way of resolving it.
I would think that the chairman, if in fact the perception that we
have on this side is true, that the grievance procedure is set up to
avoid going to court, that it is in fact the kind of cooperative
procedure that at least our side is being informed that it is, then it
seems to me that there may be some way to adjust that that might meet
the chairman's standards that would allow us to work around this
particular issue. Would the chairman be willing to entertain such a
proposal?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If the gentleman will yield, certainly
whenever the gentleman asks for me to try and enter into a discussion
to try and see if we cannot find common ground, I would be happy to
accommodate that. Let me also add that in order that we deal in
reality, that I think from this side we would probably not be
interested in anything that did not deal with the issue of bureaucracy,
of having the sort of bureaucratic step here. So if there is some way
of resolving or addressing the concerns, we can have a discussion about
that and perhaps we can resolve it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I could not quite figure
out whether the gentleman was saying there is no chance or there is a
chance that we could work something out.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. There is always a chance when we talk.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. In that case, why do they not try to
get together. If the Chair could inform us as to what the proper
procedure is to protect this amendment while there is an attempt made
to work it out and then we could come back to it if there is no
success.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from California ask unanimous
consent to withdraw the amendment at this time?
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, given the commitment of the chairman to
work this out and bring it back to the floor, I ask unanimous consent
to withdraw it for the time being, to be taken up before we finish the
debate on the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object,
let me just add that if the application, and I would address this to
the chairman if that is appropriate, when it might be appropriate to
offer unanimous consent to allow the gentlewoman to resubmit or reoffer
her amendment within the scope of this title before this title ends, I
would be happy to, if she is withdrawing it with the right to reoffer
it if we cannot resolve this within the title.
Ms. WATERS. I am withdrawing it with the right to reoffer it, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise the gentlewoman from California
and the gentleman from New York that if we are past title I at the time
it is reoffered, it will take unanimous consent to reoffer the
amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, would it be possible then
to allow her to reoffer this after title I?
The CHAIRMAN. If there is a unanimous-consent request and no
objection is heard, it would be possible.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. We can make that unanimous-consent
request at this particular time, correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would entertain at this time any unanimous-
consent request to return to title I for the purpose of this amendment
only, or a modification thereof, at a future time.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Subsequent to title I, is that correct,
Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Is there objection?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if I could continue to reserve
my right to object, I wonder if I could just prevail on the gentleman
right now to withdraw his unanimous-consent request until we get near
the end of the title. If it cannot be resolved, then we can talk about
it. But we have some time right now to talk about it and we can do it
within the title.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, to explain to the
gentlewoman from California, I think the chairman has suggested that he
would like us to act in good faith until we get near the end of title
I. If we have not resolved it at the end of title I, I understand that
he would not object to allowing the negotiation to continue beyond it.
I would think, given the chairman's representation, we would be happy
to accept those conditions.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
Amendment Offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which
has not been preprinted.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina: Page 26,
line 8, after the period insert the following: ``The
public housing agency shall ensure that each individual
who provides work pursuant to the requirements under this
paragraph receives compensation for such work at a rate
that is not less than the minimum wage rate in effect
under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.''.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I had
preprinted in the Record an amendment which would have sought to strike
the entire mandatory voluntarism requirement that this bill has
contained in it. We had extensive debate about the mandatory
voluntarism requirement last week, and it seemed to me that what people
were saying was we want these people to work.
I want to make it clear that I also want everybody in America who is
able-bodied and capable of working to work. I have never opposed in the
context of welfare reform a work requirement. During the debate on
welfare reform last year, I expressed serious reservations about
forcing people to work without also making sure that jobs were
available to them that they could work at. But I have never opposed
having people work.
Points of Order
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, could I just make a point of
order, please?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Just an inquiry as to whether the amendment
the gentleman from North Carolina is speaking to is amendment No. 27 as
printed in the Record, or is it some other amendment?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious the
gentleman was not paying attention to
[[Page H2196]]
what I was saying because I started my comments by saying this was not
the amendment that was printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk reported an unprinted amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an additional point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. We did not have a printed copy. We now do. I
withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman. I apologize to the
chairman, I thought he had a copy of the amendment. I had given it to
the Clerk, and I thought she had given it to the other side. I was not
trying to pull a fast one.
Mr. Chairman, this is not, I repeat, this is not the amendment that
was printed in the Record. The amendment that was printed in the Record
would have tried to amend the bill by striking out in its entirety the
mandatory volunteer requirement. This amendment does not seek to strike
out the mandatory volunteer requirement. What this amendment does is
acknowledge the value of work but understand that work has associated
with it the assumption that people will be paid, compensated for that
work.
I do not now, have not ever opposed people working. In the context of
welfare reform last year, my objections to the work requirement had to
do with whether there were sufficient jobs available that people had
the skills to work at. I did not oppose the work requirement, have not
ever, will not ever. What I do oppose is requiring people to work
without compensation. This amendment simply says that the public
housing authorities will ensure that any individual who is required to
work under section 105 of this bill, the so-called mandatory
voluntarism requirement, would be assured of being compensated for that
work, at a minimum, at the minimum wage that prevails in this country.
If we want people to be responsible, I do, also, all of us should,
this should meet all of the criteria, all of the standards, all of the
expectations that my friends on the other side have said this provision
in the bill is intended to meet. In addition, it would provide some
income for people that they could use, then, even if they wanted to
require them to turn around and use the income that they got under this
amendment to pay rent. I would not object to that.
But let me tell my friends, work for pay is honorable. Forcing people
to work without paying them is an abomination, it is against the law,
it is against the public policy of this country, and everybody in
America understands that it is unfair and it is a way of simply
singling out the poor. If we want to do something good for poor people,
if we want to do something good for public housing residents, if we
want to raise their esteem, pay them for the work that we are requiring
them to do.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this issue has been fully vented by this House, I would
suggest, it has been discussed in committee, in general the concept of
community service, and now the gentleman from North Carolina offers
this amendment which requires compensation.
Let me, if I can, just ask if the gentleman from North Carolina would
engage me, if I could just ask some questions about this so I will
understand.
The amendment, as I understand it, requires compensation. I wonder if
the gentleman can tell me who would pay and what would be the mechanism
for enforcement.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is aware that
under the provisions of section 105 as currently written, under section
2 on page 26 which deals with employment status and liability, the last
section of that contemplates that some of the volunteer work might be
done directly for the public housing authority, because it says, unless
the work is done for the public housing authority, there is no
liability on the part.
So if there is direct work for the public housing authority, the
public housing authority would have to pay for it. If they got the work
from a nursing home or someplace external, then they would have to
ensure that the external source paid. This does not address, and we are
not imposing, additional monetary burdens on public housing
authorities.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If I could reclaim my time only because we are
so limited, I only have less than 5 minutes now, one of my major
problems with this, of course, is that it suggests that somehow we
ignore the fact that people who are in public housing are receiving a
benefit. It suggests that we are asking people to give community
service. This is not voluntarism, it is not called voluntarism in the
bill. It is community service. We are asking tenants to provide
community service in return for a benefit. They are getting
compensated.
The benefit of public housing, the apartment that they receive and in
many cases the utilities that are paid are part of the compensation
that people are receiving. In return we are asking the minimal amount
of 2 hours a week, 15 minutes a day, 8 hours a month in return for the
benefit of receiving an apartment, public housing and in many cases, as
I say, the utilities as well.
{time} 1615
Interesting, in my home, if I can because my time is so limited, I
would say to the gentleman, in my home this week on Saturday I received
a letter from an elderly lady who wrote to me. She had been watching
the debate on television, and she had said that her Social Security
check just about equaled the rent that she was paying in her market
rate unit. She was older, she had lost her husband, she was a widow,
and she said in her letter: Congressman, I would be pleased, ecstatic,
to give at least 2 hours of my time a week. I am elderly. I know there
are things I could do. She is exempted under the law, by the way. She
would not have to. But she said she would be happy and pleased to give
more than 2 hours a week. She thought that was a very fair deal.
And what we are saying, that for people who are receiving the
compensation and receiving this apartment, in some cases a free
apartment, in some cases free utilities, it is a very reasonable thing
to ask people in return to give 15 minutes a day, 2 hours a week, 8
hours a month in return for that compensation.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure
that the gentleman heard my explanation. If we are trying to build
self-esteem, give the people the money. Even if we turn around and say
we are going to take the money back from them as rent, which gets them
to exactly the same place that the gentleman has just articulated he
wants to be, he wants them to pay for their housing. Give them the
money. Pay them and then charge them rent if that is what he wants to
do, but do not take away people's self-esteem.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is
nothing in this bill that would deny people from going out and getting
a job where they receive minimum wage or anything greater than that. As
a matter of fact, all the incentives in this bill are to encourage
work.
I also want to say to the gentleman and to this body that in fact
community service is broader than just employment. It is something that
can be as simple as planting flowers or painting or reading to children
in the complex. It does not have to rise to the point of what we
consider employment.
I would suggest to the gentleman that in the Charlotte housing
authority they have complexes, as I know the gentleman is aware, called
Earle Village. In that program there is a self-sufficiency program that
residents are required to participate in.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Lazio of New York was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. LAZIO of New York. In that program people are required to
volunteer
[[Page H2197]]
at least 10 hours per month to assistant programs ranging from early
childhood education to parenting to after-school tutoring to elementary
and secondary school students to mentoring and support services for
residents enrolled in job training programs and postsecondary
educational programs.
This type of service, as the description goes, are included, but not
limited to day and night care, job training program, recreation
facilities, drug counseling, literacy and tutoring programs, and
educational programs.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I just want the gentleman
to know I am well aware of the self-sufficiency program at Earl
Village. I know it personally. Let me assure the gentleman that there
is not a mandatory requirement for work without being paid. Let me
assure the gentleman from New York of that. He is simply wrong.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. If I could just reclaim my time, the example
that I have that has been given to me, supplied to me by, I believe
this is from HUD itself, says as a condition of living in Earl Village
residents enrolled in the self-sufficiency program will be required,
will be required to volunteer at least 10 hours per month to assistant
programs ranging from as I described earlier. This is not discretionary
for the resident.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Read that again because the gentleman
from New York will see that that is something that has been proposed in
the future. This is from a proposal, it is not from an implemented
program, and the gentleman, he is just wrong. There is nothing in the
self-sufficiency program at Earl Village in Charlotte, NC, that
requires people to work without pay.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, according to the
information that we have from HUD that program is in effect, is the
result of the HOPE self-sufficiency program that is in place, and I
will read it again. Residents enrolled in the self-sufficiency program
will be required----
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Will be required.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Will be required to volunteer at least 10
hours per month to assistant programs ranging from early childhood
education, parenting, and the various programs that we have.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first let me address the substance of the amendment.
The amendment objects to the notion of work without compensation, and
if that was what was at issue here, I think the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt] would have a valid point. But very carefully this
is a proposal--and I would stress again to this body, that was included
in the administration's request to the Congress--which from the
congressional side was tightened up so that enforcement is enforceable
rather than representative of a rhetorical approach.
In any regard, the precept at issue is the notion of work for
benefit. If you think about economics in general, sometimes one works
for pay; sometimes our society has a barter element; that is the same
techniques people used before the use of coin--barter--are increasingly
used today.
And so this is, in effect, a barter arrangement. It is work for
benefit, and indeed, it is an untaxed benefit.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I will in just a minute to the distinguished
gentleman.
There is another point that I think it is very fair to raise. The
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] argues that this community
service requirement is injurious to self-esteem. I would frankly assert
that this body believes, or at least this side of the body believes,
that work enhances self-esteem and that the community service
provision, which is a work component, involves two precepts that are
very American at their roots. Work is not a four-letter word to be
considered pejoratively. Community service is something that has
hallmarked this country.
So the notion here is to instill a work community service provision
in return for a benefit, and if one does not want the benefit,
obviously one has the option of not participating in the program.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, first let me yield to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois, and I would say to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Jackson] that I think he has distinguished himself with his first
amendment offerings to this body and he has made very cogent arguments
that are not without merit. This side does not find them compelling;
but a large number of Members do, which says that the gentleman has
argued well and capably, and so I will first yield to the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
very kind and gentle remarks. I guess I want to ask the gentleman to
yield to a question, and that is:
Is the gentleman aware of any Federal benefit that the Federal
Government or this legislative body has ever provided where work was in
exchange for that Federal benefit from food stamps to Social Security
to Medicare to mortgage deductions to mining rights to any form of
corporate welfare? Have we ever required of any Federal benefit a work
provision or mandatory volunteerism provision?
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of analogous programs,
none precisely like that, but the AmeriCorps program was designed in
that direction, Federal work study programs are designed----
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. Let me continue because the gentleman asked a very precise
question. We have National Health Service Corps, medical grants that
involve a requirement that people work in given circumstances in order
to take advantage of Federal assistance. Obviously, military academies
have some implications for work obligations.
I would also say there are State examples. I know the State of South
Carolina in some public school systems has had a community service
requirement for high school graduation that has been upheld by the
courts as appropriate. But I think that the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Jackson] is also correct in his implication that there are aspects
of this that are somewhat unique as well, and I will acknowledge that.
But I would also say that it is the view of this side that this fits
the heritage of this country, it fits the pioneer spirit of the 19th
century, it fits our great American Presidents of this century, and at
the risk of great presumption with the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity here, I would say
that on our side of the aisle there is an assumption that the principle
at issue is: ``Ask not what the Federal Government can do for you, but
ask what you can do for your community.'' This is leadership of, by,
and for the poor, and that is not inappropriate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the
chairman of our Committee on Banking and Financial Services and for
whom I have the utmost respect that every single one of the programs
that he described has compensation associated with it, every single one
of them, National Service, AmeriCorps, the whole range of things that
the gentleman has described. That is the first point I would make.
The second point I would make is that there is not a President in
this country for mandating bartering. If people choose to barter, if
people choose to barter, that is a choice that they make, and let me
say this last thing that I want to say in response, with the utmost
respect and gentleness because I do not want it to be misunderstood,
and I have the utmost respect for the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has
again expired.
[[Page H2198]]
(On request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, many of the arguments that
I have heard, the bartering argument, the whole range of arguments, are
very, very similar to the arguments that were used to justify a system
that existed in our country years ago that many of us would like to put
behind us and never ever think about again, and it may well be that it
is because of that that there is such a difference in perception on
this issue. And I want to say that with the utmost of respect for the
gentleman, and I have been very careful about how I said it. I tried to
be at least.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has
again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the sensitivity and
the candor of the gentleman from North Carolina, but I want it stressed
again that this is an issue of work for benefit, it is an issue that
has been endorsed by the administration, although not precisely with
the tied-down ways that the committee has brought it before this body.
It is not in any way intended to imply the truly tortuous circumstance
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] sets forth. I think we
have to listen carefully and respectfully, but I do not find the
argument compelling.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], for his gentleness in our approach to
addressing a very substantive section of this bill, and let me say, Mr.
Chairman, without equivocation that Members on the Democratic side of
the aisle believe in volunteerism. We believe in volunteerism if that
definition, if Webster's definition of emanating from self-will, from
self-determination, from one's own choice or one's own consent is the
definition that we are all functioning from. We do not believe in a
Government mandate called community work in section 105 of H.R. 2. If
volunteerism means that we are urging and we are persuading people to
volunteer, we support the thrust of General Powell's summit on
volunteerism.
{time} 1630
Community service work really is voluntary because it fosters pride
and it fosters responsibility. Scout masters and den mothers who
genuinely volunteer to lead Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts across our
country should be lauded for their efforts, because that is genuine
volunteerism.
Many PHA, Public Housing Authorities, already volunteer. They have
crime watch, resident councils, cleanup efforts. This past Saturday in
Chicago, in the public housing authorities, it was called ``clean and
green day.'' One year ago on Saturday they removed 319 tons of garbage
from public housing.
The real issue that we are discussing here today is whether or not
the Government should be mandating volunteerism. What is the Government
doing anyway mandating a law about volunteerism? It is a contradiction
in terms. Forced volunteerism is an oxymoron. I am kind of taken aback
today because even Oliver North agrees with my position that the
Government should not mandate volunteerism.
There is a difference, Mr. Chairman. We have a voluntary army, an all
volunteer army, but when one volunteers for the army in the United
States one is compensated. If one stays in the army long enough, one
receives a pension, one receives points on one's home purchase and
mortgage deductions. One receives Veterans' Administration benefits for
volunteering into the army.
The chairman spoke of medical school scholarships. Yes, we give
scholarships to medical students who will come and work in low-income
communities, but they are paid for that service. AmeriCorps, they
receive a stipend for their efforts. The Peace Corps, a stipend for
their efforts.
I believe poor people should work. I know the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], we
believe that poor people should work, so why do we not create jobs? Why
do we not put poor people to work? Why are we passing a law mandating
that they give of their time to volunteer, or if they do not perform
this requirement, face eviction from public housing.
We are talking about people who pay rent, and that is a common
misconception out in the public, that people who live in public housing
are getting something free from the middle class; they are receiving
something free from those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to
pay. That is not true. They pay rent. We are the landlord of people who
pay rent in public housing, and the reality is we are also raising
their rents.
What we should be trying to do, at least in this body, is fix some of
these buildings, fix some of these public housing authorities so that
the people we presently provide occupancy to, they can live in, first,
and volunteer to help better their communities.
If work is the issue, why are we not mandating full employment in
this bill? The chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Lazio] he says, listen, what is wrong with 8 hours? Eight
hours times 60, 480 minutes, divide that by 30 days. What is 15
minutes? We are talking 15 minutes.
No one volunteers in 15-minute segments. Just no one. Fifteen
minutes. It takes 15 minutes to get from a public housing authority to
the volunteer location where one is going to volunteer. Once they get
there, then what? Most people will volunteer the entire 8-hour segment,
Mr. Chairman, the entire 8-hour segment. Why 8 hours? Why one full
shift of labor? Why not just pay them for their efforts? Why not put
them to work?
I support the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt]. I think it is an honorable amendment. It says that we should pay
them at least the minimum wage for volunteering. Never since 1868, not
since the passage of the 13th amendment, can we even make an argument
that we as a Government have ever mandated one American volunteer to
work without compensation. It has never happened. This is the first
time since 1868 we have ever mandated that an American volunteer
without providing them compensation. This is wrong, Mr. Chairman, and
this is what we are fundamentally fighting against.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question to the distinguished
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], if he
would engage in a colloquy.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Jackson was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Leach], the chairman of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services, is the gentleman aware of any Federal volunteer
program that mandates that one American volunteer without compensation
of any Federal benefit that we have ever passed in this body?
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, first let me
respond to the gentleman's vocabulary. This is a work-for-benefit
program. Democrats describe it as mandatory volunteerism; our side
describes it as work-for-benefit, and that is where the rub comes with
regard to the circumstance.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is there
any work-for-benefit associated with the mortgage deduction that we
provide for people who receive a middle class benefit, the tax break
that we provide for them?
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes a fair point.
There is none.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware of any
volunteer effort that the government mandates of any American that they
volunteer without compensation on the Federal books?
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I am not, but again, I would stress, this is
work-for-benefit.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]
has expired.
[[Page H2199]]
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Jackson was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to allow the
chairman the opportunity to respond to the question.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I did respond to the last one.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I did not hear the
response.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I said we define this as a work-for-benefit
program.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, for any
Federal benefit, is the chairman aware of any work-for-benefit
requirement on the Federal books at all?
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, there
are many analogous programs, but none precisely like this. There are
also certain analogous programs at the State level.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, might I ask why we are asking
of poor people to face eviction for failure to volunteer?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]
has expired.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I am so pleased
that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] had the vision and
gave this the thought that finally bring us to some point where we can
correct the mistake that we have made in this bill. I would like to
thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] for his persistence,
working with the gentleman from North Carolina and others, in not
allowing us to do something we will be ashamed of later on.
I think the gentleman from Illinois, in raising the questions that he
raised of the chairman, really did help to point out how outrageously
ridiculous this really is. When the chairman was not able to respond in
any way to describe any other instance, any other policy of government
that would cause people to work without pay, I really do think that
answers the question in a very stark way.
I rise to support this amendment because I know an awful lot about
public housing projects. I have spent a great deal of my life working
with and trying to provide opportunities in public housing projects.
Let me say this: If this was a real work-for-benefit program, we may
not object if the people work and we would reduce their rents for the
time that they would put in. That would be, at least, paying them in
some way. That is a work-for-benefit program.
As the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] outlined, they are
paying their rent. If we want to do a program that is work-for-benefit,
then say if one works for x number of hours, we will reduce one's rent,
because we will give one an hourly wage. That is what this does, in a
way. This amendment says if one works, one will, at least, get minimum
wage.
Let me tell my colleagues what is important about this. I have been
in the public housing projects when the housing authorities have
contracted for work with outside entities, people who have come from
long distances in southern California to do things like put up screen
doors, do other kinds of work in public housing projects. I stood and I
watched tenants saying, why can we not do that? Why can we not have
those jobs?
People lined up begging to do the work. I got involved in negotiating
with the public housing authority ways by which they could include the
tenants when they do contracts for jobs in public housing, because
nobody had the wherewithal or the sensitivity to understand that it is
immoral to ask people to watch other people come into the housing
project, contractors who do not live anywhere near the community, do
the work, make the money, take it on out someplace else to spend, while
people there are desperate lining up for jobs.
When there was an opportunity for the telephone company to lay cable,
I went out and negotiated myself with the telephone company, and the
people that they gave the jobs to loved every minute of it. Young
people lined up as they were digging, doing hard work, to try and get a
job.
This business about people in public housing projects not wanting to
work is not correct. We should not treat poor people this way. They do
want to work. My colleagues saw what happened up in New York when they
had minimum-wage jobs, just poor people lined up around the block. This
business that somehow we, as public policymakers, know better than the
people who live there about what their motivations are and what they
will do and what they will not do must stop.
Mr. Chairman, I will walk with my colleagues to any public housing
project in America, and if we have jobs to offer, people will line up
around the block. In addition to having negotiated for people to work
who wanted jobs instead of letting the contractors come in and work
without offering the jobs, I created some training programs inside
public housing projects, and people lined up around the block to get in
those training programs.
What did we find? We found that JPTA that replaced CETA does not
work. We called them in to give the training, the people wanted the
training, they wanted to be connected with the jobs. Many of them who
are on welfare want to get rid of that welfare check. They want to go
to work every day.
Mr. Chairman, I would not like my colleagues to use our power this
way. I would not like my colleagues to put their foot on the necks of
poor people rather than give them opportunity.
This amendment is correct. Pay them for work, and they will do the
jobs. Pay them for cleaning and doing other kinds of things above and
beyond their rent. They will do the work.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Obviously, there is much misunderstanding and confusion on the
subject of work-for-benefit. Much has been questioned about what has
this Congress done in the past with regard to requiring an individual
to work in order to receive a benefit.
I brought it up on prior occasions, but I think it is so important to
restate. Just last year this Congress, by majority vote by both
parties, adopted a workfare requirement under the welfare reform act.
It does not require 8 hours a month or 2 hours a week. In consideration
for AFDC payments or food stamps or other programs of that sort, the
individual must work 20 hours a week, 80 hours a month, in order to be
eligible to maintain those benefits. Under the provisions of the act,
that requirement goes up by the year 2000 to 30 hours per week.
The reasoning behind that and the reason why most Members of this
Congress supported it is because many people who receive public
assistance are in housing projects, not because they are not worthy but
because they do not necessarily always have the skills to move from
dependency to independence.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], chairman of the
subcommittee, has rightfully described this new requirement as an
opportunity, not as the other side would describe it as some sort of
new slavery. In fact, what we are doing is giving people an opportunity
by volunteering, getting into the community, seeing what job
opportunities may be available, to develop job skills, to actually
learn a skill perhaps while they are volunteering. It would leave them
with the ability to ultimately get employment and walk away from public
housing.
Now, when we look at the workfare requirement adopted by this
Congress by majority vote by both parties just last Congress, we find
that the 20-hour-per-week requirement is essential in order to get
people to move to independence rather than dependency.
I had an interesting call last week as a result of our debate on the
floor here about work-for-benefit. It was a working man from a family.
He says,
Do you know how many hours a week I work to pay for public housing? I
work 40 hours a week. I pay my taxes, and it supports individuals in
public housing. Now, I really do not mind that, but I would like to
think that public housing is a temporary haven while a person gets back
on his feet, gets those job skills and moves on and becomes a taxpaying
citizen just like me. It should not be viewed as a retirement community
where one gives up and does not try for himself or his family.
Unfortunately, that, in too many cases, has been the way
public housing has been viewed.
[[Page H2200]]
This is going to continue to give valuable housing, decent public
housing, to those individuals who otherwise could not find it, but give
it on a temporary basis, simply saying, ``We will help you if you take
the first step, that first step being independence on your own.''
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Baker] for yielding and I thank him for his work on the
committee. I find him to be a very thoughtful member.
Mr. Chairman, maybe part of this has boiled down to semantics. We are
not talking about work-for-benefit here, sir; we are talking about
benefit for volunteering.
{time} 1645
We are suggesting that when the Federal Government mandates a law
that forces someone to volunteer, that there is some
unconstitutionality suggested with that.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, I will explain the
reason for calling it voluntarism. As the gentleman categorizes it in
some other fashion, we call it work for benefit. Although individuals
do pay, and as the gentleman rightly pointed out, many suffer under the
misconception that public housing residents do not pay for their
opportunity to live there, they in fact do. But they live there with a
subsidized rate. That means other taxpayers contribute to the public
housing, enabling the family to live decently at a lower rate. What we
are saying is because of that help, we are therefore asking you to take
steps to help yourself and your own family, not unreasonable at all.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, and I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, would the
gentleman make the same argument for the middle-class tax break or the
middle-class help we give in the form of a mortgage deduction?
Mr. BAKER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the
gentleman that in many cases there is work ongoing. An individual pays
taxes; for example, with the home mortgage interest deduction, they are
already paying taxes. They have to work, earn a salary, to become
taxable. Once they become taxable, then they get benefits in the Tax
Code.
One might well argue that a person living in his own home who has
paid for it for 30 years with after-tax dollars, maybe that is
unreasonable to say that the Government ought to give him a tax break.
But I think taxes are too high in the country already, not too low, and
I think that most people do not object to paying taxes as long as the
programs that they are funding----
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, there are people in public housing who pay taxes. We are
talking about subsidized housing, not free housing. We were talking
about affordable housing.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the gentleman, but
the original question was dealing with mortgage interest deduction,
which goes to whether a homeowner has to pay more taxes on his home or
less. I am suggesting that they pay too much already.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Jackson of Illinois and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Baker was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue on the discussion
about subsidies, Mr. Chairman. We have great subsidies in this country,
particularly as it relates to agriculture. I was appalled when I
learned Sam Donaldson, for example, was getting a great subsidy, as I
suppose there are many other great Americans.
Would the gentleman ask Mr. Sam Donaldson to volunteer for that
subsidy that he is getting, or any of the big corporations in America
who are being subsidized, who get their check sent to them regularly?
They do not even have to ask for it, but their land is subsidized and
they get it. Is the gentleman going to track them down and ask them to
do a little volunteer work in exchange for the millions they get?
Mr. BAKER. If I can reclaim my time, there are a lot of things I
would like to ask Mr. Donaldson. I could put that on the list.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
there are many others. The question is, these people are getting big
subsidies. They are getting dollars, a million dollars in subsidies,
corporate America is. How are we going to get the volunteer time?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the money belongs to the
Government. My view is that individuals work and corporations, as
individuals, and individuals on farms, and then they have to pay those
taxes. That is not something voluntary on their part. That is my
problem.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Baker was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to
me, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make sure the gentleman has read my
amendment.
Mr. BAKER. I have it right here. It is very well written.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Under my amendment, Mr. Chairman, these
people would pay taxes just like everybody else because they would be
receiving at least the minimum wage, so I am where the gentleman is on
this. If we can get people to pay taxes, let us do it. They cannot even
pay taxes on the voluntarism.
Mr. BAKER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the
gentleman, they would pay taxes only on the wages they receive for the
work, not on the value of subsidy they receive from taxpayers.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I move to strike the requisite number
of words, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to mention a few of the programs, that maybe the
principle that is being articulated by the other side of the aisle in
terms of making certain that if someone gets something for nothing in
this country they ought to volunteer, should then really embraced in
terms of all of the programs that we provide for nothing to a whole
large segment of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, there are a range of different programs and subsidies
and really giveaways that the U.S. Government regularly gives to a
broad section of our society. Those in almost every case line the
pockets of very, very wealthy, powerful interests in this country, and
they are never asked to volunteer at all. But when it comes to the
people that occupy public housing, all of a sudden we are going to
require them to meet a different standard, because they are getting
something for nothing.
The truth is that I voted for, as has been the case that has been
made by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson], the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], and others, that we voted to make certain
that people do not get something for nothing. We voted, I voted, to
make certain under a specific provision of a welfare reform bill that
you had to work if you are going to get the benefit. I think that is a
perfectly reasonable standard for us to set in the Congress of the
United States and as National Government policy.
But I would ask that it not just stop with the poor. Let us make
certain that anyone in this country that pursues and receives the oil
depletion allowance, which is where millions, if not billions, of
dollars go, to the oil and gas industry, intangible drilling costs, let
us make certain that they volunteer.
How about the set-asides in the farm programs? The gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Leach], in the home State of that gentleman, where people get
paid $1 million to simply not plant anything, maybe we should say to
farmers that we are going to pay to not grow anything, that that is a
pretty good program. Maybe they ought to be asked to
[[Page H2201]]
volunteer. Maybe people from the district of the gentleman from Iowa
ought to come forward and have to volunteer.
If we are going to say it for public housing, maybe we ought to make
this across the board.
How about people that participated in the cellular phone auction, and
made millions and millions of dollars simply by getting their name
pulled out of a hat? They made $20 million overnight. Maybe they ought
to be asked to give something back.
How about the public education system? We get that for free. Maybe we
ought to ask them, everybody that is in public education, we ought to
have a mandated law, everybody has to volunteer.
How about mining rights for $1? If one pays $1, they get to go out
and mine all of our mineral rights. For $1, foreign corporations can
come in and make $10 billion off the United States in the gold
industry, but we do not ask them to volunteer.
How about the project-based section 8 owners, or the peanut farmers,
or maybe the people that are building timber roads? Maybe we ought to
ask everybody where we go out, use taxpayer money to build timber roads
into the most pristine areas of our national forests, they get to go,
identify specific trees they want to cut down, they chop them down and
then they go and take them to the lumber mill, sell them off, they make
the profit and the taxpayer gets the bill; maybe we ought to ask them
to volunteer a little bit.
How about the sugar subsidy programs? If we ask everybody down in
south Florida who gets a sugar subsidy, shall we say to them, hey,
listen, by the way, we want you to go and volunteer to help at a
homeless shelter? Maybe you ought to go out and help out AIDS patients
a little bit.
How about people that get water rights out in the West, should we ask
them to help out, or the grazing fees? How about everybody that gets a
little bit of cheap power from the Tennessee Valley Authority? Should
we ask every one of them to go out and volunteer a little bit?
How about Bonneville Power? We ought to ask everybody in Bonneville
Power to go out and volunteer a little bit. They get more money, I
guarantee it, than all these folks who get a little bit of money in
public housing.
So sure, the rural housing programs. Let us go ask everybody at Gallo
Wine, who are getting paid $650,000 this year to be able to go out and
advertise Gallo wine abroad, maybe we ought to get the Gallos to come
on out and volunteer a little bit. What do Members think?
How about people who make toilet seats for the Pentagon? We ought to
get them to come out and help out.
There is a whole list of folks out there who do very, very well under
government subsidies. I just figure, hey, gang, if this is good enough
for everybody in public housing, then let us make it good enough for
everybody. But let us not beat up the poor and use them as the bully
pulpit, as the bully boys, to make our point that people ought to
volunteer in America.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the proposal of the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] to compensate tenants forced
to work under this bill. From funding cuts in vital assistance programs
to heartless welfare reform, the Republican majority seems to do all it
can to keep our poor in poverty.
Today's housing bill, H.R. 2, goes even farther by including a
heartless forced work requirement. This amendment encourages work and
is a first step toward self-sufficiency. We cannot expect families to
make the transition from welfare to work if they have no income or a
place to live. Housing residents should be given real paying jobs. Let
us not kid ourselves that enforced labor without pay is voluntarism. It
is not. This is the Government forcing people to work in exchange for
Federal benefits.
The Watt amendment is fair, it provides fair pay for work. I strongly
urge my colleagues to pass the Watt amendment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that we have been debating this issue
now since last week. The public has been debating it. It has been in
the newspapers. The public understands this. My colleagues are going to
make every single effort they can to wrap this debate in the flag. They
are going to say it is uniquely American to have a barter system, it is
uniquely American for people to volunteer. All of the flag enhancement
kinds of things are being put in the backdrop of this debate.
Let me tell my colleagues, this is not about a barter arrangement, it
is not about volunteering to volunteer; this is about mandating that
people provide services without working, without being compensated.
That is what this debate is about. We can make it sound all tidy and
American and pretty if we wanted, but there is something about this
that is just not right and we know it. We know it.
It brings back images that some of us never want to have brought back
in this country. It is just not right, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues
ought to understand that. The public understands that it is honorable
for people to work and be paid for it. We understand that. But it is
dishonorable to say to somebody, you go out and we force you to work
and we are not going to pay you for it.
That is not an American concept. It is inconsistent with the American
dream. It is inconsistent with the principles that we stand for in this
country. I just cannot stand here and listen to my colleagues make it
sound like somehow this has some kind of American history motive. It is
wrong. It is inconsistent with our American history. In the final
analysis my colleagues, I hope, will understand that and adopt this
amendment.
All we are saying is, if you are going to have people work, please
pay them for the work that they provide; and if you want to turn around
and get them to pay for their housing, do it, but do not force them to
work without compensation. I thank the gentlewoman from New York [Ms.
Velaquez] for yielding.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I think we simply need to state the obvious. There is
no doubt that we in America can together make this place a better place
to live. Voluntarism and the concept is not a pariah, but the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] is trying to say and has said
involuntary servitude is. We ended that.
{time} 1700
Therefore, it is time for us to move forward and accept the equality
of every American, no matter what housing facility they live in. With
that, I support the Watt amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]
for further comment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding to me.
I do not want to get emotional about this. But there are some
concepts in this country that we cannot wrap in the flag and hold up
the flag and defend them and say, we are doing something that is
uniquely American. This is not uniquely American. I hope that everybody
on both sides of the aisle will understand that.
This is not an American concept. It is not something that has
parallels in other areas of our life. I just hope that my colleagues
will not put our country through this.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me say that just from a
personal experience working with public housing authorities, there has
not been a time when I have gone to those communities and said, let us
do a cleanup, let us work with our youth that they have not poured out
their hearts, their souls, and their bodies to do this in a volunteer
manner because they believe in a better quality community as well. Why
can we not work with public housing residents in that manner? That is
the appropriate manner. That is respecting them as decent, respectable,
equal Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson].
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I grew up in a household where
[[Page H2202]]
we were encouraged to volunteer. We want to encourage every American to
volunteer. It is the right thing to do. At Thanksgiving time,
Christmastime, we volunteer in soup kitchens, we volunteer all across
the country for people who are less fortunate than ourselves. The
American people must be weary. I know my constituents are weary when
the Federal Government would pass a law that only mandates that poor
people, the people that we should be volunteering for, are being asked
to volunteer for us and being made to do that or face an eviction from
public housing. That is really the only issue that we are discussing
here today.
There is nothing wrong with voluntarism. My colleagues on both sides
of aisle believe in voluntarism. The problem is the Federal Government
mandating a law in exchange for the Federal benefit of the right to
live in an affordable house. We will evict them if in fact they do not
volunteer. We require and attach that particular condition to no
Federal benefits that I am aware of, and certainly since the passage of
the 13th amendment have we ever attached such a condition onto an
amendment.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding to me. I
certainly want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues,
certainly the distinguished chairman of this committee and the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for their graciousness
during the course of this debate.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in
conclusion, I thank the gentleman. Let me just simply say that
voluntarism is one of the highest callings that any of us could be
called to do. I realize that all of us have at our grandmother's knee,
our family's homestead, been taught to share with those who are in
need. We have been taught to do it Christmas, Thanksgiving, summertime,
fall, any time of the year because we want to make sure that people
have an opportunity to do better. Can that not be the call of this
Congress on H.R. 2, that we simply encourage those who live in public
housing to work along with every other American in their volunteer
effort? Is not that the better way?
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate, which is not dissimilar
from both the debate that we had over in the committee and the debate
that we had last week on this subject. I think there are legitimate
issues being raised. I can understand them. I supported this concept in
the legislation and I still do. I would just like to point out a couple
of examples I have been through.
One was in the area of welfare reform. Delaware became one of the
first States to mandate having to go to classes, having to go through
job training or whatever it may be, not work per se, tantamount to
having to do something. I suspected that the individuals that were
asked to do that would be up in arms about it. I went to the first
class, there were 18 women and 1 man there, to discuss this with them.
And I was really amazed at how well they had received this opportunity.
Anyone who thinks that welfare recipients or people living in public
housing are necessarily people who do not want to improve their lives,
I think are wrong. I believe, given the opportunity, they are willing
to reach out and help themselves.
We have had tremendous returns on this in Delaware. We are very proud
of our record under both a Democratic Governor and a Republican
Governor. We think it has worked extraordinarily well. Just 10 days ago
I visited two housing authorities in Wilmington, DE, and Rehoboth
Beach, DE, and spent time talking to some of the individuals living
there, actually in the living room in one case.
They were telling me about the things they are doing which I would
consider to be community work or voluntarism, whatever we want to call
it, helping with kids, taking the kids to Great Adventure. Earning
money for it, they were having a dance at night, teenagers were
involved in it. We can call it work. We can call it voluntarism. We can
say it is tantamount to work and they should be compensated, but these
individuals were doing it willingly and there was a sense of community
there. My judgment was that this is not as negative perhaps as it is
being presented here, is the point which I am trying to make, although
I think I understand the arguments that are being made at this point.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I would just like to make a couple very brief points first to the
gentleman from North Carolina; the principles of community service and
work are bedrock American values. There are other values as well. One
is the value the gentleman raised, we do not want anything that
approaches involuntary servitude. That is something all of us have to
keep very carefully in mind.
In the background of this discussion is a public housing circumstance
in many parts of the country that is, frankly, failed. All Members of
Congress understand that. So the committee looked at models around the
country. One of the models that came to the attention of the committee
was a program in Milwaukee, WI, called the Hillside Terrace
development, run by the city of Milwaukee. As a condition of occupancy,
this particular housing project required that everyone sign a condition
of occupancy statement that had a number of points, about eight. Let me
mention three.
One was that every resident would enroll and actively participate in
the neighborhood block watch program. A second was that every resident
would agree to clean and maintain the common areas. A third condition
was that every resident complete a given number of hours per month of
volunteer service.
In the wake of this community participatory circumstance, the
residents of this particular public housing project, Hillside Terrace,
have managed to effect a dramatic reduction in the rate of crime in
their area and they have upgraded the public housing stock.
Now, actually the conditions of occupancy required in this Milwaukee
project are substantially more strenuous than the condition that is
being requested in this bill. In fact, our bill does not go to anyone
that has a job, that is in training, that is part of any sort of
welfare work project of any nature.
This only goes to able-bodied citizens of a given appropriate age. So
it goes to a fairly small grouping of people, under the premise that
there should be work for benefit and based on the premise that some
sort of new community participatory work aspect will not only be
helpful to the individual in job skill development but helpful to the
project itself and the rest of the community.
On our side, with the administration, we think this is very
reasonable. I would just stress that in a sense because the
administration is of the other party, of the gentleman's party, that
this is a bipartisan circumstance. There is also an inner-party
dispute, and we recognize that. But this is intended to be brought
forth in as reasonable a way as possible.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Castle was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this is an important point. I
understand from talking to the chairman that the community work that we
are talking about is very open-ended in terms of what it is. Is it work
or is it volunteerism or whatever it may be. It may be a form of
compulsory volunteerism. But it is open-ended. I think it makes a
difference in terms of wages.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me first say I
understand that the chairman is sincere. I know, I have the utmost
respect for the chairman. I know he would not represent anything that
he did not believe in. I respect that and I want to say that publicly.
But all of these things that the gentleman described are things that
emanated from a community. They were not mandated by the Federal
Government. I will tell the gentleman that
[[Page H2203]]
that is a substantial difference. The Federal Government has no such
policies, and if we get on this slippery slope toward this, there is no
way to cut it off, no way with integrity to cut it off.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Castle was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I do want to make the
distinction between things that emanate from the community that people
buy into, they get together. They decide what they want to do. That is
a form of their volunteerism. But mandating it is a whole different
issue, in my opinion.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] will be postponed.
Are there further amendments to title I?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to protect the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] who
was on the floor, and we have been negotiating the amendment, to, if we
close title I, that that be closed subject to her being able to offer
that amendment, and also the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank],
out of fairness to both of them.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
chairman's willingness to try and protect our Members on our side with
their amendments.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, as was stated earlier, we had agreed to
come back with a redraft of the amendment, the Waters-Kilpatrick
amendment that spoke to the grievance procedure. We have reworked it
and we would like to offer it.
Point of Order
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I understand the amendment is
not at the desk, that the legislative drafting has not been completed,
and we have not had a chance to look at that.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think we would just
like to make certain, I think the chairman of the subcommittee and
myself would just like to make certain that their rights are protected
to be able to come back. The Chair had explained to us earlier that as
we got close to the end of title I that we needed to come back and make
certain that there was time to draft the amendment. I think both the
chairman of the subcommittee and myself are just trying to make certain
that we have in fact protected fully the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms.
Kilpatrick], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
The CHAIRMAN. There is no request pending for the Chair at the
moment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
when we close title I, it be subject to allowing the amendment by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], which is printed in the
Record as No. 3, and amendment No. 26, which was offered by the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters] and the gentlewoman from
Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick] to be offered subsequent to closing.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York to the offering of those amendments once the committee has
read beyond title I?
There was no objection.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] for accepting
my amendment to allow local housing authorities to use their operating
funds to provide child care services for public housing residents.
I know this issue pales in comparison to the last issue that was
discussed but it really raises the reason why legislation like this is
really not designed to empower poor people to go out and work when they
live in housing projects. The fact that child care was omitted from the
original legislation shows that there is a real lack of understanding
of what we need to do to help public housing residents empower
themselves and go to work.
{time} 1715
The lack of day care can be devastating to poor families who are
trying to work, who are trying to go into the work force, and it is the
height of hypocrisy to impose all of the onerous restrictions that we
see in this bill and to ignore child care. My amendment does not fix
all of these unacceptable provisions, but what it does say is that the
public housing authorities can use operating funds at their discretion
for child care.
If we really wanted to look at thoughtful housing reform, we would
look at a model that is in my district in Denver, CO. Warren Village is
a program, a private program, that provides housing for single mothers
who are trying to get back on their feet. Women can only live in this
housing for 2 years and during those 2 years they are required to
either work or take classes. However, most residents do both.
When the program first started, there was no child care available and
it became quickly apparent that these working mothers could not afford
to go through the program because there was absolutely no way they
could fulfill job or education requirements and, at the same time, have
no child care. Warren Village quickly started raising money to start an
on-site child care program, a program which I visited a few months ago.
This child care program is one of the best in the country and what it
does is teach the children of low-income housing residents that they
can break the cycle at the same time their mothers are breaking the
cycle. It is probably one of the main reasons that Warren Village has
been so successful in getting women back on their feet. They are taking
classes, they are getting job training, and, most importantly, they are
keeping those jobs.
If we truly want to look at ways that we can help residents of public
housing get back on their feet, it is vital that we have child care,
and that is why I am so pleased that both the chairman and the ranking
member have agreed to put this child care provision in the legislation.
Once we can fix the rest of the legislation and have a compassionate
and thoughtful bill, we can help these residents keep their dignity and
get back on their feet.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's
perceptive and, I think, important amendment to this bill.
The gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette] has distinguished herself
in the short time she has been in the Congress of the United States.
This is important legislation that begins to look out after the needs
of the mothers that are in public housing and to recognize the fact
that because of the lack of support for child care that takes place in
general in this country, that we have a tremendous disincentive from
allowing these mothers to go to work.
If people in public housing have very, very low incomes, they do not
have any of the kind of normal support services that many of the rest
of us can take for
[[Page H2204]]
granted. As a result, the idea of leaving a child alone versus going to
work puts the mothers oftentimes in a very, very difficult dilemma.
I think the idea of allowing a portion of the operating subsidies to
go to setting up this kind of child care is an important recognition of
the bind that mothers are in. So I just wanted to take a moment to
compliment the gentlewoman from Colorado and let her know that Members
on both sides of the aisle very strongly support the amendment which
she offered.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I just wanted to note, because I think there was some confusion in
the presentation that we accepted the gentlewoman's amendment in the
bill.
It was completely the intent of the committee, it is the
understanding of the committee that it is inherent in the qualified
activities inherent in this provision of the bill that child care
services were already incorporated.
The gentlewoman had a concern, a valid concern. The amendment was
accepted by myself and by the committee, and I just want to make clear
that that was the case because I think there was some impression
somehow that we were less than cooperative in showing that we supported
this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what that
exchange was all about, but as the Democratic manager of this
amendment, I never had any impression that the gentleman from New York
was anything other than supportive of this amendment.
I appreciate the fact that the gentleman was cooperative in trying to
make this a part of the en bloc.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I also thank the gentleman, and I thought
I made that clear in my statement, that I do understand that this is
supported.
My only point is that I think it should have been in the original
language of the bill, and I appreciate the cooperation in now putting
it in because child care really is essential in these situations.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this Member,
and I believe this side of the aisle, strongly supports child care,
additional funding for child care, and believes it was inherent in the
provisions of the bill as to qualified activities.
But I am happy to clarify this language, and the gentlewoman's
amendment does that, and I am happy to offer my support.
Amendment Offered by Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
Page 35, after line 23, insert the following new
subsection:
(h) Full Funding Requirement for Mandatory Effect of Family
Self-Sufficiency Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, if for any fiscal year sufficient amounts are
not or have not been provided in advance in appropriation
Acts for such fiscal year specifically for covering all costs
to public housing agencies of entering into, monitoring, and
enforcing the family self-sufficiency agreement requirements
and all other costs arising from such requirements, a public
housing agency shall not be required to comply with such
requirements during such fiscal year, but may comply with the
requirements during such fiscal year solely at the option of
the agency.
(2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``family self-sufficiency agreement requirements'' means the
following requirements:
(A) Establishing target dates for transition out of
assisted housing.--The requirement under subsection (b) to
enter into agreements under such subsection regarding target
dates.
(B) Entering into family self-sufficiency agreements.--The
requirements under subsection (d)--
(i) to enter into agreements containing the terms under
subparagraphs (A), (C), and (D) of subsection (d)(2) and
containing the condition under the second sentence of
subsection (d)(1) with respect to such terms; and
(ii) to include any such terms in agreements under
subsection (d).
(C) Enforcing agreements.--Any requirements under this
section to monitor, enforce, or give any force or effect to--
(i) an agreement entered into under subsection (b);
(ii) the terms included in an agreement entered into under
subsection (d), pursuant to subparagraphs (A), (C), and (D)
of subsection (d)(2); and
(iii) with respect to such terms, the condition included in
an agreement under subsection (d) pursuant to the second
sentence of subsection (d)(1).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the
chairman of the subcommittee, I hope he is not upset at any little
confusion, it is just that being that agreeable will sometimes catch us
off guard. But we will adjust to it, and we certainly do not want to
discourage him from the pattern. So it is very much appreciated.
This is an amendment, Mr. Chairman, that deals with another piece of
what we debated last week. We debated thoroughly last week the 8-hour
work requirement. There is another requirement in this bill, in the
same provision, and it has to do with a requirement that every housing
authority in the country get into a negotiation, except it is really a
mandate, with most of their tenants by which the family and the agency
enter into an agreement.
Included pursuant to subsection (D)(2)(c), as a term of agreement
under subsection (D),
Establishing a target date by which the family intends to
graduate from, terminate tenancy in, or no longer receive
public housing or housing assistance under title III. This
section may not be construed to create a right on the part of
any public housing authority to evict or terminate solely on
the basis of the failure to comply.
Obviously, we want to try to encourage people to get out of housing.
And my amendment says, which I have worked on with the gentleman from
Illinois, that we will make this option; that is, we will empower the
housing authority to do it if they want to, in case there was any doubt
as to their legal authority, and we will even make it mandatory if we
appropriate the funds for it.
CBO has said this will cost millions of dollars. Exactly how much we
cannot be sure because it was lumped in with another provision together
that would cost $35 million.
But I would urge Members to think about what they are doing. If this
amendment is rejected, we are ordering every housing authority in the
country to take on an added burden in which no more services are
provided, no more is asked of the tenant except more paperwork. What it
says is that every tenant who is covered by this will have to sign an
agreement in which they will agree to work toward termination of living
in public housing.
I do not know quite what it will mean. I do not know how valuable
anyone can think this will be. If an individual is in a housing
authority and they go to every single tenant and say let us talk about
when you are getting out, I cannot for the life of me see the value of
it.
I am prepared, however, to allow this to be done on an optional
basis, but this is a mandate to every housing authority and it is
unfunded. However, while it is a mandate that is unfunded, the ruling
is that it is not an unfunded mandate. So we should distinguish. An
unfunded mandate, apparently, is only to be the case where we require
something which we have not previously provided any funds for. Here
funds are provided to housing authorities, and this adds to the burden
of the housing authorities with no additional money.
Particularly for small and middle-sized housing authorities, this is
a very considerable burden. These are authorities which have all manner
of things to worry about that now have to go and sit down with all the
tenants who are covered, the large number of tenants, and work out this
agreement, this self-sufficiency agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good idea for people to get out of
public housing, but the notion people can write themselves contracts
that will get them out seems to me to impute a
[[Page H2205]]
power to contracts that do not happen. Are we thinking that people will
be sitting there and saying, gee, I am going to live in public housing
forever; and then we say, no, no, we want you to sign a contract saying
when you will get out, that that will be the first time it will occur
to them to get out?
How does this add to the motivation for people to get out? Presumably
we want people to be motivated to make more money. We want people to be
motivated to be more successful. There are housing projects to live in
which are not all that attractive. I think people already have
incentives to get out. And if they do not, this adds nothing to it. It
is simply a whole lot of paperwork.
And I will just say to the Members, Mr. Chairman, that if they vote
for this, I think it is fairly easy to predict that 2 and 3 years from
now they will have some pretty angry housing authority directors and
personnel to account to and some pretty angry housing authority
members. People are going to wonder why this is going to come down from
Washington and order every housing authority to sign a contract of
self-sufficiency with every member.
It is a useful goal, but it does not seem to me this accounts for it.
Frankly, I thought Republicans were in the mode of cutting bureaucracy,
and this goes exactly in the opposite direction if we do not make it
optional.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word
in order to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Massachusetts
just briefly about the potential for a time limit on this amendment and
whether the gentleman would consider if we set a 30-minute parameter on
this debate, 15 minutes on each side, whether that would be something
the gentleman might be interested in.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have already used up 5. I
did not know that. Thirty in addition?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the
gentleman wants to add the 5 to his 15.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield.
Yes, I will take 30. The gentleman can take his 5 and 30 after that,
sure.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. So, Mr. Chairman, I would take 15, and the
gentleman would have a total of 20, with the 5 he has already used. Is
that acceptable to the gentleman?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. That would be acceptable.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that our
agreement be implemented, please, and held in order.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I assume the gentleman
intends for the time to be equally divided.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, yes, the time would be equally
divided between the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and
myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent request, there will
be 15 minutes on each side, 15 minutes managed by the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio] and 15 minutes by the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Frank], on this amendment and all amendments thereto.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does speak to the ability for us to
implement both the self-sufficiency contracts that are the means by
which tenants begin to outline the steps that they might take,
voluntarily, with the housing authority, to return to self-sufficiency.
It also speaks to the core issue of community work and community
service that this House has been debating for the last several days.
Mr. Chairman, housing authorities in America receive from the Federal
Government almost $3 billion a year to subsidize their operating
expenses right now. Under the terms of H.R. 2, the bill before this
House, housing authorities would continue to receive nearly $3 billion
a year to subsidize their operating expenses.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, who has looked at this,
this is not an unfunded mandate. They do not characterize it that way.
As a matter of fact, their review of the provision in this bill
suggests that, through the management changes made in this bill,
through the flexibility that inures to the housing authorities, there
will be savings, savings, to the housing authorities in excess of $100
million annually.
The idea that we would ask the housing authorities to do a little bit
more so that they would change their mission from simply being a place
where people receive their housing to broaden their mission to include
the assistance of helping people transform to self-sufficiency, is a
valid one.
{time} 1730
It is a valid mission. It is an appropriate mission. We should be
focusing on the core issues of poverty and not just on the symptoms of
providing shelter. Because the issue of poverty is much broader than
simply housing, although housing obviously is one of the core issues.
I would say that to ask housing authorities to do this minimal
additional program of implementing self-sufficiency contracts and
implementing the community work program in return for the great
flexibility that they would receive under this bill, where over two
dozen programs are consolidated into two, an operating fund and a
capital grant, is not unreasonable. It is completely reasonable.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask, because
these are laudable goals to help them get out, I assume that means a
job, what are the housing authorities going to do? How are the housing
authorities going to do job training? Then we are talking about a lot
more. What is it that the housing authorities are going to do through
this piece of paper?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the
gentleman here, the housing authority's mission is going to be to help
coordinate the efforts, to ensure that these self-sufficiency
agreements have meaning, that they work with people who are tenants to
ensure that if there are vocational training possibilities, if there
are employment possibilities, if there are possibilities of working
with the Job Corps, in resume building, experiencing a vocational
exposure that might be helpful in terms of working with a labor union,
that those might be available to the individual, where they may begin
to coordinate these type of supportive services that will get to the
core issues of self-sufficiency and poverty.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to go back to
the point that the gentleman made earlier in his remarks where he
indicated that the housing authorities received this $3 billion a year,
roughly, $2.9 billion. Does the gentleman understand that this
requirement, according to CBO, would require 1,100 additional employees
by housing authorities throughout the country?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, the CBO, Congressional
Budget Office, estimate as I understand it speaks to not just this one
issue of community service and community work or not just the self-
sufficiency program but the vast panoply of programs that would be
implemented under the terms of H.R. 2. What they also make clear is
that there is a net savings of $100 million annually under this program
when fully implemented. When this bill is fully adopted, there are
administrative savings, just administrative savings alone, of $100
million annually, which more than absorbs all the costs associated with
the implementation of this program.
I would also argue to this House and to the gentleman that again if
what we are talking about is $35 million in the scheme of $3 billion
that the public
[[Page H2206]]
housing authorities are subsidized for, and yet in the end the
objective that is fulfilled is that we begin to move people out of
public housing under their own means, that we have achieved something
very great and very important.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to quote from
the CBO study that indicates not only would it require 1,100 new
personnel, this particular program would also require $35 million a
year. This is a debate that we had extensively earlier on in this bill,
several days ago. The fact of the matter is that this is why we called
this and why the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] was perfectly
appropriate in calling this an unfunded mandate.
The gentleman is right that the overall bill will save $100 million.
The overall bill is going to save $100 million because they are going
to throw out poorer people and take in richer people. The richer
people's rent sticks to the CBO's account number; therefore, the bill
is going to save money. It is not going to save money through programs
like this. This is an expenditure. It is an expenditure that CBO claims
is going to cost $35 million and will require 1,100 new employees.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Let me just say that is only for these two programs, not the whole
panoply. Let me just say, if I thought this was going to work, I would
not begrudge it. Read it. It is the most Rube Goldberg-esque scheme.
What we are going to do is talk these people out of living in public
housing, get them to sign a contract. It is a lot of bureaucratic
gobbledygook that will not work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Jackson].
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and appreciate
the opportunity to join him as a cosponsor of this provision. This
amendment guards against the creation of an unfunded mandate in section
105 of this bill by ensuring that public housing authorities retain
discretion not to implement self-sufficiency agreements unless
sufficient funds are appropriated to cover the costs.
The self-sufficiency requirements in section 105 would force public
housing authorities to create a new bureaucratic system and take on an
enormous paperwork burden. It would require them to take on additional
functions of assessing participants, managing case loads, retaining
records on all participants and overseeing resident compliance. Housing
authorities cannot perform that role without additional staff. Over
half the housing authorities in this country have 100 or fewer units,
which often means a staff of less than 5 people, with half of the staff
being maintenance employees.
Mr. Chairman, in its report on the cost of H.R. 2, CBO tells us that
community work and self-sufficiency programs will cost $65 million in
the first year and $35 million annually after that. The report also
estimates that housing authorities will have to hire over 1,100
personnel to staff such programs. In addition, H.R. 2 creates
substantial liability costs if residents are harmed while fulfilling
work requirements. Yet H.R. 2 authorizes no funding to cover any of
these additional costs.
Mr. Chairman, where will we find the additional funds in the midst of
efforts to balance the budget? Apparently we, as Members of Congress,
do not have to worry about that, because this provision would pass the
buck to public housing authorities to figure out how they should cover
the costs. Will they be forced to raise rents even higher?
The subcommittee chairman claims this provision is not an unfunded
mandate because public housing authorities can use their operating
funds to cover the costs. I must emphasize to all Members of this
Chamber, however, that public housing budgets have been cut by 25
percent over the past few years. Housing authorities are currently
underfunded, receiving only 88 percent of the operating funds that they
actually need. Housing authorities estimate overall operating costs at
$3.3 billion but they currently receive only $2.9 billion.
In response to budget cuts, they have downsized substantially over
the past few years. Since 1995 the CHA alone in Chicago has experienced
roughly $80 million in budget cuts. In response to this, it has been
forced to cut its staff by 1,300 employees. Mr. Chairman, housing
authorities do not have the additional $35 million per year in their
thinning budgets to implement this new program.
A second problem I have with section 105 is that aside from creating
a bureaucracy and increasing costs, it will duplicate the function
already being performed by welfare agencies who have trained staff to
do such work. One of the goals of H.R. 2 is to increase local
flexibility and control, yet section 105 directly contradicts those
goals. If housing authorities have been creating successful self-
sufficiency programs in the past few years, should we not leave it up
to them to determine how many residents they can effectively serve at
one time? Should we not allow them to determine whether a program is
more successful when it is mandatory or when it is incentive-based?
Mr. Chairman, this amendment to H.R. 2 would provide housing
authorities with that flexibility. It will ensure that if funds are not
appropriated to pay for the cost of the self-sufficiency program, that
public housing authorities will have discretion over how to implement
locally designed self-sufficiency programs.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. If we truly care
about making public housing more efficient, we must avoid the
unnecessary duplication and burdensome unfunded mandates that this
provision provides.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
Mr. LEACH. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I would just make several brief points.
First, in terms of unfunded mandates, the CBO represents to the
committee that this requirement is a condition of receipt of Federal
funds rather than an unfunded mandate.
Second, I think the minority side has made an absolutely valid point
that there is an additional burden for housing authorities implied
here. On the other hand, I think it should be clear that there is some
return for that burden. For example, if I am a housing authority
director an my residents are obligated to help clean up the housing
project under the community service requirement, I must say to myself,
that is a real plus for my program. If my residents are obligated to
participate in things like community watch programs, I must think that
is a plus for my program.
I would also comment on two aspects of this whole issue of self-
sufficiency. One of the things that all of us who have visited with our
housing projects have come to understand is that to a greater and
greater extent, housing or shelter is just one part of the challenge.
Many housing projects, of course, work closely with other community
service organizations, such as community action programs. It is the
rest of the services to residents that is often as, if not more
important than the shelter aspect, although these services may be tied
into shelter.
Self-sufficiency is a very positive and very important goal. What
this Congress is saying with this particular provision is that there
should be an obligation to look at these issues in a much more dramatic
way, recognizing that many housing projects do a pretty good job in
this area at this time.
I would like to return just for a moment to the Milwaukee model which
has been represented to this Member as one of the most successful
public housing projects in the country. I would point out that in the
Milwaukee project a contractual relationship is required between
tenants and the city of Milwaukee. The first two provisions are rather
strenuous, especially the second one, but it is a very interesting
model.
Provision No. 1 reads that as an occupant of public housing, the
occupant will complete an employability assessment; No. 2 reads that
the occupant understands and agrees that he or she
[[Page H2207]]
must abide by the recommendations of the employability plan developed
as a result of that assessment.
What these two points are in this Milwaukee model that has been
represented to be one of the more successful programs in the country is
exactly this: self-sufficiency. Based upon this kind of model, based
upon discussions with program directors in areas that I am familiar
with, I am impressed that it is not enough to look at public housing
simply as a shelter program. Self-sufficiency is a very appropriate
goal to move toward, recognizing again that the requirement is a modest
additional burden.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I want to respond and say no, I can see that the gentleman has
defined it as not an unfunded mandate. It does require them to spend
more money out of the same pot they are getting. My experience with a
lot of housing authorities is they are underfunded already. But it also
requires them to spend money on a lot of bureaucracy and paperwork. It
does not provide one job trainer. It does not provide one person to
find anybody any employment. What it does is mandate them to sit down
and sign contracts with people, people who have no particular knowledge
about this, and to say here is when I promise to move out of public
housing. I promise to do this.
I am all for these goals, but they ought to be treated as real. This
notion that wishing will make it so and that having an overburdened
housing authority administer of people, sign these contracts with the
tenants when nothing in here adds anybody a job, it does not create a
job, it does not provide a job counselor, it is just a feel-good
bureaucratic requirement of the sort that if it were not dealing with
poor people and housing, Republicans would be belittling. But because
it deals with the poor people and housing, they are all for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Jackson].
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a question of the chairman, if he would
join me in a colloquy for about 30 seconds.
I wondered if the gentleman had any idea of the number of residents
in the Milwaukee model and/or the costs of implementation of the
Milwaukee model in Milwaukee, particularly as it has been applied in
the public housing authorities.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. I apologize to the gentleman. I do not have those
statistics with me. I will say it has been represented that this
Milwaukee model has been very successful. As the gentleman knows, the
whole Wisconsin turnaround in the whole area of welfare has been as
impressive a turnaround as any in the country.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have no argument that the
Milwaukee model may be a successful model. I am simply suggesting that
there may be costs associated with the Milwaukee model, and if there
are costs associated with the Milwaukee model, and we multiply that
times public housing authorities across the country, and since we are
mandating a Federal law that requires public housing authorities to
follow this particular model, we are simply suggesting that there
should be costs associated or funds appropriated from our Congress in
order to make that model possible for all public housing authorities.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Hooley].
{time} 1745
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong
support for the Frank-Jackson amendment. As a former board member of
the Clackamas County Housing Authority, I have firsthand experience in
managing public housing. Having worked through the bureaucracy and
redtape myself, I know that we need to restore some local control and
increase efficiency.
I agree with many of the underlying goals of H.R. 2. The sponsors of
the bill have argued, and I agree, that we need to do more to increase
flexibility for local housing authorities and reduce unwarranted rules
and regulations. We need to ensure that our scarce resources are being
spent to provide affordable housing and quality services in the most
cost efficient manner.
Unfortunately, H.R. 2 imposes a serious new unfunded mandate on
public housing authorities in the form of a so-called self-sufficiency
contract. While the bill would mandate that public housing authorities
develop self-sufficiency agreements for each tenant and mandatory
community service requirements, it does not authorize any funding to
assist housing authorities in dealing with this administrative
nightmare.
I have spoken with many of the housing authority directors in Oregon,
and they have all expressed strong opposition to this burdensome
requirement which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to
implement. In fact, the Portland Housing Authority has estimated that
the new self-sufficiency requirement could easily add $400,000 to the
operating cost. This amendment would ensure that in the absence of
sufficient funding to cover the costs of this mandate, public housing
authorities will have discretion over whether to implement a self-
sufficiency and community work program.
This is not an issue of volunteerism and community service. I support
the voluntary efforts to increase community service and participation
that frankly are underway in many of the communities across this
country.
H.R. 2 cloaks the issue of costly unfunded mandates and compulsory
work requirements behind the veil of volunteerism. Do not be fooled by
the rhetoric. Self-sufficiency contracts impose a costly new burden on
housing authorities that are already struggling to operate with
shrinking budgets and increasing demand.
If we insist on imposing standard community work and self-sufficiency
requirements on local housing authorities, we then must provide them
with funding to meet that goal. If we want to provide local control and
increased efficiency, we need to listen to our local housing authority
directors, who strongly support this amendment as an alternative to the
unfunded mandate of H.R. 2.
I urge my colleagues to take a stand against unfunded mandates and
support the Frank-Jackson amendment.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker].
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Lazio] for yielding this time to me and would like to observe that the
requirements we are talking about, the so-called self-sufficiency
requirements, Mr. Chairman, are several in nature, and I would perhaps
ask that the gentleman might respond to a question to make it more
clear to me.
One of the requirements is to supervise the work that would be
engaged in under the work for benefit plan as has been outlined
earlier. I am also understanding there is a separate part of the
sufficiency requirement which would require that authority to visit
with housing tenants to develop a plan. Is this a plan similar to, say,
in the event a family gets in trouble with a credit card debt and they
go to family debt counselors and they sit down with an individual and
say here is what I owe, here is what I make, help me out; is it that
kind of counseling process we are going through where an individual
sits down and says I am in public housing, and here are my skills, and
here is where I intended to be, or what is it that the gentleman is
trying to require because it has been referred to as a kind of a Rube
Goldberg thing?
Mr. Chairman, I think we are owed an explanation as to where we go on
this. What does this do?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, the most cost effective thing
that we can do is to move people to self-sufficiency. The goal here is
to do just that, to improve neighborhoods, especially low-income
neighborhoods and public housing areas and to get people, if we can, to
focus on what they need to do to get to the end game, which will be in
my opinion a job that will help support their family. The concept is,
if
[[Page H2208]]
I can, to work with the housing authority so that there can be ongoing
discussion on how to get there, what path do we need to take to get to
that end game?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman ask, for instance, if
they have job skills, and if they do not, does he suggest where they
might go to get job training?
Is that sort of part of this process?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Yes, I would imagine it would be.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, so the short statement would be we are going
to require housing authorities to spend some money to help the
occupants finally get a plan for themselves, perhaps their family, to
get out of public housing?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, some of the most important work
that is being done with the homeless right now involves supportive
services and the type of counseling.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, where people sat down
with and where we could discuss what needs were needed to be met, how
we got there and how we dealt with the inherent problems that people
face and challenges they face that have led to them being in public
housing to begin with?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what we are
trying to do here.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, the gentleman is
saying out of the $2.9 billion we are appropriating to housing
authorities for operations, he is going to spend, I think the gentleman
said, $35 million of this to actually help the occupants find a family
plan and get on with life and perhaps get a job and then maybe even
leave public housing.
That is what this is about?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, that is true. I would also add
that this bill saves money. It saves in administrative expenses. And,
yes, in this one area there are some additional requests in terms of
expanding the mission, but overall this bill is a saver both for
housing authorities and for the Federal Government.
Mr. BAKER. So if I am understanding, the bill in its present form
would save us some money, help occupants of public housing ultimately
get a job, perhaps leave public housing, and that is what is being
objected to?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. It is.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The gentleman could not be more wrong. We are not objecting to
efforts to help people find jobs because there are not any in here.
This has nothing to do with finding jobs. This has to do with having
everybody sign a contract that has no meaning, no particular force
apparently, and it is simply a lot of bureaucratic paperwork.
Apparently the notion is that earning a living never occurred to
these poor people, that they were living in public housing and it never
occurred to them that a job would be better than not a job because this
does not provide job training, it does not provide job matching, it
provides no services. It simply mandates that every housing authority
sign a contract.
Now, some housing authorities might find that useful, but here is the
point that I want to just reiterate. As the gentlewoman from Oregon
said, this is a mandate from the Federal Government that every housing
authority in America will go about that job in exactly this way. If
they decide they have got to concentrate on 20 to 30 percent of the
people who have a chance of being employed and they would do better
working with them than with others, they cannot do that. They have to
equally sign one of these pieces of paper with everybody.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me. I just want to make this point quickly
distinguishing between this provision and the last provision we were
debating.
The volunteer mandate requirement is a bad idea which was wasteful.
This is a wasteful idea and therefore is bad. If we are going to
require local governments to do something wasteful, at least we ought
to be paying for it, and that is the point I want to make. There is a
difference between being bad and therefore wasteful. This one is
wasteful and therefore bad.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
North Carolina, and I concede he is a man of his minute.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The idea, Mr. Chairman, that community work or self-sufficiency is
wasteful or ridiculous or foolish I think mocks the attempts that some
communities are making from Charlotte to Milwaukee to try and
incorporate the sense of reconnecting people with their civic
responsibility and helping out in a broad range of community service
activities in their own backyard to try and better that community,
better that neighborhood, better that project, even better that hall.
These efforts are valid, important efforts. Their aim is not to look
the other way and just to maintain people. Their efforts ought to help
transform, to deal with the root causes of poverty, to give people the
tools to help them build those tools that they will need to go out, to
graduate from public housing and then to make their own choices about
where they can live, what they can do for their family. These are
important, valid initiatives.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds
to say that I hope in his closing remarks the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Lazio] will tell us what those tools are. As far as the tools for
getting better in the self-sufficiency, I have not found a tool. I did
find an old tool catalogue that they are allowed to kind of read
through, but nothing in here gets them any closer to a tool.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 3
minutes and 10 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to
thank my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, and the gentleman from
Illinois Mr. Jackson, for offering this amendment. I think that this is
an important amendment which gets to the heart of what this committee
is all about.
I mean, what we see here is an attempt to use housing policy to
create a new social engineering kind of notion that might appeal to a
broad number of Americans but nevertheless is in fact social policy
enacted under the housing bill.
Effectively, what the policy that I hear being talked about says is
very simply that poor people work harder if we take things away, but
rich people work harder if we give things to them. It is a kind of
socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor. That is
effectively the underlying message that this amendment really gets to,
and I think that is the underlying message that is reinforced by H.R.
2.
We are not suggesting for a second that people who get a benefit
should not work. I agree wholeheartedly. People that get a benefit
ought to work. But what I do not think is that we ought to provide and
take away from the very public housing authorities, all of those
housing authorities that we love to now walk in front of, Democrats and
Republicans alike, point out these great old housing monstrosities
where we warehouse the poor, and we say look at this terrible thing
that Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic House of Representatives and
Congress and the like have brought about, all the support for public
housing that just does not work. Look at it. Obviously this is terrible
policy.
So what is our result? How are we going to fix that? What we are
going to do in order to fix it is we are going to take some money away
from it. We are going to say we are going to cut the budget. We cut it
from $28 billion down to $20 billion. Now we are going to take the most
important funding mechanism that housing authorities have to serve the
poorest people in this country and provide them with basic shelter. We
are going to go to the single fund that they rely on the most, their
operating subsidies, and we are going to say, ``We're going to go in,
and we're going to give you another $65 million task. It is going to
create a requirement where you're going to have to go
[[Page H2209]]
out and hire 1,100 more people, but we're not going to give you a penny
to do it because we think we can get some votes if we stand up there
and look tough on the poor,'' if we point our finger at them and say,
``You're sitting in that public housing, you're watching Oprah Winfrey,
you're sitting there doing all these things, not working.''
Mr. Chairman, if we stand up there and look like we are really
getting tough on them, boy, that is going to appeal to the American
people? I say let us reach inside and perhaps find a higher purpose
than just getting votes. Why do we not try to fix public housing in
this bill? Why do we not try to provide them not with $2.9 billion for
their necessary operating subsidies? But HUD itself and the housing
authorities themselves say that they need $3.3 billion.
And I understand they are going to come back and tell me that
President Clinton only authorized $3.1 billion. They came in at $2.9.
The truth of the matter is both numbers are too small. If we are really
interested in trying to provide public housing, the kind of decent
honorable housing that we expect as all Americans to receive, then we
have to give them the full funding, which is $3.3 billion, and I just
would appeal to the chairman of this committee to stop using this bill
to ram through this housing and instead ram through good housing
policy.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
As my colleagues know, once again this is the third day of debate of
the bill, and the question is asked why could we not just do something
to fix public housing? That is exactly what we are here in the business
of doing.
Now, there are people who argue against change in this body, there
are people who argue that what we are doing is fine, that it is OK to
maintain super concentrations of poverty, that we should not be worried
about transforming people to self-sufficiency. But this debate for the
last 3 days and the days that will follow that we will debate this bill
is in fact about self-sufficiency, it is about transformation, it is
about community work and the work ethic and responsibility and those
values that we think are important in every American community.
We reject the premise that this is entirely about money. Public
housing authorities get $3 billion. In Chicago along State Street there
are buildings that we in this body, people in this body, would not want
to sleep in the worst day of their life, yet we have children, American
children, living there with broken windows and broken doors and
hallways that are filthy.
{time} 1800
In New Orleans in a place called Desire, perversely, ditto. In those
two examples, Mr. Chairman, it was not a lack of money, because those
housing authorities left money on the table. Those housing authorities
were failing in their basic mission to provide good, healthy housing
for their own people while they still had money in their pockets.
So the argument that this is all about money and this is not about
management and responsibility and transformation is to mock the facts,
the facts. The facts are that in some American cities we have housing
authorities that have been abysmal failures despite the billions that
we have spent, and yet we look the other way and suggest that the only
way to deal with this is to spend more money, but to continue the same
process. We say on this side, and for many on the other side of the
aisle, that that is nonsense.
I have been to Chicago, I have been to New York City, I have been to
east New York, I have been to Washington, DC to see public housing. I
have been to New Orleans, I have been to L.A., I have been to Phoenix.
I know the face of public housing. What is amazing here is that the
public housing residents themselves are the ones that are calling for
much of this change. They are not the forces of defending the status
quo, they are the ones that recognize that self-sufficiency and
transformation and community work are valid, proper goals.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: Amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt]; amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. WATT of North Carolina
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140,
noes 286, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 103]
AYES--140
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Carson
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Dingell
Dixon
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Stark
Stokes
Stupak
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--286
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
[[Page H2210]]
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Andrews
Becerra
Clay
Kolbe
Reyes
Schiff
Waxman
{time} 1823
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Mrs. CHENOWETH, and Messrs. RIGGS, ENSIGN,
MORAN of Virginia, and DEUTSCH changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD, and Mr. LEVIN changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for recorded vote on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by a voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168,
noes 253, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 104]
AYES--168
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--253
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--12
Andrews
Becerra
Clay
Collins
Cox
Kolbe
Reyes
Schiff
Snowbarger
Stark
Waxman
Young (FL)
{time} 1833
Ms. KAPTUR and Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. Are there further amendments
to title I?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
There is language at the desk, I understand. We have been working out
some language with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. The
gentlewoman has graciously permitted us to work together with her to
rewrite the amendment that she has offered, which is Amendment No. 26,
in the Record.
The language is now acceptable to this Member, and I believe it is
acceptable to the vast majority of Members on this side of the aisle.
If I correctly state the position of the gentlewoman,
[[Page H2211]]
she is consensually now offering this new language. We would be
supportive of that.
I thank the gentlewoman for her flexibility in meeting our mutual
concerns, which I think will lead to the protection of the people that
she is concerned about, without adding additional layers of
bureaucracy. I support the amendment.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Waters:
Page 57, strike lines 14 through 22 and insert the
following:
(b) Exclusion From Administrative Procedure of Grievances
Concerning Evictions From Public Housing Involving Health,
Safety, or Peaceful Enjoyment.--A public housing agency may
exclude from its procedure established under subsection (a)
any grievance, in any jurisdiction which requires that prior
to eviction, a tenant be given a hearing in court, which the
Secretary determines provides the basic elements of due
process (which the Secretary shall establish by rule under
section 553 of title 5, United States Code), concerning an
eviction from or termination of tenancy in public housing
that involves any activity that threatens the health, safety,
or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises of other
tenants or employees of the public housing agency or any
drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises.
In the case of any eviction from or termination of tenancy
in public housing not described in the preceding sentence,
each of the following provisions shall apply:
(1) Such eviction or termination shall be subject to an
administrative grievance procedure if the tenant so evicted
or terminated requests a hearing under such procedure not
later than five days after service of notice of such eviction
or termination.
(2) The public housing agency shall take final action
regarding a grievance under paragraph (1) not later than
thirty days after such notice is served.
(3) If the public housing agency fails to provide a hearing
under the grievance procedure pursuant to a request under
paragraph (1) and take final action regarding the grievance
before the expiration of the 30-day period under paragraph
(2), the notice of eviction or termination shall be
considered void and shall not be given any force or effect.
(4) If a public housing authority takes final action on a
grievance for any eviction or termination, the tenant and any
member of the tenant's household shall not have any right in
connection with any subsequent eviction or termination notice
to request or be afforded any administrative grievance
hearing during the 1-year period beginning upon the date of
the final action.
Mr. BAKER of Louisiana (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio] for taking the time to help work out his concerns
with the amendment that I had offered.
My amendment simply tried to make sure that there was some process by
which people could, in the housing projects, could go through a
grievance procedure.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] certainly thought that there
should be some kind of informal procedure by which they could address
their concerns. This will do it. This will put a time limit so that
they, in fact, would have to bring this to the attention of the
authorities within 5 days. And if they do that, then we put another
time limit and the housing authority would have to react within a 30-
day period of time.
I think this addresses the concerns of those who thought that these
go on and on and on; they are not resolved. And even for those who go
to court, they have used up a great deal of time in the bureaucracy of
the housing authority addressing these issues. It appears that in some
cases they may have been abusing the process by coming time and time
again through the grievance procedure.
While I do believe it would have been best to just have one without
limit, I accept this and so does the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms.
Kilpatrick]. We believe that rather than shut it down altogether, this
does leave a door open and lets us see how it works. We believe that at
least it would give people the ability to address their concerns
without having to go into court and bear the expense of that. I do
appreciate the opportunity to do that.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to title I?
If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
The text of title II is as follows:
TITLE II--PUBLIC HOUSING
Subtitle A--Block Grants
SEC. 201. BLOCK GRANT CONTRACTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into contracts
with public housing agencies under which--
(1) the Secretary agrees to make a block grant under this
title, in the amount provided under section 202(c), for
assistance for low-income housing to the public housing
agency for each fiscal year covered by the contract; and
(2) the agency agrees--
(A) to provide safe, clean, and healthy housing that is
affordable to low-income families and services for families
in such housing;
(B) to operate, or provide for the operation, of such
housing in a financially sound manner;
(C) to use the block grant amounts in accordance with this
title and the local housing management plan for the agency
that complies with the requirements of section 106;
(D) to involve residents of housing assisted with block
grant amounts in functions and decisions relating to
management and the quality of life in such housing;
(E) that the management of the public housing of the agency
shall be subject to actions authorized under subtitle D of
title V;
(F) that the Secretary may take actions under section 205
with respect to improper use of grant amounts provided under
the contract; and
(G) to otherwise comply with the requirements under this
title.
(6) Small Public Housing Agency Capital Grant Option.--For
any fiscal year, upon the request of the Governor of the
State, the Secretary shall make available directly to the
State, from the amounts otherwise included in the block
grants for all public housing agencies in such State which
own or operate less than 100 dwelling units, \1/2\ of that
portion of such amounts that is derived from the capital
improvement allocations for such agencies pursuant to section
203(c)(1) or 203(d)(2), as applicable. The Governor of the
State will have the responsibility to distribute all of such
funds, in amounts determined by the Governor, only to meet
the exceptional capital improvement requirements for the
various public housing agencies in the State which operate
less than 100 dwelling units: Provided, however, That for
States where Federal funds provided to the State are subject
to appropriation action by the State legislature, the capital
funds made available to the Governor under this subsection
shall be subject to such appropriation by the State
legislature.
(c) Modification.--Contracts and agreements between the
Secretary and a public housing agency may not be amended in a
manner which would--
(1) impair the rights of--
(A) leaseholders for units assisted pursuant to a contract
or agreement; or
(B) the holders of any outstanding obligations of the
public housing agency involved for which annual contributions
have been pledged; or
(2) provide for payment of block grant amounts under this
title in an amount exceeding the allocation for the agency
determined under section 204.
Any rule of law contrary to this subsection shall be deemed
inapplicable.
SEC. 202. GRANT AUTHORITY, AMOUNT, AND ELIGIBILITY.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary shall make block grants under
this title to eligible public housing agencies in accordance
with block grant contracts under section 201.
(b) Performance Funds.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish 2 funds for
the provision of grants to eligible public housing agencies
under this title, as follows:
(A) Capital fund.--A capital fund to provide capital and
management improvements to public housing developments.
(B) Operating fund.--An operating fund for public housing
operations.
(2) Flexibility of funding.--
(A) In general.--A public housing agency may use up to 20
percent of the amounts from a grant under this title that are
allocated and provided from the capital fund for activities
that are eligible under section 203(a)(2) to be funded with
amounts from the operating fund.
(B) Full flexibility for small pha's.--In the case of a
public housing agency that owns or operates less than 250
public housing dwelling units and is (in the determination of
the Secretary) operating and maintaining its public housing
in a safe, clean, and healthy condition, the agency may use
amounts from a grant under this title for any eligible
activities under section 203(a), regardless of the fund from
which the amounts were allocated and provided.
(c) Amount of Grants.--The amount of the grant under this
title for a public housing agency for a fiscal year shall be
the amount of the allocation for the agency determined
[[Page H2212]]
under section 204, except as otherwise provided in this title
and title V.
(d) Eligibility.--A public housing agency shall be an
eligible public housing agency with respect to a fiscal year
for purposes of this title only if--
(1) the Secretary has entered into a block grant contract
with the agency;
(2) the agency has submitted a local housing management
plan to the Secretary for such fiscal year;
(3) the plan has been determined to comply with the
requirements under section 106 and the Secretary has not
notified the agency that the plan fails to comply with such
requirements;
(4) the agency is exempt from local taxes, as provided
under subsection (e), or receives a contribution, as provided
under such subsection;
(5) no member of the board of directors or other governing
body of the agency, or the executive director, has been
convicted of a felony;
(6) the agency has entered into an agreement providing for
local cooperation in accordance with subsection (f); and
(7) the agency has not been disqualified for a grant
pursuant to section 205(a) or title V.
(e) Payments in Lieu of State and Local Taxation of Public
Housing Developments.--
(1) Exemption from taxation.--A public housing agency may
receive a block grant under this title only if--
(A)(i) the developments of the agency (exclusive of any
portions not assisted with amounts provided under this title)
are exempt from all real and personal property taxes levied
or imposed by the State, city, county, or other political
subdivision; and
(ii) the public housing agency makes payments in lieu of
taxes to such taxing authority equal to 10 percent of the
sum, for units charged in the developments of the agency, of
the difference between the gross rent and the utility cost,
or such lesser amount as is--
(I) prescribed by State law;
(II) agreed to by the local governing body in its agreement
under subsection (f) for local cooperation with the public
housing agency or under a waiver by the local governing
body; or
(III) due to failure of a local public body or bodies other
than the public housing agency to perform any obligation
under such agreement; or
(B) the agency complies with the requirements under
subparagraph (A) with respect to public housing developments
(including public housing units in mixed-income
developments), but the agency agrees that the units other
than public housing units in any mixed-income developments
(as such term is defined in section 221(c)(2)) shall be
subject to any otherwise applicable real property taxes
imposed by the State, city, county or other political
subdivision.
(2) Effect of failure to exempt from taxation.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a public housing agency that
does not comply with the requirements under such paragraph
may receive a block grant under this title, but only if the
State, city, county, or other political subdivision in which
the development is situated contributes, in the form of cash
or tax remission, the amount by which the taxes paid with
respect to the development exceed 10 percent of the gross
rent and utility cost charged in the development.
(f) Local Cooperation.--In recognition that there should be
local determination of the need for low-income housing to
meet needs not being adequately met by private enterprise,
the Secretary may not make any grant under this title to a
public housing agency unless the governing body of the
locality involved has entered into an agreement with the
agency providing for the local cooperation required by the
Secretary pursuant to this title.
(g) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the
Secretary may make a grant under this title for a public
housing agency that is not an eligible public housing agency
but only for the period necessary to secure, in accordance
with this title, an alternative public housing agency for the
public housing of the ineligible agency.
(h) Recapture of Capital Assistance Amounts.--The Secretary
may recapture, from any grant amounts made available to a
public housing agency from the capital fund, any portion of
such amounts that are not used or obligated by the public
housing agency for use for eligible activities under section
203(a)(1) (or dedicated for use pursuant to section
202(b)(2)(A)) before the expiration of the 24-month period
beginning upon the award of such grant to the agency.
SEC. 203. ELIGIBLE AND REQUIRED ACTIVITIES.
(a) Eligible Activities.--Except as provided in subsection
(b) and in section 202(b)(2), grant amounts allocated and
provided from the capital fund and grant amounts allocated
and provided from the operating fund may be used for the
following activities:
(1) Capital fund activities.--Grant amounts from the
capital fund may be used for--
(A) the production and modernization of public housing
developments, including the redesign, reconstruction, and
reconfiguration of public housing sites and buildings and the
production of mixed-income developments;
(B) vacancy reduction;
(C) addressing deferred maintenance needs and the
replacement of dwelling equipment;
(D) planned code compliance;
(E) management improvements;
(F) demolition and replacement under section 261;
(G) tenant relocation;
(H) capital expenditures to facilitate programs to improve
the economic empowerment and self-sufficiency of public
housing tenants; and
(I) capital expenditures to improve the security and safety
of residents.
(2) Operating fund activities.--Grant amounts from the
operating fund may be used for--
(A) procedures and systems to maintain and ensure the
efficient management and operation of public housing units;
(B) activities to ensure a program of routine preventative
maintenance;
(C) anti-crime and anti-drug activities, including the
costs of providing adequate security for public housing
tenants;
(D) activities related to the provision of services,
including service coordinators for elderly persons or persons
with disabilities;
(E) activities to provide for management and participation
in the management of public housing by public housing
tenants;
(F) the costs associated with the operation and management
of mixed-income developments;
(G) the costs of insurance;
(H) the energy costs associated with public housing units,
with an emphasis on energy conservation;
(I) the costs of administering a public housing community
work program under section 105, including the costs of any
related insurance needs; and
(J) activities in connection with a homeownership program
for public housing residents under subtitle D, including
providing financing or assistance for purchasing housing, or
the provision of financial assistance to resident management
corporations or resident councils to obtain training,
technical assistance, and educational assistance to promote
homeownership opportunities.
(b) Required Conversion of Assistance for Public Housing to
Rental Housing Assistance.--
((1) Requirement.--A public housing agency that receives
grant amounts under this title shall provide assistance in
the form of rental housing assistance under title III, or
appropriate site revitalization or other appropriate capital
improvements approved by the Secretary, in lieu of assisting
the operation and modernization of any building or buildings
of public housing, if the agency provides sufficient evidence
to the Secretary that the building or buildings--
(A) are on the same or contiguous sites;
(B) consist of more than 300 dwelling units;
(C) have a vacancy rate of at least 10 percent for dwelling
units not in funded, on-schedule modernization programs;
(D) are identified as distressed housing for which the
public housing agency cannot assure the long-term viability
as public housing through reasonable revitalization, density
reduction, or achievement of a broader range of household
income; and
(E) have an estimated cost of continued operation and
modernization as public housing that exceeds the cost of
providing choice-based rental assistance under title III for
all families in occupancy, based on appropriate indicators of
cost (such as the percentage of the total development cost
required for modernization).
Public housing agencies shall identify properties that meet
the definition of subparagraphs (A) through (E) and shall
consult with the appropriate public housing residents and the
appropriate unit of general local government in identifying
such properties.
(2) Use of other amounts.--In addition to grant amounts
under this title attributable (pursuant to the formulas under
section 204) to the building or buildings identified under
paragraph (1), the Secretary may use amounts provided in
appropriation Acts for choice-based housing assistance under
title III for families residing in such building or buildings
or for appropriate site revitalization or other appropriate
capital improvements approved by the Secretary.
(3) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall take appropriate
action to ensure conversion of any building or buildings
identified under paragraph (1) and any other appropriate
action under this subsection, if the public housing agency
fails to take appropriate action under this subsection.
(4) Failure of pha's to comply with conversion
requirement.--If the Secretary determines that--
(A) a public housing agency has failed under paragraph (1)
to identify a building or buildings in a timely manner,
(B) a public housing agency has failed to identify one or
more buildings which the Secretary determines should have
been identified under paragraph (1), or
(C) one or more of the buildings identified by the public
housing agency pursuant to paragraph (1) should not, in the
determination of the Secretary, have been identified under
that paragraph,
the Secretary may identify a building or buildings for
conversion and take other appropriate action pursuant to this
subsection.
(5) Cessation of unnecessary spending.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, if, in the determination of the
Secretary, a building or buildings meets or is likely to meet
the criteria set forth in paragraph (1), the Secretary may
direct the public housing agency to cease additional spending
in connection with such building or buildings, except to the
extent that additional spending
[[Page H2213]]
is necessary to ensure safe, clean, and healthy housing until
the Secretary determines or approves an appropriate course of
action with respect to such building or buildings under this
subsection.
(6) Use of budget authority.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, if a building or buildings are identified
pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary may authorize or
direct the transfer, to the choice-based or tenant-based
assistance program of such agency or to appropriate site
revitalization or other capital improvements approved by the
Secretary, of--
(A) in the case of an agency receiving assistance under the
comprehensive improvement assistance program, any amounts
obligated by the Secretary for the modernization of such
building or buildings pursuant to section 14 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect immediately before
the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b));
(B) in the case of an agency receiving public housing
modernization assistance by formula pursuant to such section
14, any amounts provided to the agency which are attributable
pursuant to the formula for allocating such assistance to
such building or buildings;
(C) in the case of an agency receiving assistance for the
major reconstruction of obsolete projects, any amounts
obligated by the Secretary for the major reconstruction of
such building or buildings pursuant to section 5(j)(2) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, as in effect immediately
before the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b);
and
(D) in the case of an agency receiving assistance pursuant
to the formulas under section 204, any amounts provided to
the agency which are attributable pursuant to the formulas
for allocating such assistance to such building or buildings.
(7) Relocation requirements.--Any public housing agency
carrying out conversion of public housing under this
subsection shall--
(A) notify the families residing in the public housing
development subject to the conversion, in accordance with any
guidelines issued by the Secretary governing such
notifications, that--
(i) the development will be removed from the inventory of
the public housing agency; and
(ii) the families displaced by such action will receive
choice-based housing assistance or occupancy in a unit
operated or assisted by the public housing agency;
(B) ensure that each family that is a resident of the
development is relocated to other safe, clean, and healthy
affordable housing, which is, to the maximum extent
practicable, housing of the family's choice, including
choice-based assistance under title III (provided that with
respect to choice-based assistance, the preceding requirement
shall be fulfilled only upon the relocation of such family
into such housing);
(C) provide any necessary counseling for families displaced
by such action to facilitate relocation; and
(D) provide any reasonable relocation expenses for families
displaced by such action.
(8) Transition.--Any amounts made available to a public
housing agency to carry out section 202 of the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (enacted as
section 101(e) of Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat.
1321-279)) may be used, to the extent or in such amounts as
are or have been provided in advance in appropriation Acts,
to carry out this section. The Secretary shall provide for
public housing agencies to conform and continue actions
taken under such section 202 in accordance with the
requirements under this section.
(c) Extension of Deadlines.--The Secretary may, for a
public housing agency, extend any deadline established
pursuant to this section or a local housing management plan
for up to an additional 5 years if the Secretary makes a
determination that the deadline is impracticable.
(d) Compliance With Plan.--The local housing management
plan submitted by a public housing agency (including any
amendments to the plan), unless determined under section 107
not to comply with the requirements under section 106, shall
be binding upon the Secretary and the public housing agency
and the agency shall use any grant amounts provided under
this title for eligible activities under subsection (a) in
accordance with the plan. This subsection may not be
construed to preclude changes or amendments to the plan, as
authorized under section 107 or any actions authorized by
this Act to be taken without regard to a local housing
management plan.
(e) Eligible Activities for Increased Income.--Any public
housing agency that derives increased nonrental or rental
income, as referred to in subsection (c)(2)(B) or (d)(1)(D)
of section 204 or pursuant to provision of mixed-income
developments under section 221(c)(2), may use such amounts
for any eligible activity under paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (a) of this section or for providing choice-based
housing assistance under title III.
SEC. 204. DETERMINATION OF GRANT ALLOCATION.
(a) In General.--For each fiscal year, after reserving
amounts under section 111 from the aggregate amount made
available for the fiscal year for carrying out this title,
the Secretary shall allocate any remaining amounts among
eligible public housing agencies in accordance with this
section, so that the sum of all of the allocations for all
eligible authorities is equal to such remaining amount.
(b) Allocation Amount.--The Secretary shall determine the
amount of the allocation for each eligible public housing
agency, which shall be--
(1) for any fiscal year beginning after the enactment of a
law containing the formulas described in paragraphs (1) and
(2) of subsection (c), the sum of the amounts determined for
the agency under each such formula; or
(2) for any fiscal year beginning before the expiration of
such period, the sum of--
(A) the operating allocation determined under subsection
(d)(1) for the agency; and
(B) the capital improvement allocation determined under
subsection (d)(2) for the agency.
(c) Permanent Allocation Formulas for Capital and Operating
Funds.--
(1) Establishment of capital fund formula.--The formula
under this paragraph shall provide for allocating assistance
under the capital fund for a fiscal year. The formula may
take into account such factors as--
(A) the number of public housing dwelling units owned or
operated by the public housing agency, the characteristics
and locations of the developments, and the characteristics of
the families served and to be served (including the incomes
of the families);
(B) the need of the public housing agency to carry out
rehabilitation and modernization activities, and
reconstruction, production, and demolition activities related
to public housing dwelling units owned or operated by the
public housing agency, including backlog and projected future
needs of the agency;
(C) the cost of constructing and rehabilitating property in
the area; and
(D) the need of the public housing agency to carry out
activities that provided a safe and secure environment in
public housing units owned or operated by the public housing
agency.
(2) Establishment of operating fund formula.--
(A) In general.--The formula under this paragraph shall
provide for allocating assistance under the operating fund
for a fiscal year. The formula may take into account such
factors as--
(i) standards for the costs of operating and reasonable
projections of income, taking into account the
characteristics and locations of the public housing
developments and characteristics of the families served and
to be served (including the incomes of the families), or the
costs of providing comparable services as determined in
accordance with criteria or a formula representing the
operations of a prototype well-managed public housing
development;
(ii) the number of public housing dwelling units owned or
operated by the public housing agency;
(iii) the need of the public housing agency to carry out
anti-crime and anti-drug activities, including providing
adequate security for public housing residents; and
(iv) any record by the public housing agency of exemplary
performance in the operation of public housing.
(B) Incentive to increase income.--The formula shall
provide an incentive to encourage public housing agencies to
increase nonrental income and to increase rental income
attributable to their units by encouraging occupancy by
families whose incomes have increase while in occupancy and
newly admitted families. Any such incentive shall provide
that the agency shall derive the full benefit of any increase
in nonrental or rental income, and such increase shall not
result in a decrease in amounts provided to the agency under
this title. In addition, an agency shall be permitted to
retain, from each fiscal year, the full benefit of such an
increase in nonrental or rental income, except to the extent
that such benefit exceeds (i) 100 percent of the total amount
of the operating allocation for which the agency is eligible
under this section, and (ii) the maximum balance permitted
for the agency's operating reserve under this section and any
regulations issued under this section.
(C) Treatment of utility rates.--The formula shall not take
into account the amount of any cost reductions for a public
housing agency due to the difference between projected and
actual utility rates attributable to actions that are taken
by the agency which lead to such reductions, as determined by
the Secretary. In the case of any public housing agency that
receives financing from any person or entity other than the
Secretary or enters into a performance contract to undertake
energy conservation improvements in a public housing
development, under which the payment does not exceed the cost
of the energy saved as a result of the improvements during a
reasonable negotiated contract period, the formula shall not
take into account the amount of any cost reductions for
the agency due to the differences between projected and
actual utility consumption attributable to actions that
are taken by the agency which lead to such reductions, as
determined by the Secretary. Notwithstanding the preceding
2 sentences, after the expiration of the 10-year period
beginning upon the savings initially taking effect, the
Secretary may reduce the amount allocated to the agency
under the formula by up to 50 percent of such differences.
(3) Consideration of performance, costs, and other
factors.--The formulas under
[[Page H2214]]
paragraphs (1) and (2) should each reward performance and may
each consider appropriate factors that reflect the different
characteristics and sizes of public housing agencies, the
relative needs, revenues, costs, and capital improvements of
agencies, and the relative costs to agencies of operating a
well-managed agency that meets the performance targets for
the agency established in the local housing management plan
for the agency.
(4) Development under negotiated rulemaking procedure.--The
formulas under this subsection shall be developed according
to procedures for issuance of regulations under the
negotiated rulemaking procedure under subchapter III of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, except that the
formulas shall not be contained in a regulation.
(5) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 12-month
period beginning upon the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress containing
the proposed formulas established pursuant to paragraph (4)
that meets the requirements of this subsection.
(d) Interim Allocation Requirements.--
(1) Operating allocation.--
(A) Applicability to appropriated amounts.--Of any amounts
available for allocation under this subsection for a fiscal
year, an amount shall be used only to provide amounts for
operating allocations under this paragraph for eligible
public housing agencies that bears the same ratio to such
total amount available for allocation that the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1997 for operating subsidies
under section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937
bears to the sum of such operating subsidy amounts plus the
amounts appropriated for such fiscal year for modernization
under section 14 of such Act.
(B) Determination.--The operating allocation under this
paragraph for a public housing agency for a fiscal year shall
be an amount determined by applying, to the amount to be
allocated under this paragraph, the formula used for
determining the distribution of operating subsidies for
fiscal year 1997 to public housing agencies (as modified
under subparagraphs (C) and (D)) under section 9 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, as in effect immediately
before the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b).
(C) Treatment of chronically vacant units.--The Secretary
shall revise the formula referred to in subparagraph (B) so
that the formula does not provide any amounts, other than
utility costs and other necessary costs (such as costs
necessary for the protection of persons and property),
attributable to any dwelling unit of a public housing agency
that has been vacant continuously for 6 or more months. A
unit shall not be considered vacant for purposes of
this paragraph if the unit is unoccupied because of
rehabilitation or renovation that is on schedule.
(D) Treatment of increases in income.--The Secretary shall
revise the formula referred to in subparagraph (B) to provide
an incentive to encourage public housing agencies to increase
nonrental income and to increase rental income attributable
to their units by encouraging occupancy by families whose
incomes have increased while in occupancy and newly admitted
families. Any such incentive shall provide that the agency
shall derive the full benefit of any increase in nonrental or
rental income, and such increase shall not result in a
decrease in amounts provided to the agency under this title.
In addition, an agency shall be permitted to retain, from
each fiscal year, the full benefit of such an increase in
nonrental or rental income, except that such benefit may not
be retained if--
(i) the agency's operating allocation equals 100 percent of
the amount for which it is eligible under section 9 of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, as in effect immediately
before the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b)
of this Act; and
(ii) the agency's operating reserve balance is equal to the
maximum amount permitted under section 9 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as in effect immediately before the
effective date of the repeal under section 601(b) of this
Act.
(2) Capital improvement allocation.--
(A) Applicability to appropriated amounts.--Of any amounts
available for allocation under this subsection for a fiscal
year, an amount shall be used only to provide amounts for
capital improvement allocations under this paragraph for
eligible public housing agencies that bears the same ratio to
such total amount available for allocation that the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1997 for modernization under
section 14 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 bears to
the sum of such modernization amounts plus the amounts
appropriated for such fiscal year for operating subsidies
under section 9 of such Act.
(B) Determination.--The capital improvement allocation
under this paragraph for an eligible public housing agency
for a fiscal year shall be determined by applying, to the
amount to be allocated under this paragraph, the formula used
for determining the distribution of modernization assistance
for fiscal year 1997 to public housing agencies under section
14 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as in effect
immediately before the effective date of the repeal under
section 601(b), except that the Secretary shall establish a
method for taking into consideration allocation of amounts
under the comprehensive improvement assistance program.
(e) Eligibility of Units Acquired From Proceeds of Sales
Under Demolition or Disposition Plan.--If a public housing
agency uses proceeds from the sale of units under a
homeownership program in accordance with section 251 to
acquire additional units to be sold to low-income families,
the additional units shall be counted as public housing for
purposes of determining the amount of the allocation to the
agency under this section until sale by the agency, but in
any case no longer than 5 years.
SEC. 205. SANCTIONS FOR IMPROPER USE OF AMOUNTS.
(a) In General.--In addition to any other actions
authorized under this title, if the Secretary finds pursuant
to an audit under section 541 that a public housing agency
receiving grant amounts under this title has failed to comply
substantially with any provision of this title, the secretary
may--
(1) terminate payments under this title to the agency;
(2) withhold from the agency amounts from the total
allocation for the agency pursuant to section 204;
(3) reduce the amount of future grant payments under this
title to the agency by an amount equal to the amount of such
payments that were not expended in accordance with this
title;
(4) limit the availability of grant amounts provided to the
agency under this title to programs, projects, or activities
not affected by such failure to comply;
(5) withhold from the agency amounts allocated for the
agency under title III; or
(6) order other corrective action with respect to the
agency.
(b) Termination of Compliance Action.--If the Secretary
takes action under subsection (a) with respect to a public
housing agency, the Secretary shall--
(1) in the case of action under subsection (a)(1), resume
payments of grant amounts under this title to the agency in
the full amount of the total allocation under section 204 for
the agency at the time that the secretary first determines
that the agency will comply with the provisions of this
title;
(2) in the case of action under paragraph (2), (5), or (6)
of subsection (a), make withheld amounts available as the
Secretary considers appropriate to ensure that the agency
complies with the provisions of this title; or
(3) in the case of action under subsection (a)(4), release
such restrictions at the time that the Secretary first
determines that the agency will comply with the provisions of
this title.
Subtitle B--Admissions and Occupancy Requirements
SEC. 221. LOW-INCOME HOUSING REQUIREMENT.
(a) Production Assistance.--Any public housing produced
using amounts provided under a grant under this title or
under the United States Housing Act of 1937 shall be operated
as public housing for the 40-year period beginning upon such
production.
(b) Operating Assistance.--No portion of any public housing
development operated with amounts from a grant under this
title or operating assistance provided under the United
States Housing Act of 1937 may be disposed of before the
expiration of the 10-year period beginning upon the
conclusion of the fiscal year for which the grant or such
assistance was provided, except as provided in this Act.
(c) Capital Improvements Assistance.--Amounts may be used
for eligible activities under section 203(a)(1) only for the
following housing developments:
(1) Low-income developments.--Amounts may be used for a
low-income housing development that--
(A) is owned by public housing agencies;
(B) is operated as low-income rental housing and produced
or operated with assistance provided under a grant under this
title; and
(C) is consistent with the purposes of this title.
Any development, or portion thereof, referred to in this
paragraph for which activities under section 203(a)(1) are
conducted using amounts from a grant under this title shall
be maintained and used as public housing for the 20-year
period beginning upon the receipt of such grant. Any
public housing development, or portion thereof, that
received the benefit of a grant pursuant to section 14 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 shall be maintained
and used as public housing for the 20-year period
beginning upon receipt of such amounts.
(2) Mixed income developments.--Amounts may be used for
eligible activities under section 203(a)(1) for mixed-income
developments, which shall be a housing development that--
(A) contains dwelling units that are available for
occupancy by families other than low-income families;
(B) contains a number of dwelling units--
(i) which units are made available (by master contract or
individual lease) for occupancy only by low- and very low-
income families identified by the public housing agency;
(ii) which number is not less than a reasonable number of
units, including related amenities, taking into account the
amount of the assistance provided by the agency compared to
the total investment (including costs of operation) in the
development;
(iii) which units are subject to the statutory and
regulatory requirements of the public housing program, except
that the Secretary may grant appropriate waivers to such
statutory and regulatory requirements if reductions in
funding or other changes to the program make continued
application of such requirements impracticable;
[[Page H2215]]
(iv) which units are specially designated as dwelling units
under this subparagraph, except the equivalent units in the
development may be substituted for designated units during
the period the units are subject to the requirements of the
public housing program; and
(v) which units shall be eligible for assistance under this
title; and
(C) is owned by the public housing agency, an affiliate
controlled by it, or another appropriate entity.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, to
facilitate the establishment of socioeconomically mixed
communities, a public housing agency that uses grant amounts
under this title for a mixed income development under this
paragraph may, to the extent that income from such a
development reduces the amount of grant amounts used for
operating or other costs relating to public housing, use such
resulting savings to rent privately developed dwelling units
in the neighborhood of the mixed income development. Such
units shall be made available for occupancy only by low-
income families eligible for residency in public housing.
SEC. 222. FAMILY ELIGIBILITY.
(a) In General.--Dwelling units in public housing may be
rented only to families who are low-income families at the
time of their initial occupancy of such units.
(b) Income Mix Within Developments.--A public housing
agency may establish and utilize income-mix criteria for the
selection of residents for dwelling units in public housing
developments that limit admission to a development by
selecting applicants having incomes appropriate so that the
mix of incomes of families occupying the development at any
time is proportional to the income mix in the eligible
population of the jurisdiction of the agency at such time, as
adjusted to take into consideration the severity of
housing need. Any criteria established under this
subsection shall be subject to the provisions of
subsection (c).
(c) Income Mix.--
(1) PHA income mix.--Of the public housing dwelling units
of a public housing agency made available for occupancy by
eligible families, not less than 35 percent shall be occupied
by families whose incomes at the time of occupancy do not
exceed 30 percent of the area median income, as determined by
the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger
families, except that the Secretary, may for purposes of this
subsection, establish income ceilings higher or lower than 30
percent of the median for the area on the basis of the
Secretary's findings that such variations are necessary
because of unusually high or low family incomes. This
paragraph may not be construed to create any authority on the
part of any public housing agency to evict any family
residing in public housing solely because of the income of
the family or because of any noncompliance or overcompliance
with the requirement of this paragraph.
(2) Prohibition of concentration of low-income families.--A
public housing agency may not, in complying with the
requirements under paragraph (1), concentrate very low-income
families (or other families with relatively low incomes) in
public housing dwelling units in certain public housing
developments or certain buildings within developments. The
Secretary may review the income and occupancy characteristics
of the public housing developments, and the buildings of such
developments, of public housing agencies to ensure compliance
with the provisions of this paragraph.
(3) Fungibility with choice-based assistance.--If, during a
fiscal year, a public housing agency provides choice-based
housing assistance under title III for a number of low-income
families, who are initially assisted by the agency in such
year and have incomes described in section 321(b) (relating
to income targeting), which exceeds the number of families
that is required for the agency to comply with the percentage
requirement under such section 321(b) for such fiscal year,
notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this subsection, the number
of public housing dwelling units that the agency must
otherwise make available in accordance with such paragraph to
comply with the percentage requirement under such paragraph
shall be reduced by such excess number of families for such
fiscal year.
(d) Waiver of Eligibility Requirements for Occupancy by
Police Officers.--
(1) Authority and waiver.--To the extent necessary to
provide occupancy in public housing dwelling units to police
officers and other law enforcement or security personnel (who
are not otherwise eligible for residence in public housing)
and to increase security for other public housing residents
in developments where crime has been a problem, a public
housing agency may, with respect to such units and subject to
paragraph (2)--
(A) waive--
(i) the provisions of subsection (a) of this section and
section 225(a); and
(ii) the applicability of--
(I) any preferences for occupancy established under section
223;
(II) the minimum rental amount established pursuant to
section 225(c) and any maximum monthly rental amount
established pursuant to section 225(b);
(III) any criteria relating to income mix within
developments established under subsection (b);
(IV) the income mix requirements under subsection (c); and
(V) any other occupancy limitations or requirements; and
(B) establish special rent requirements and other terms and
conditions of occupancy.
(2) Conditions of waiver.--A public housing agency may take
the actions authorized in paragraph (1) only if agency
determines that such actions will increase security in the
public housing developments involved and will not result in a
significant reduction of units available for residence by
low-income families.
SEC. 223. PREFERENCES FOR OCCUPANCY.
(a) Authority To Establish.--Each public housing agency may
establish a system for making dwelling units in public
housing available for occupancy that provides preference for
such occupancy to families having certain characteristics.
(b) Content.--Each system of preferences established
pursuant to this section shall be based upon local housing
needs and priorities, as determined by the public housing
agency using generally accepted data sources, including any
information obtained pursuant to an opportunity for public
comment as provided under section 106(e) and under the
requirements applicable to the comprehensive housing
affordability strategy for the relevant jurisdiction.
(c) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that, to the greatest extent practicable, public housing
agencies involved in the selection of tenants under the
provisions of this title should adopt preferences for
individuals who are victims of domestic violence.
SEC. 224. ADMISSION PROCEDURES.
(a) Admission Requirements.--A public housing agency shall
ensure that each family residing in a public housing
development owned or administered by the agency is admitted
in accordance with the procedures established under this
title by the agency and the income limits under section 222.
(b) Notification of Application Decisions.--A public
housing agency shall establish procedures designed to provide
for notification to an applicant for admission to public
housing of the determination with respect to such
application, the basis for the determination, and, if the
applicant is determined to be eligible for admission, the
projected date of occupancy (to the extent such data can
reasonably be determined). If an agency denies an applicant
admission to public housing, the agency shall notify the
applicant that the applicant may request an informal hearing
on the denial within a reasonable time of such notification.
(c) Site-Based Waiting Lists.--A public housing agency may
establish procedures for maintaining waiting lists for
admissions to public housing developments of the agency,
which may include (notwithstanding any other law, regulation,
handbook, or notice to the contrary) a system of site-based
waiting lists whereby applicants may apply directly at or
otherwise designate the development or developments in which
they seek to reside. All such procedures shall comply with
all provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Fair Housing Act, and other applicable civil rights laws.
(d) Confidentiality for Victims of Domestic Violence.--A
public housing agency shall be subject to the restrictions
regarding release of information relating to the identity and
new residence of any family in public housing that was a
victim of domestic violence that are applicable to shelters
pursuant to the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act.
The agency shall work with the United States Postal Service
to establish procedures consistent with the confidentiality
provisions in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
(e) Transfers.--A public housing agency may apply, to each
public housing resident seeking to transfer from one
development to another development owned or operated by the
agency, the screening procedures applicable at such time to
new applicants for public housing.
SEC. 225. FAMILY CHOICE OF RENTAL PAYMENT.
(a) Rental Contribution by Resident.--A family residing in
a public housing dwelling shall pay as monthly rent for the
unit the amount determined under paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (b), subject to the requirement under subsection
(c). Each public housing agency shall provide for each family
residing in a public housing dwelling unit owned or
administered by the agency to elect annually whether the rent
paid by such family shall be determined under paragraph (1)
or (2) of subsection (b).
(b) Allowable Rent Structures.--
(1) Flat rents.--Each public housing agency shall
establish, for each dwelling unit in public housing owned or
administered by the agency, a flat rental amount for the
dwelling unit, which shall--
(A) be based on the rental value of the unit, as determined
by the public housing agency; and
(B) be designed in accordance with subsection (e) so that
the rent structures do not create a disincentive for
continued residency in public housing by families who are
attempting to become economically self-sufficient through
employment or who have attained a level of self-sufficiency
through their own efforts.
The rental amount for a dwelling unit shall be considered to
comply with the requirements of this paragraph if such amount
does not exceed the actual monthly costs to the public
housing agency attributable to providing and operating the
dwelling unit. The preceding sentence may not be construed to
require establishment of rental amounts
[[Page H2216]]
equal to or based on operating costs or to prevent public
housing agencies from developing flat rents required under
this paragraph in any other manner that may comply with this
paragraph.
(2) Income-based rents.--The monthly rental amount
determined under this paragraph for a family shall be an
amount, determined by the public housing agency, that does
not exceed the greatest of the following amounts (rounded to
the nearest dollar):
(A) 30 percent of the monthly adjusted income of the
family.
(B) 10 percent of the monthly income of the family.
(C) If the family is receiving payments for welfare
assistance from a public agency and a part of such payments,
adjusted in accordance with the actual housing costs of the
family, is specifically designated by such agency to meet the
housing costs of the family, the portion of such payments
that is so designated.
Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to require a
public housing agency to charge a monthly rent in the maximum
amount permitted under this paragraph.
(c) Minimum Rental Amount.--Notwithstanding the method for
rent determination elected by a family pursuant to subsection
(a), each public housing agency shall require that the
monthly rent for each dwelling unit in public housing owned
or administered by the agency shall not be less than a
minimum amount (which amount shall include any amount allowed
for utilities), which shall be an amount determined by the
agency that is not less than $25 nor more than $50.
(d) Hardship Provisions.--
(1) Minimum rental.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), a public
housing agency shall grant an exemption from application of
the minimum monthly rental under such subsection to any
family unable to pay such amount because of financial
hardship, which shall include situations in which (i) the
family has lost eligibility for or is awaiting an eligibility
determination for a Federal, State, or local assistance
program; (ii) the family would be evicted as a result of the
imposition of the minimum rent requirement under subsection
(c); (iii) the income of the family has decreased because of
changed circumstance, including loss of employment; and (iv)
a death in the family has occurred; and other situations as
may be determined by the agency.
(B) Waiting period.--If a resident requests a hardship
exemption under this paragraph and the public housing agency
reasonably determines the hardship to be of a temporary
nature, an exemption shall not be granted during the 90-day
period beginning upon the making of a request for the
exemption. A resident may not be evicted during such 90-day
period for nonpayment of rent. In such a case, if the
resident thereafter demonstrates that the financial hardship
is of a long-term basis, the agency shall retroactively
exempt the resident from the applicability of the minimum
rent requirement for such 90-day period.
(2) Switching rent determination methods.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a), in the case of a family that has elected to
pay rent in the amount determined under subsection (b)(1), a
public housing agency shall provide for the family to pay
rent in the amount determined under subsection (b)(2) during
the period for which such election was made if the family is
unable to pay the amount determined under subsection (b)(1)
because of financial hardship, including--
(A) situations in which the income of the family has
decreased because of changed circumstances, loss or reduction
of employment, death in the family, and reduction in or loss
of income or other assistance;
(B) an increase, because of changed circumstances, in the
family's expenses for--
(i) medical costs;
(ii) child care;
(iii) transportation;
(iv) education; or
(v) similar items; and
(C) such other situations as may be determined by the
agency.
(e) Encouragement of Self-Sufficiency.--The rental policy
developed by each public housing agency shall encourage and
reward employment and economic self-sufficiency.
(f) Income Reviews.--Each public housing agency shall
review the income of each family occupying a dwelling unit in
public housing owned or administered by the agency not less
than annually, except that, in the case of families that are
paying rent in the amount determined under subsection (b)(1),
the agency shall review the income of such family not less
than once every 3 years.
(g) Disallowance of Earned Income From Rent
Determinations.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the rent payable under this section by a family whose
income increases as a result of employment of a member of the
family who was previously unemployed for 1 or more years
(including a family whose income increases as a result of the
participation of a family member in any family self-
sufficiency or other job training program) may not be
increased as a result of the increased income due to such
employment during the 18-month period beginning on the date
on which the employment is commenced.
(2) Phase-in of rent increases.--After the expiration of
the 18-month period referred to in paragraph (1), rent
increases due to the continued employment of the family
member described in paragraph (1) shall be phased in over a
subsequent 3-year period.
(3) Transition.--Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraphs (1) and (2), any resident of public housing
participating in the program under the authority contained in
the undesignated paragraph at the end of section 3(c)(3) of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before
the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b) of this
Act) shall be governed by such authority after such date.
(h) Phase-In of Rent Contribution Increases After Effective
Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), for
any family residing in a dwelling unit in public housing upon
the effective date of this Act, if the monthly contribution
for rental of an assisted dwelling unit to be paid by the
family upon initial applicability of this title is greater
than the amount paid by the family under the provisions of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 immediately before such
applicability, any such resulting increase in rent
contribution shall be--
(A) phased in equally over a period of not less than 3
years, if such increase is 30 percent or more of such
contribution before initial applicability; and
(B) limited to not more than 10 percent per year if such
increase is more than 10 percent but less than 30 percent of
such contribution before initial applicability.
(2) Exception.--The minimum rental amount under subsection
(c) shall apply to each family described in paragraph (1) of
this subsection, notwithstanding such paragraph.
SEC. 226. LEASE REQUIREMENTS.
In renting dwelling units in a public housing development,
each public housing agency shall utilize leases that--
(1) do not contain unreasonable terms and conditions;
(2) obligate the public housing agency to maintain the
development in compliance with the housing quality
requirements under section 232;
(3) require the public housing agency to give adequate
written notice of termination of the lease, which shall not
be less than--
(A) the period provided under the applicable law of the
jurisdiction or 14 days, whichever is less, in the case of
nonpayment of rent;
(B) a reasonable period of time, but not to exceed 14 days,
when the health or safety of other residents or public
housing agency employees is threatened; and
(C) the period of time provided under the applicable law of
the jurisdiction, in any other case;
(4) contain the provisions required under sections 642 and
643 (relating to limitations on occupancy in federally
assisted housing); and
(5) specify that, with respect to any notice of eviction or
termination, notwithstanding any State law, a public housing
resident shall be informed of the opportunity, prior to any
hearing or trial, to examine any relevant documents, records
or regulations directly related to the eviction or
termination.
SEC. 227. DESIGNATED HOUSING FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED
FAMILIES.
(a) Authority to Provide Designated Housing.--
(1) In general.--Subject only to provisions of this section
and notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public
housing agency for which the information required under
subsection (d) is in effect may provide public housing
developments (or portions of developments) designated for
occupancy by (A) only elderly families, (B) only disabled
families, or (C) elderly and disabled families.
(2) Priority for occupancy.--In determining priority for
admission to public housing developments (or portions of
developments) that are designated for occupancy as provided
in paragraph (1), the public housing agency may make units in
such developments (or portions) available on to the types of
families for whom the development is designated.
(3) Eligibility of near-elderly families.--If a public
housing agency determines that there are insufficient numbers
of elderly families to fill all the units in a development
(or portion of a development) designated under paragraph (1)
for occupancy by only elderly families, the agency may
provide that near-elderly families may occupy dwelling units
in the development (or portion).
(b) Standards Regarding Evictions.--Except as provided in
subtitle C of title VI, any tenant who is lawfully residing
in a dwelling unit in a public housing development may not be
evicted or otherwise required to vacate such unit because of
the designation of the development (or portion of a
development) pursuant to this section or because of any
action taken by the Secretary or any public housing agency
pursuant to this section.
(c) Relocation Assistance.--A public housing agency that
designates any existing development or building, or portion
thereof, for occupancy as provided under subsection (A)(1)
shall provide, to each person and family who agrees to be
relocated in connection with such designation--
(1) notice of the designation and an explanation of
available relocation benefits, as soon as is practicable for
the agency and the person or family;
(2) access to comparable housing (including appropriate
services and design features), which may include choice-based
rental housing assistance under title III, at a rental rate
[[Page H2217]]
paid by the tenant that is comparable to that applicable to
the unit from which the person or family has vacated; and
(3) payment of actual, reasonable moving expenses.
(d) Required Inclusions in Local Housing Management Plan.--
A public housing agency may designate a development (or
portion of a development) for occupancy under subsection
(a)(1) only if the agency, as part of the agency's local
housing management plan--
(1) establishes that the designation of the development is
necessary--
(A) to achieve the housing goals for the jurisdiction under
the comprehensive housing affordability strategy under
section 105 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act; or
(B) to meet the housing needs of the low-income population
of the jurisdiction; and
(2) includes a description of--
(A) the development (or portion of a development) to be
designated;
(B) the types of tenants for which the development is to be
designated;
(C) any supportive services to be provided to tenants of
the designated development (or portion);
(D) how the design and related facilities (as such term is
defined in section 202(d)(8) of the Housing Act of 1959) of
the development accommodate the special environmental needs
of the intended occupants; and
(E) any plans to secure additional resources or housing
assistance to provide assistance to families that may have
been housed if occupancy in the development were not
restricted pursuant to this section.
For purposes of this subsection, the term ``supportive
services'' means services designed to meet the special needs
of residents. Notwithstanding section 107, the Secretary may
approve a local housing management plan without approving the
portion of the plan covering designation of a development
pursuant to this section.
(e) Effectiveness.--
(1) Initial 5-year effectiveness.--The information required
under subsection (d) shall be in effect for purposes of this
section during the 5-year period that begins upon
notification under section 107(a) of the public housing
agency that the information complies with the requirements
under section 106 and this section.
(2) Renewal.--Upon the expiration of the 5-year period
under paragraph (1) or any 2-year period under this
paragraph, an agency may extend the effectiveness of the
designation and information for an additional 2-year period
(that begins upon such expiration) by submitting to the
Secretary any information needed to update the information.
The Secretary may not limit the number of times a public
housing agency extends the effectiveness of a designation and
information under this paragraph.
(3) Treatment of existing plans.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, a public housing agency shall be
considered to have submitted the information required under
this section if the agency has submitted to the Secretary an
application and allocation plan under section 7 of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before the effective
date of the repeal under section 601(b) of this Act) that has
not been approved or disapproved before such effective
date.
(4) Transition provision.--Any application and allocation
plan approved under section 7 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (as in effect before the effective date of the
repeal under section 601(b) of this Act) before such
effective date shall be considered to be the information
required to be submitted under this section and that is in
effect for purposes of this section for the 5-year period
beginning upon such approval.
(f) Inapplicability of Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970.--No resident
of a public housing development shall be considered to be
displaced for purposes of the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act of 1970 because of
the designation of any existing development or building, or
portion thereof, for occupancy as provided under subsection
(a) of this section.
(g) Use of Amounts.--Any amounts appropriated pursuant to
section 10(b) of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-120) may also be used, to the
extent or in such amounts as are or have been provided in
advance in appropriation Acts, for choice-based rental
housing assistance under title III for public housing
agencies to implement this section.
Subtitle C--Management
SEC. 231. MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES.
(a) Sound Management.--A public housing agency that
receives grant amounts under this title shall establish and
comply with procedures and practices sufficient to ensure
that the public housing developments owned or administered by
the agency are operated in a sound manner.
(b) Accounting System for Rental Collections and Costs.--
(1) Establishment.--Each public housing agency that
receives grant amounts under this title shall establish and
maintain a system of accounting for rental collections and
costs (including administrative, utility, maintenance,
repair, and other operating costs) for each project and
operating cost center (as determined by the Secretary).
(2) Access to records.--Each public housing agency shall
make available to the general public the information required
pursuant to paragraph (1) regarding collections and costs.
(3) Exemption.--The Secretary may permit authorities owning
or operating fewer than 500 dwelling units to comply with the
requirements of this subsection by accounting on an agency-
wide basis.
(c) Management by Other Entities.--Except as otherwise
provided under this Act, a public housing agency may contract
with any other entity to perform any of the management
functions for public housing owned or operated by the public
housing agency.
SEC. 232. HOUSING QUALITY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Each public housing agency that receives
grant amounts under this Act shall maintain its public
housing in a condition that complies--
(1) in the case of public housing located in a jurisdiction
which has in effect laws, regulations, standards, or codes
regarding habitability of residential dwellings, with such
applicable laws, regulations, standards, or codes; or
(2) in the case of public housing located in a jurisdiction
which does not have in effect laws, regulations, standards,
or codes described in paragraph (1), with the housing quality
standards established under subsection (b).
(b) Federal Housing Quality Standards.--The Secretary shall
establish housing quality standards under this subsection
that ensure that public housing dwelling units are safe,
clean, and healthy. Such standards shall include requirements
relating to habitability, including maintenance, health and
sanitation factors, condition, and construction of dwellings,
and shall, to the greatest extent practicable, be consistent
with the standards established under section 328(c). The
Secretary shall differentiate between major and minor
violations of such standards.
(c) Determinations.--Each public housing agency providing
housing assistance shall identify, in the local housing
management plan of the agency, whether the agency is
utilizing the standard under paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (a).
(d) Annual Inspections.--Each public housing agency that
owns or operates public housing shall make an annual
inspection of each public housing development to determine
whether units in the development are maintained in accordance
with the requirements under subsection (a). The agency shall
retain the results of such inspections and, upon the request
of the Secretary, the Inspector General for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, or any auditor conducting an
audit under section 541, shall make such results available.
SEC. 233. EMPLOYMENT OF RESIDENTS.
Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968
(12 U.S.C. 1701u) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``public and Indian housing agencies'' and
inserting ``public housing agencies and recipients of grants
under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996''; and
(ii) by striking ``development assistance'' and all that
follows through the end and inserting ``assistance provided
under title II of the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility
Act of 1997 and used for the housing production, operation,
or capital needs.''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``managed by the
public or Indian housing agency'' and inserting ``assisted by
the public housing agency or the recipient of a grant under
the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act of 1996''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``public and Indian housing agencies'' and
inserting ``public housing agencies and recipients of grants
under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996''; and
(ii) by striking ``development assistance'' and all that
follows through ``section 14 of that Act'' and inserting
``assistance provided under title II of the Housing
Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 1997 and used for the
housing production, operation, or capital needs''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``operated by the
public or Indian housing agency'' and inserting ``assisted by
the public housing agency or the recipient of a grant under
the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
Act of 1996''.
SEC. 234. RESIDENT COUNCILS AND RESIDENT MANAGEMENT
CORPORATIONS.
(a) Resident Councils.--The residents of a public housing
development may establish a resident council for the
development for purposes of consideration of issues relating
to residents, representation of resident interests, and
coordination and consultation with a public housing agency. A
resident council shall be an organization or association
that--
(1) is nonprofit in character;
(2) is representative of the residents of the eligible
housing;
(3) adopts written procedures providing for the election of
officers on a regular basis; and
(4) has a democratically elected governing board, which is
elected by the residents of the eligible housing on a regular
basis.
(b) Resident Management Corporations.--
[[Page H2218]]
(1) Establishment.--The residents of a public housing
development may establish a resident management corporation
for the purpose of assuming the responsibility for the
management of the development under section 235 or purchasing
a development.
(2) Requirements.--A resident management corporation shall
be a corporation that--
(A) is nonprofit in character;
(B) is organized under the laws of the State in which the
development is located;
(C) has as its sole voting members the residents of the
development; and
(D) is established by the resident council for the
development or, if there is not a resident council, by a
majority of the households of the development.
SEC. 235. MANAGEMENT BY RESIDENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION.
(a) Authority.--A public housing agency may enter into a
contract under this section with a resident management
corporation to provide for the management of public housing
developments by the corporation.
(b) Contract.--A contract under this section for management
of public housing developments by a resident management
corporation shall establish the respective management rights
and responsibilities of the corporation and the public
housing agency. The contract shall be consistent with the
requirements of this Act applicable to public housing
development and may include specific terms governing
management personnel and compensation, access to public
housing records, submission of and adherence to budgets, rent
collection procedures, resident income verification, resident
eligibility determinations, resident eviction, the
acquisition of supplies and materials and such other matters
as may be appropriate. The contract shall be treated as a
contracting out of services.
(c) Bonding and Insurance.--Before assuming any management
responsibility for a public housing development, the resident
management corporation shall provide fidelity bonding and
insurance, or equivalent protection. Such bonding and
insurance, or its equivalent, shall be adequate to protect
the Secretary and the public housing agency against loss,
theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent acts on the part of the
resident management corporation or its employees.
(d) Block Grant Assistance and Income.--A contract under
this section shall provide for--
(1) the public housing agency to provide a portion of the
block grant assistance under this title to the resident
management corporation for purposes of operating the public
housing development covered by the contract and performing
such other eligible activities with respect to the
development as may be provided under the contract;
(2) the amount of income expected to be derived from the
development itself (from sources such as rents and charges);
(3) the amount of income to be provided to the development
from the other sources of income of the public housing agency
(such as interest income, administrative fees, and rents);
and
(4) any income generated by a resident management
corporation of a public housing development that exceeds the
income estimated under the contract shall be used for
eligible activities under section 203(a).
(e) Calculation of Total Income.--
(1) Maintenance of support.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
amount of assistance provided by a public housing agency to a
public housing development managed by a resident management
corporation may not be reduced during the 3-year period
beginning on the date on which the resident management
corporation is first established for the development.
(2) Reductions and increases in support.--If the total
income of a public housing agency is reduced or increased,
the income provided by the public housing agency to a public
housing development managed by a resident management
corporation shall be reduced or increased in proportion to
the reduction or increase in the total income of the agency,
except that any reduction in block grant amounts under this
title to the agency that occurs as a result of fraud, waste,
or mismanagement by the agency shall not affect the amount
provided to the resident management corporation.
SEC. 236. TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN HOUSING TO
INDEPENDENT MANAGER AT REQUEST OF RESIDENTS.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary may transfer the
responsibility and authority for management of specified
housing (as such term is defined in subsection (h)) from a
public housing agency to an eligible management entity, in
accordance with the requirements of this section, if--
(1) such housing is owned or operated by a public housing
agency that is designated as a troubled agency under section
533(a); and
(2) the Secretary determines that--
(A) such housing has deferred maintenance, physical
deterioration, or obsolescence of major systems and other
deficiencies in the physical plant of the project;
(B) such housing is occupied predominantly by families with
children who are in a severe state of distress, characterized
by such factors as high rates of unemployment, teenage
pregnancy, single-parent households, long-term dependency on
public assistance and minimal educational achievement;
(C) such housing is located in an area such that the
housing is subject to recurrent vandalism and criminal
activity (including drug-related criminal activity); and
(D) the residents can demonstrate that the elements of
distress for such housing specified in subparagraphs (A)
through (C) can be remedied by an entity that has a
demonstrated capacity to manage; with reasonable expenses for
modernization.
Such a transfer may be made only as provided in this section,
pursuant to the approval by the Secretary of a request for
the transfer made by a majority vote of the residents for the
specified housing, after consultation with the public housing
agency for the specified housing.
(b) Block Grant Assistance.--Pursuant to a contract under
subsection (c), the Secretary shall require the public
housing agency for specified housing to provide to the
manager for the housing, from any block grant amounts under
this title for the agency, fair and reasonable amounts for
operating costs for the housing. The amount made available
under this subsection to a manager shall be determined by the
Secretary based on the share for the specified housing of the
total block grant amounts for the public housing agency
transferring the housing, taking into consideration the
operating and capital improvement needs of the specified
housing, the operating and capital improvement needs of the
remaining public housing units managed by the public housing
agency, and the local housing management plan of such agency.
(c) Contract Between Secretary and Manager.--
(1) Requirements.--Pursuant to the approval of a request
under this section for transfer of the management of
specified housing, the Secretary shall enter into a contract
with the eligible management entity.
(2) Terms.--A contract under this subsection shall contain
provisions establishing the rights and responsibilities of
the manager with respect to the specified housing and the
Secretary and shall be consistent with the requirements of
this Act applicable to public housing developments.
(d) Compliance With Local Housing Management Plan.--A
manager of specified housing under this section shall comply
with the approved local housing management plan applicable to
the housing and shall submit such information to the public
housing agency from which management was transferred as may
be necessary for such agency to prepare and update its local
housing management plan.
(e) Demolition and Disposition by Manager.--A manager under
this section may demolish or dispose of specified housing
only if, and in the manner, provided for in the local housing
management plan for the agency transferring management of the
housing.
(f) Limitation on PHA Liability.--A public housing agency
that is not a manager for specified housing shall not be
liable for any act or failure to act by a manager or resident
council for the specified housing.
(g) Treatment of Manager.--To the extent not inconsistent
with this section and to the extent the Secretary determines
not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, a manager of
specified housing under this section shall be considered to
be a public housing agency for purposes of this title.
(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
(1) Eligible management entity.--The term ``eligible
management entity'' means, with respect to any public housing
development, any of the following entities:
(A) Nonprofit organization.--A public or private nonprofit
organization, which shall--
(i) include a resident management corporation or resident
management organization and, as determined by the Secretary,
a public or private nonprofit organization sponsored by the
public housing agency that owns the development; and
(ii) not include the public housing agency that owns the
development.
(B) For-profit entity.--A for-profit entity that has
demonstrated experience in providing low-income housing.
(C) State or local government.--A State or local
government, including an agency or instrumentality thereof.
(D) Public housing agency.--A public housing agency (other
than the public housing agency that owns the development).
The term does not include a resident council.
(2) Manager.--The term ``manager'' means any eligible
management entity that has entered into a contract under this
section with the Secretary for the management of specified
housing.
(3) Nonprofit.--The term ``nonprofit'' means, with respect
to an organization, association, corporation, or other
entity, that no part of the net earnings of the entity inures
to the benefit of any member, founder, contributor, or
individual.
(4) Private nonprofit organization.--The term ``private
nonprofit organization'' means any private organization
(including a State or locally chartered organization) that--
(A) is incorporated under State or local law;
(B) is nonprofit in character;
(C) complies with standards of financial accountability
acceptable to the Secretary; and
(D) has among its purposes significant activities related
to the provision of decent housing that is affordable to low-
income families.
(5) Public housing agency.--The term ``public housing
agency'' has the meaning given such term in section 103(a).
[[Page H2219]]
(6) Public nonprofit organization.--The term ``public
nonprofit organization'' means any public entity that is
nonprofit in character.
(7) Specified housing.--The term ``specified housing''
means a public housing development or developments, or a
portion of a development or developments, for which the
transfer of management is requested under this section. The
term includes one or more contiguous buildings and an area of
contiguous row houses, but in the case of a single building,
the building shall be sufficiently separable from the
remainder of the development of which it is part to make
transfer of the management of the building feasible for
purposes of this section.
SEC. 237. RESIDENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to encourage
increased resident management of public housing developments,
as a means of improving existing living conditions in public
housing developments, by providing increased flexibility for
public housing developments that are managed by residents
by--
(1) permitting the retention, and use for certain purposes,
of any revenues exceeding operating and project costs; and
(2) providing funding, from amounts otherwise available,
for technical assistance to promote formation and development
of resident management entities.
For purposes of this section, the term ``public housing
development'' includes one or more contiguous buildings or an
area of contiguous row houses the elected resident councils
of which approve the establishment of a resident management
corporation and otherwise meet the requirements of this
section.
(b) Program Requirements.--
(1) Resident council.--As a condition of entering into a
resident opportunity program, the elected resident council of
a public housing development shall approve the establishment
of a resident management corporation that complies with the
requirements of section 234(b)(2). When such approval is made
by the elected resident council of a building or row house
area, the resident opportunity program shall not interfere
with the rights of other families residing in the development
or harm the efficient operation of the development. The
resident management corporation and the resident council may
be the same organization, if the organization complies with
the requirements applicable to both the corporation and
council.
(2) Public housing management specialist.--The resident
council of a public housing development, in cooperation with
the public housing agency, shall select a qualified public
housing management specialist to assist in determining the
feasibility of, and to help establish, a resident management
corporation and to provide training and other duties agreed
to in the daily operations of the development.
(3) Management responsibilities.--A resident management
corporation that qualifies under this section, and that
supplies insurance and bonding or equivalent protection
sufficient to the Secretary and the public housing agency,
shall enter into a contract with the agency establishing the
respective management rights and responsibilities of the
corporation and the agency. The contract shall be treated as
a contracting out of services and shall be subject to the
requirements under section 235 for such contracts.
(4) Annual audit.--The books and records of a resident
management corporation operating a public housing development
shall be audited annually by a certified public accountant. A
written report of each such audit shall be forwarded to the
public housing agency and the Secretary.
(c) Comprehensive Improvement Assistance.--Public housing
developments managed by resident management corporations may
be provided with modernization assistance from grant amounts
under this title for purposes of renovating such
developments. If such renovation activities (including the
planning and architectural design of the rehabilitation) are
administered by a resident management corporation, the public
housing agency involved may not retain, for any
administrative or other reason, any portion of the assistance
provided pursuant to this subsection unless otherwise
provided by contract.
(d) Waiver of Federal Requirements.--
(1) Waiver of regulatory requirements.--Upon the request of
any resident management corporation and public housing
agency, and after notice and an opportunity to comment is
afforded to the affected residents, the Secretary may waive
(for both the resident management corporation and the public
housing agency) any requirement established by the Secretary
(and not specified in any statute) that the Secretary
determines to unnecessarily increase the costs or restrict
the income of a public housing development.
(2) Waiver to permit employment.--Upon the request of any
resident management corporation, the Secretary may, subject
to applicable collective bargaining agreements, permit
residents of such development to volunteer a portion of their
labor.
(3) Exceptions.--The Secretary may not waive under this
subsection any requirement with respect to income eligibility
for purposes of section 222, family rental payments under
section 225, tenant or applicant protections, employee
organizing rights, or rights of employees under collective
bargaining agreements.
(e) Operating Assistance and Development Income.--
(1) Calculation of operating subsidy.--The grant amounts
received under this title by a public housing agency used for
operating fund activities under section 203(a)(2) that are
allocated to a public housing development managed by a
resident management corporation shall not be less than per
unit monthly amount of such assistance used by the public
housing agency in the previous year, as determined on an
individual development basis.
(2) Contract requirements.--Any contract for management of
a public housing development entered into by a public housing
agency and a resident management corporation shall specify
the amount of income expected to be derived from the
development itself (from sources such as rents and charges)
and the amount of income funds to be provided to the
development from the other sources of income of the agency
(such as assistance for operating activities under section
203(a)(2), interest income, administrative fees, and rents).
(f) Resident Management Technical Assistance and
Training.--
(1) Financial assistance.--To the extent budget authority
is available under this title, the Secretary shall provide
financial assistance to resident management corporations or
resident councils that obtain, by contract or otherwise,
technical assistance for the development of resident
management entities, including the formation of such
entities, the development of the management capability of
newly formed or existing entities, the identification of the
social support needs of residents of public housing
developments, and the securing of such support. In addition,
the Secretary may provide financial assistance to resident
management corporations or resident councils for activities
sponsored by resident organizations for economic uplift, such
as job training, economic development, security, and other
self-sufficiency activities beyond those related to the
management of public housing. The Secretary may require
resident councils or resident management corporations to
utilize public housing agencies or other qualified
organizations as contract administrators with respect to
financial assistance provided under this paragraph.
(2) Limitation on assistance.--The financial assistance
provided under this subsection with respect to any public
housing development may not exceed $100,000.
(3) Prohibition.--A resident management corporation or
resident council may not, before the award to the corporation
or council of a grant amount under this subsection, enter
into any contract or other agreement with any entity to
provide such entity with amounts from the grant for providing
technical assistance or carrying out other activities
eligible for assistance with amounts under this subsection.
Any such agreement entered into in violation of this
paragraph shall be void and unenforceable.
(4) Funding.--Of any amounts made available under section
282(1) for use under the capital fund, the Secretary may use
to carry out this subsection $15,000,000 for fiscal year
1998.
(5) Limitation regarding assistance under hope grant
program.--The Secretary may not provide financial assistance
under this subsection to any resident management corporation
or resident council with respect to which assistance for the
development or formation of such entity is provided under
title III of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in
effect before the effective date of the repeal under section
601(b) of this Act).
(6) Technical assistance and clearinghouse.--The Secretary
may use up to 10 percent of the amount made available
pursuant to paragraph (4)--
(A) to provide technical assistance, directly or by grant
or contract, and
(B) to receive, collect, process, assemble, and disseminate
information,
in connection with activities under this subsection.
(g) Assessment and Report by Secretary.--Not later than 3
years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall--
(1) conduct an evaluation and assessment of resident
management, and particularly of the effect of resident
management on living conditions in public housing; and
(2) submit to the Congress a report setting forth the
findings of the Secretary as a result of the evaluation and
assessment and including any recommendations the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
(h) Applicability.--Any management contract between a
public housing agency and a resident management corporation
that is entered into after the date of the enactment of the
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of
1988 shall be subject to this section and any regulations
issued to carry out this section.
Subtitle D--Homeownership
SEC. 251. RESIDENT HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAMS.
(A) In General.--A public housing agency may carry out a
homeownership program in accordance with this section and the
local housing management plan of the agency to make public
housing dwelling units, public housing developments, and
other housing projects available for purchase by low-income
families. An agency may transfer a unit only pursuant to a
homeownership program approved by the Secretary.
Notwithstanding section 107, the Secretary may approve a
local housing management plan
[[Page H2220]]
without approving the portion of the plan regarding a
homeownership program pursuant to this section. In the case
of the portion of a plan regarding the homeownerships program
that is submitted separately pursuant to the preceding
sentence, the Secretary shall approve or disapprove such
portion not later than 60 days after the submission of such
portion.
(b) Participating Units.--A program under this section may
cover any existing public housing dwelling units or projects,
and may include other dwelling units and housing owned,
operated, or assisted, or otherwise acquired for use under
such program, by the public housing agency.
(c) Eligible Purchasers.--
(1) Low-income requirement.--Only low-income families
assisted by a public housing agency, other low-income
families and, entities formed to facilitate such sales by
purchasing units for resale to low-income families shall be
eligible to purchase housing under a homeownership program
under this section.
(2) Other requirements.--A public housing agency may
establish other requirements or limitations for families to
purchase housing under a homeownership program under this
section, including requirements or limitations regarding
employment or participation in employment counseling or
training activities, criminal activity, participation in
homeownership counseling programs, evidence of regular
income, and other requirements. In the case of purchase by an
entity for resale to low-income families, the entity shall
sell the units to low-income families within 5 years from the
date of its acquisition of the units. The entity shall use
any net proceeds from the resale and from managing the units,
as determined in accordance with guidelines of the Secretary,
for housing purposes, such as funding resident organizations
and reserves for capital replacement.
(d) Financing and Assistance.--A homeownership program
under this section may provide financing for acquisition of
housing by families purchasing under the program or by the
public housing agency for sale under this program in any
manner considered appropriate by the agency (including sale
to a resident management corporation).
(e) Downpayment Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Each family purchasing housing under a
homeownership program under this section shall be required to
provide from its own resources a downpayment in connection
with any loan for acquisition of the housing, in an amount
determined by the public housing agency. Except as provided
in paragraph (2), the agency shall permit the family to use
grant amounts, gifts from relatives, contributions from
private sources, and similar amounts as downpayment amounts
in such purchase,
(2) Direct family contribution.--In purchasing housing
pursuant to this section, each family shall contribute an
amount of the downpayment, from resources of the family other
than grants, gifts, contributions, or other similar amounts
referred to in paragraph (1), that is not less than 1 percent
of the purchase price.
(f) Ownership Interests.--A homeownership program under
this section may provide for sale to the purchasing family of
any ownership interest that the public housing agency
considers appropriate under the program, including ownership
in fee simple, a condominium interest, an interest in a
limited dividend cooperative, a shared appreciation interest
with a public housing agency providing financing.
(g) Resale.--
(1) Authority and limitation.--A home-ownership program
under this section shall permit the resale of a dwelling unit
purchased under the program by an eligible family, but shall
provide such limitations on resale as the agency considers
appropriate (whether the family purchases directly from the
agency or from another entity) for the agency to recapture--
(A) from any economic gain derived from any such resale
occurring during the 5-year period beginning upon purchase of
the dwelling unit by the eligible family, a portion of the
amount of any financial assistance provided under the program
by the agency to the eligible family; and
(B) after the expiration of such 5-year period, only such
amounts as are equivalent to the assistance provided under
this section by the agency to the purchaser.
(2) Considerations.--The limitations referred to in
paragraph (1) may provide for consideration of the aggregate
amount of assistance provided under the program to the
family, the contribution to equity provided by the purchasing
eligible family, the period of time elapsed between purchase
under the home-ownership program and resale, the reason for
resale, any improvements to the property made by the eligible
family, any appreciation in the value of the property, and
any other factors that the agency considers appropriate.
(h) Sale of Certain Scattered-Site Housing.--A public
housing agency that the Secretary has determined to be a
high-performing agency may use the proceeds from the
disposition of scattered-site public housing under a
homeownership program under this section to purchase
replacement scattered-site dwelling units, to the extent such
use is provided for in the local housing management plan for
the agency approved under section 107. Any such replacement
dwelling units shall be considered public housing for
purposes of this Act.
(i) Inapplicability of Disposition Requirements.--The
provisions of section 261 shall not apply to disposition of
public housing dwelling units under a home-ownership program
under this section, except that any dwelling units sold under
such a program shall be treated as public housing dwelling
units for purposes of subsections (e) and (f) of section 261.
Subtitle E--Disposition, Demolition, and Revitalization of Developments
SEC. 261. REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION AND DISPOSITION OF
DEVELOPMENTS.
(a) Authority and Flexibility.--A public housing agency may
demolish, dispose of, or demolish and dispose of nonviable or
nonmarketable public housing developments of the agency in
accordance with this section.
(b) Local Housing Management Plan Requirement.--A public
housing agency may take any action to demolish or dispose of
a public housing development (or a portion of a
development) only if such demolition or disposition
complies with the provisions of this section and is in
accordance with the local housing management plan for the
agency. Notwithstanding section 107, the Secretary may
approve a local housing management plan without approving
the portion of the plan covering demolition or disposition
pursuant to this section.
(c) Purpose of Demolition or Disposition.--A public housing
agency may demolish or dispose of a public housing
development (or portion of a development) only if the agency
provides sufficient evidence to the Secretary that--
(1) the development (or portion thereof) is severely
distressed or obsolete;
(2) the development (or portion thereof) is in a location
making it unsuitable for housing purposes;
(3) the development (or portion thereof) has design or
construction deficiencies that make cost-effective
rehabilitation infeasible;
(2) assuming that reasonable rehabilitation and management
intervention for the development has been completed and paid
for, the anticipated revenue that would be derived from
charging market-based rents for units in the development (or
portion thereof) would not cover the anticipated operating
costs and replacement reserves of the development (or
portion) at full occupancy and the development (or portion)
would constitute a substantial burden on the resources of the
public housing agency;
(5) retention of the development (or portion thereof) is
not in the best interests of the residents of the public
housing agency because--
(A) developmental changes in the area surrounding the
development adversely affect the health or safety of the
residents or the feasible operation of the development by the
public housing agency;
(B) demolition or disposition will allow the acquisition,
development, or rehabilitation of other properties which will
be more efficiently or effectively operated as low-income
housing; or
(C) other factors exist that the agency determines are
consistent with the best interests of the residents and the
agency and not inconsistent with other provisions of this
Act;
(6) in the case only of demolition or disposition of a
portion of a development, the demolition or disposition will
help to ensure the remaining useful life of the remainder of
the development; or
(7) in the case only of property other than dwelling
units--
(A) the property is excess to the needs of a development;
or
(B) the demolition or disposition is incidental to, or does
not interfere with, continued operation of a development.
The evidence required under this subsection shall include, as
a condition of demolishing or disposing of a public housing
development (or portion of a development) estimated to have a
value of $100,000 or more, a statement of the market value of
the development (or portion), which has been determined by a
party not having any interest in the housing or the public
housing agency and pursuant to not less than 2 professional,
independent appraisals of the development (or portion).
(d) Consultation.--A public housing agency may demolish or
dispose of a public housing development (or portion of a
development) only if the agency notifies and confers
regarding the demolition or disposition with--
(1) the residents of the development (or portion); and
(2) appropriate local government officials.
(e) Counseling.--A public housing agency may demolish or
dispose of a public housing development (or a portion of a
development) only if the agency provides any necessary
counseling for families displaced by such action to
facilitate relocation.
(f) Use of Proceeds.--Any net proceeds from the disposition
of a public housing development (or portion of a development)
shall be used for--
(1) housing assistance for low-income families that is
consistent with the low-income housing needs of the
community, through acquisition, development, or
rehabilitation of, or homeownership programs for, other low-
income housing or the provision of choice-based assistance
under title III for such families;
(2) supportive services relating job training or child care
for residents of a development or developments; or
(3) leveraging amounts for securing commercial enterprises,
on-site in public housing developments of the public housing
agency,
[[Page H2221]]
appropriate to serve the needs of the residents.
(g) Relocation.--A public housing agency that demolishes or
disposes of a public housing development (or portion of a
development thereof) shall ensure that--
(1) each family that is a resident of the development (or
portion) that is demolished or disposed of is relocated to
other safe, clean, healthy, and affordable housing, which is,
to the maximum extent practicable, housing of the family's
choice, including choice-based assistance under title III
(provided that with respect to choice-based assistance, the
preceding requirement shall be fulfilled only upon the
relocation of the family into such housing);
(2) the public housing agency does not take any action to
dispose of any unit until any resident to be displaced is
relocated in accordance with paragraph (1); and
(3) each resident family to be displaced is paid relocation
expenses, and the rent to be paid initially by the resident
following relocation does not exceed the amount permitted
under section 225(a).
(h) Right of First Refusal for Resident Organizations and
Resident Management Corporations.--
(1) In general.--A public housing agency may not dispose of
a public housing development (or portion of a development)
unless the agency has, before such disposition, offered to
sell the property, as provided in this subsection, to each
resident organization and resident management corporation
operating at the development for continued use as low-income
housing, and no such organization or corporation purchases
the property pursuant to such offer. A resident organization
may act, for purposes of this subsection, through an entity
formed to facilitate homeownership under subtitle D.
(2) Timing.--Disposition of a development (or portion
thereof) under this section may not take place--
(A) before the expiration of the period during which any
such organization or corporation may notify the agency of
interest in purchasing the property, which shall be the 30-
day period beginning on the date that the agency first
provides notice of the proposed disposition of the property
to such resident organizations and resident management
corporations;
(B) if an organization or corporation submits notice of
interest in accordance with subparagraph (A), before the
expiration of the period during which such organization or
corporation may obtain a commitment for financing to purchase
the property, which shall be the 60-day period beginning upon
the submission to the agency of the notice of interest; or
(C) if, during the period under subparagraph (B), an
organization or corporation obtains such financing commitment
and makes a bona fide offer to the agency to purchase the
property for a price equal to or exceeding the applicable
offer price under paragraph (3).
The agency shall sell the property pursuant to any purchase
offer described in subparagraph (C).
(3) Terms of offer.--An offer by a public housing agency to
sell a property in accordance with this subsection shall
involve a purchase price that reflects the market value of
the property, the reason for the sale, the impact of the sale
on the surrounding community, and any other factors that the
agency considers appropriate.
(i) Information for Local Housing Management Plan.--A
public housing agency may demolish or dispose of a public
housing development (or portion thereof) only if it includes
in the applicable local housing management plan information
sufficient to describe--
(1) the housing to be demolished or disposed of;
(2) the purpose of the demolition or disposition under
subsection (c) and why the demolition or disposition complies
with the requirements under subsection (c), and includes
evidence of the market value of the development (or portion)
required under subsection (c);
(3) how the consultations required under subsection (d)
will be made;
(4) how the net proceeds of the disposition will be used in
accordance with subsection (f);
(5) how the agency will relocate residents, if necessary,
as required under subsection (g); and
(6) that the agency has offered the property for
acquisition by resident organizations and resident management
corporations in accordance with subsection (h).
(j) Site and Neighborhood Standards Exemption.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public housing
agency may provide for development of public housing dwelling
units on the same site or in the same neighborhood as any
dwelling units demolished, pursuant to a plan under this
section, but only if such development provides for
significantly fewer dwelling units.
(k) Treatment of Replacement Units.--
(1) Provision of other housing assistance.--In connection
with any demolition or disposition of public housing under
this section, a public housing agency may provide for other
housing assistance for low-income families that is consistent
with the low-income housing needs of the community,
including--
(A) the provision of choice-based assistance under title
III; and
(B) the development, acquisition, or lease by the agency of
dwelling units, which dwelling units shall--
(i) be eligible to receive assistance with grant amounts
provided under this title; and
(ii) be made available for occupancy, operated, and managed
in the manner required for public housing, and subject to the
other requirements applicable to public housing dwelling
units.
(2) Treatment of individuals.--For purposes of this
subsection, an individual between the ages of 18 and 21,
inclusive, shall, at the discretion of the individual, be
considered a family.
(l) Use of New Dwelling Units.--A public housing agency
demolishing or disposing of a public housing development (or
portion thereof) under this section shall seek, where
practical, to ensure that, if housing units are provided on
any property that was previously used for the public
housing demolished or disposed of, not less than 25
percent of such dwelling units shall be dwelling units
reserved for occupancy during the remaining useful life of
the housing by low-income families.
(m) Permissible Relocation Without Plan.--If a public
housing agency determines that because of an emergency
situation public housing dwelling units are severely
uninhabitable, the public housing agency may relocate
residents of such dwelling units before the submission of a
local housing management plan providing for demolition or
disposition of such units.
(n) Consolidation of Occupancy Within or Among Buildings.--
Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent a public
housing agency from consolidating occupancy within or among
buildings of a public housing development, or among
developments, or with other housing for the purpose of
improving living conditions of, or providing more efficient
services to, residents.
(o) De Minimis Exception to Demolition Requirements.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in any
5-year period a public housing agency may demolish not more
than the lesser of 5 dwelling units or 5 percent of the total
dwelling units owned and operated by the public housing
agency, without providing for such demolition in a local
housing management plan, but only if the space occupied by
the demolished unit is used for meeting the service or other
needs of public housing residents or the demolished unit was
beyond repair.
SEC. 262. DEMOLITION, SITE REVITALIZATION, REPLACEMENT
HOUSING, AND CHOICE-BASED ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR
DEVELOPMENTS.
(a) Purposes.--The purpose of this section is to provide
assistance to public housing agencies for the purposes of--
(1) reducing the density and improving the living
environment for public housing residents of severely
distressed public housing developments through the demolition
of obsolete public housing developments (or portions
thereof);
(2) revitalizing sites (including remaining public housing
dwelling units) on which such public housing developments are
located and contributing to the improvement of the
surrounding neighborhood; and
(3) providing housing that will avoid or decrease the
concentration of very low-income families; and
(4) providing choice-based assistance in accordance with
title III for the purpose of providing replacement housing
and assisting residents to be displaced by the demolition.
(b) Grant Authority.--The Secretary may make grants
available to public housing agencies as provided in this
section.
(c) Contribution Requirement.--The Secretary may not make
any grant under this section to any applicant unless the
applicant certifies to the Secretary that the applicant will
supplement the amount of assistance provided under this
section with an amount of funds from sources other than this
section equal to not less than 5 percent of the amount
provided under this section, including amounts from other
Federal sources, any State or local government sources, any
private contributions, and the value of any in-kind services
or administrative costs provided.
(d) Eligible Activities.--Grants under this section may be
used for activities to carry out revitalization programs for
severely distressed public housing, including--
(1) architectural and engineering work, including the
redesign, reconstruction, or redevelopment of a severely
distressed public housing development, including the site on
which the development is located;
(2) the demolition, sale, or lease of the site, in whole or
in part;
(3) covering the administrative costs of the applicant,
which may not exceed such portion of the assistance provided
under this section as the Secretary may prescribe;
(4) payment of reasonable legal fees;
(5) providing reasonable moving expenses for residents
displaced as a result of the revitalization of the
development;
(6) economic development activities that promote the
economic self-sufficiency of residents under the
revitalization program;
(7) necessary management improvements;
(8) leveraging other resources, including additional
housing resources, retail supportive services, jobs, and
other economic development uses on or near the development
that will benefit future residents of the site;
(9) replacement housing and housing assistance under title
III;
(10) transitional security activities; and
(11) necessary supportive services, except that not more
than 10 percent of the amount
[[Page H2222]]
of any grant may be used for activities under this paragraph.
(e) Application and Selection.--
(1) Application.--An application for a grant under this
section shall contain such information and shall be submitted
at such time and in accordance with such procedures, as the
Secretary shall prescribe.
(2) Selection criteria.--The Secretary shall establish
selection criteria for the award of grants under this
section, which shall include--
(A) the relationship of the grant to the local housing
management plan for the public housing agency and how the
grant will result in a revitalized site that will enhance the
neighborhood in which the development is located;
(B) the capability and record of the applicant public
housing agency, or any alternative management agency for the
agency, for managing large-scale redevelopment or
modernization projects, meeting construction timetables, and
obligating amounts in a timely manner;
(C) the extent to which the public housing agency could
undertake such activities without a grant under this section;
(D) the extent of involvement of residents, State and local
governments, private service providers, financing entities,
and developers, in the development of a revitalization
program for the development; and
(E) the amount of funds and other resources to be leveraged
by the grant.
The Secretary shall give preference in selection to any
public housing agency that has been awarded a planning grant
under section 24(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
(as in effect before the effective date of the repeal under
section 601(b) of this Act).
(f) Cost Limits.--Subject to the provisions of this
section, the Secretary--
(1) shall establish cost limits on eligible activities
under this section sufficient to provide for effective
revitalization programs; and
(2) may establish other cost limits on eligible activities
under this section.
(g) Demolition and Replacement.--Any severely distressed
public housing demolished or disposed of pursuant to a
revitalization plan and any public housing produced in lieu
of such severely distressed housing, shall be subject to the
provisions of section 261.
(h) Administration by Other Entities.--The Secretary may
require a grantee under this section to make arrangements
satisfactory to the Secretary for use of an entity other than
the public housing agency to carry out activities assisted
under the revitalization plan, if the Secretary determines
that such action will help to effectuate the purpose of this
section.
(i) Withdrawal of Funding.--If a grantee under this section
does not proceed expeditiously, in the determination of the
Secretary, the Secretary shall withdraw any grant amounts
under this section that have not been obligated by the public
housing agency. The Secretary shall redistribute any
withdrawn amounts to one or more public housing agencies
eligible for assistance under this section or to one or more
other entities capable of proceeding expeditiously in the
same locality in carrying out the revitalization plan of the
original grantee.
(j) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
(1) Applicant.--The term ``applicant'' means--
(A) any public housing agency that is not designated as
troubled pursuant to section 533(a);
(B) any public housing agency or private housing management
agent selected, or receiver appointed pursuant, to section
545; and
(C) any public housing agency that is designated as
troubled pursuant to section 533(a) that--
(i) is so designated principally for reasons that will not
affect the capacity of the agency to carry out a
revitalization program;
(ii) is making substantial progress toward eliminating the
deficiencies of the agency; or
(iii) is otherwise determined by the Secretary to be
capable of carrying out a revitalization program.
(2) Private nonprofit corporation.--the term ``private
nonprofit organization'' means any private nonprofit
organization (including a State or locally chartered
nonprofit organization) that--
(A) is incorporated under State or local law;
(B) has no part of its net earnings inuring to the benefit
of any member, founder, contributor, or individual;
(C) complies with standards of financial accountability
acceptable to the Secretary; and
(D) has among its purposes significant activities related
to the provision of decent housing that is affordable to very
low-income families.
(3) Severely distressed public housing.--The term
``severely distressed public housing'' means a public housing
development (or building in a development) that--
(A) requires major redesign, reconstruction or
redevelopment, or partial or total demolition, to correct
serious deficiencies in the original design (including
inappropriately high population density), deferred
maintenance, physical deterioration or obsolescence of major
systems and other deficiencies in the physical plant of the
development;
(B) is a significant contributing factor to the physical
decline of and disinvestment by public and private entities
in the surrounding neighborhood;
(C)(i) is occupied predominantly by families who are very
low-income families with children, are unemployed, and
dependent on various forms of public assistance; and
(ii) has high rates of vandalism and criminal activity
(including drug-related criminal activity) in comparison to
other housing in the area;
(D) cannot be revitalized through assistance under other
programs, such as the public housing block grant program
under this title, or the programs under sections 9 and 14 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in effect before
the effective date of the repeal under section 601(b) of this
Act), because of cost constraints and inadequacy of available
amounts; and
(E) in the case of individual buildings, is, in the
Secretary's determination, sufficiently separable from the
remainder of the development of which the building is part to
make use of the building feasible for purposes of this
section.
(4) Supportive services.--The term ``supportive services''
includes all activities that will promote upward mobility,
self-sufficiency, and improved quality of life for the
residents of the public housing development involved,
including literacy training, job training, day care, and
economic development activities.
(k) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the
Congress an annual report setting forth--
(1) the number, type, and cost of public housing units
revitalized pursuant to this section;
(2) the status of developments identified as severely
distressed public housing;
(3) the amount and type of financial assistance provided
under and in conjunction with this section; and
(4) the recommendations of the Secretary for statutory and
regulatory improvements to the program established by this
section.
(l) Funding.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for grants under this section $500,000,000
for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000.
(2) Technical assistance.--Of the amount appropriated
pursuant to paragraph (1) for any fiscal year, the Secretary
may use not more than 0.50 percent for technical assistance.
Such assistance may be provided directly or indirectly by
grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, and shall
include training, and the cost of necessary travel for
participants in such training, by or to officials of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, of public
housing agencies, and of residents.
(m) Sunset.--No assistance may be provided under this
section after September 30, 2000.
(n) Treatment of Previous Selections.--A public housing
agency that has been selected to receive amounts under the
notice of funding availability for fiscal year 1996 amounts
for the HOPE VI program (provided under the heading ``public
housing demolition, site revitalization, and replacement
housing grants'' in title II of the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1437l note)
(enacted as section 101(e) of Omnibus Consolidated
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
134; 110 Stat. 1321-269)) may apply to the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development for a waiver of the total
development cost rehabilitation requirement otherwise
applicable under such program, and the Secretary may waive
such requirement, but only (1) to the extent that a
designated site for use of such amounts does not have
dwelling units that are considered to be obsolete under
Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations in
effect upon the date of the enactment of this Act, and (2) if
the Secretary determines that the public housing agency will
continue to comply with the purposes of the program
notwithstanding such waiver.
SEC. 263. VOLUNTARY VOUCHER SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC HOUSING.
(a) In General.--A public housing agency may convert any
public housing development (or portion thereof) owned and
operated by the agency to a system of choice-based rental
housing assistance under title III, in accordance with this
section.
(b) Assessment and Plan Requirement.--In converting under
this section to a choice-based rental housing assistance
system, the public housing agency shall develop a conversion
assessment and plan under this subsection, in consultation
with the appropriate public officials and with significant
participation by the residents of the development (or portion
thereof), which assessment and plan shall--
(1) be consistent with and part of the local housing
management plan for the agency;
(2) describe the conversion and future use or disposition
of the public housing development, including an impact
analysis on the affected community;
(3) include a cost analysis that demonstrates whether or
not the cost (both on a net present value basis and in terms
of new budget authority requirements) of providing choice-
based rental housing assistance under title III for the same
families in substantially similar dwellings over the same
period of time is less expensive than continuing public
housing assistance in the public housing development proposed
for conversion for the remaining useful life of the
development;
(4) identify the actions, if any, that the public housing
agency will take with regard
[[Page H2223]]
to converting any public housing development or developments
(or portions thereof) of the agency to a system of choice-
based rental housing assistance under title III;
(5) require the public housing agency to--
(A) notify the families residing in the public housing
development subject to the conversion, in accordance with any
guidelines issued by the Secretary governing such
notifications, that--
(i) the development will be removed from the inventory of
the public housing agency; and
(ii) the families displaced by such action will receive
choice-based housing assistance;
(B) provide any necessary counseling for families displaced
by such action to facilitate relocation; and
(C) provide any reasonable relocation expenses for families
displaced by such action; and
(6) ensure that each family that is a resident of the
development is relocated to other safe, clean, and healthy
affordable housing, which is, to the maximum extent
practicable, housing of the family's choice, including
choice-based assistance under title III (provided that with
respect to choice-based assistance, the preceding requirement
shall be fulfilled only upon the relocation of such family
into such housing).
(c) Streamlined Assessment and Plan.--At the discretion of
the Secretary or at the request of a public housing agency,
the Secretary may waive any or all of the requirements of
subsection (b) or otherwise require a streamlined assessment
with respect to any public housing development or class of
public housing developments.
(d) Implementation of Conversion Plan.--
(1) In general.--A public housing agency may implement a
conversion plan only if the conversion assessment under this
section demonstrates that the conversion--
(A) will be more expensive than continuing to operate the
public housing development (or portion thereof) as public
housing; and
(B) will principally benefit the residents of the public
housing development (or portion thereof) to be converted, the
public housing agency, and the community.
(2) Disapproval.--The Secretary shall disapprove a
conversion plan only if the plan is plainly inconsistent with
the conversion assessment under subsection (b) or there is
reliable information and data available to the Secretary that
contradicts that conversion assessment.
(e) Other Requirements.--To the extent approved by the
Secretary, the funds used by the public housing agency to
provide choice-based rental housing assistance under title
III shall be added to the housing assistance payment contract
administered by the public housing agency or any entity
administering the contract on behalf of the public housing
agency.
(f) Savings Provision.--This section does not affect any
contract or other agreement entered into under section 22 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as such section
existed before the effective date of the repeal under section
601(b) of this Act).
Subtitle F--Mixed-Finance Public Housing
SEC. 271. AUTHORITY.
Nothwithstanding sections 203 and 262, the Secretary may,
upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary may
prescribe, authorize a public housing agency to provide for
the use of grant amounts allocated and provided from the
capital fund or from a grant under section 262, to produce
mixed-finance housing developments, or replace or revitalize
existing public housing dwelling units with mixed-finance
housing developments, but only if the agency submits to the
Secretary a plan for such housing that is approved pursuant
to section 273 by the Secretary.
SEC. 272. MIXED-FINANCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.
(A) In General.--For purposes of this subtitle, the term
``mixed-finance housing'' means low-income housing or mixed-
income housing (as described in section 221(c)(2)) for which
the financing for production or revitalization is
provided, in part, from entities other than the public
housing agency.
(b) Production.--A mixed-finance housing development shall
be produced or revitalized, and owned--
(1) by a public housing agency or by an entity affiliated
with a public housing agency;
(2) by a partnership, a limited liability company, or other
entity in which the public housing agency (or an entity
affiliated with a public housing agency) is a general
partner, is a managing member, or otherwise participates in
the activities of the entity;
(3) by any entity that grants to the public housing agency
the option to purchase the public housing project during the
20-year period beginning on the date of initial occupancy of
the public housing project in accordance with section
42(l)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(4) in accordance with such other terms and conditions as
the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
This subsection may not be construed to require production or
revitalization, and ownership, by the same entity.
SEC. 273. MIXED-FINANCE HOUSING PLAN.
The Secretary may approve a plan for production or
revitalization of mixed-finance housing under this subtitle
only if the Secretary determines that--
(1) the public housing agency has the ability, or has
provided for an entity under section 272(b) that has the
ability, to use the amounts provided for use under the plan
for such housing, effectively, either directly or through
contract management;
(2) the plan provides permanent financing commitments from
a sufficient number of sources other than the public housing
agency, which may include banks and other conventional
lenders, States, units of general local government, State
housing finance agencies, secondary market entities, and
other financial institutions;
(3) the plan provides for use of amounts provided under
section 271 by the public housing agency for financing the
mixed-income housing in the form of grants, loans, advances,
or other debt or equity investments, including collateral or
credit enhancement of bonds issued by the agency or any State
or local governmental agency for production or revitalization
of the development; and
(4) the plan complies with any other criteria that the
Secretary may establish.
SEC. 274. RENT LEVELS FOR HOUSING FINANCED WITH LOW-INCOME
HOUSING TAX CREDIT.
With respect to any dwelling unit in a mixed-finance
housing development that is a low-income dwelling unit for
which amounts from a block grant under this title are used
and that is assisted pursuant to the low-income housing tax
credit under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
the rents charged to the residents of the unit shall be
determined in accordance with this title, but shall not in
any case exceed the amounts allowable under such section 42.
SEC. 275. CARRY-OVER OF ASSISTANCE FOR REPLACED HOUSING.
In the case of a mixed-finance housing development that is
replacement housing for public housing demolished or disposed
of, or is the result of the revitalization of existing public
housing, the share of assistance received from the capital
fund and the operating fund by the public housing agency that
owned or operated the housing demolished, disposed of, or
revitalized shall not be reduced because of such demolition,
disposition, or revitalization after the commencement of such
demolition, disposition, or revitalization, unless--
(1) upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning
upon the approval of the plan under section 273 for the
mixed-finance housing development, the agency does not have
binding commitments for production or revitalization, or a
construction contract, for such development;
(2) upon the expiration of the 4-year period beginning upon
the approval of the plan, the mixed-finance housing
development is not substantially ready for occupancy and is
placed under the block grant contract for the agency under
section 201; or
(3) the number of dwelling units in the mixed-finance
housing development that are made available for occupancy
only by low-income families is substantially less than the
number of such dwelling units in the public housing
demolished, disposed of, or revitalized.
The Secretary may extend the period under paragraph (1) or
(2) for a public housing agency if the Secretary determines
that circumstances beyond the control of the agency caused
the agency to fail to meet the deadline under such paragraph.
Subtitle G--General Provisions
SEC. 281. PAYMENT OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE.
Rental or use-value of buildings or facilities paid for, in
whole or in part, from production, modernization, or
operation costs financed under this title may be used as the
non-Federal share required in connection with activities
undertaken under Federal grant-in-aid programs which provide
social, educational, employment, and other services to the
residents in a project assisted under this title.
SEC. 282. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BLOCK GRANTS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under
this title, the following amounts:
(1) Capital fund. For the allocations from the capital fund
for grants, $2,500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002; and
(2) Operating fund.--For the allocations from the operating
fund for grants, $2,900,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
SEC. 283. FUNDING FOR OPERATION SAFE HOME.
Of any amounts made available for fiscal years 1998 and
1999 for carrying out the Community Partnerships Against
Crime Act of 1997 (as so designated pursuant to section
624(a) of this Act), not more than $20,000,000 shall be
available in each such fiscal year, for use under the
Operation Safe Home program administered by the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, for law enforcement efforts to combat violent
crime on or near the premises of public and federally
assisted housing.
SEC. 284. FUNDING FOR RELOCATION OF VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE.
Of any amounts made available for fiscal years 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001, and 2002 for choice-based housing assistance
under title III of this Act, not more than $700,000 shall be
available in each such fiscal year for relocating residents
of public housing (including providing assistance for costs
of relocation and housing assistance under title III of this
Act) who are residing in public housing, who have been
subject to domestic violence, and
[[Page H2224]]
for whom provision of assistance is likely to reduce or
eliminate the threat of subsequent violence to the members of
the family. The Secretary shall establish procedures for
eligibility and administration of assistance under this
section.
amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
Page 96, strike line 1 and all that follows through page
97, line 22, and insert the following:
(c) Income Mix.--
(1) PHA-wide requirement.--Of the public housing units of a
public housing agency made available for occupancy by
eligible families in any fiscal year of the agency--
(A) not less than 40 percent shall be occupied by families
whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the median income
for the area; and
(B) not less than 90 percent shall be occupied by families
whose incomes do not exceed 60 percent of the median income
for the area; except that, for any fiscal year, the Secretary
may reduce to 80 percent the percentage under this
subparagraph for a public housing agency if the agency
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that such
reduction would be used for, and would result in, the
enhancement of the long-term viability of the housing
developments of the agency.
(2) Prohibition of concentration of low-income families.--A
public housing agency may not, in complying with the
requirements under paragraph (1), concentrate very low-income
families (or other families with relatively low incomes) in
public housing dwelling units in certain public housing
developments or certain buildings within developments. The
Secretary may review the income and occupancy characteristics
of the public housing developments, and the buildings of such
developments, of public housing agencies to ensure compliance
with the provisions of this paragraph.
(3) Area median income.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term ``area median income'' means the median income of an
area, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments of
smaller and larger families, except that the Secretary may
establish income ceilings higher or lower than the
percentages specified in this subsection if the Secretary
finds determines that such variations are necessary because
of unusually high or low family incomes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
{time} 1845
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will yield if I can be
allowed to extend my 5 minutes.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I will make the unanimous
consent request for him.
Would it be acceptable to the gentleman if we could establish some
reasonable time limitations, 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side, in
order to debate this issue?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
think, as the gentleman knows, this amendment required a great deal of
time in the full committee and, in fact, was very extensively debated
at that time.
I would consider perhaps a full hour of debate, distributed equally,
30 minutes on each side. If we find there is less requirement for time,
I would certainly enter into an idea of reducing time at some point
throughout the debate.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue
to yield, how does the gentleman react to, say, 20 minutes on each
side, so it would be a total of 40 minutes?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr.
Chairman, as I say, I think an hour would be an appropriate period of
time.
We understand the gentleman's reaction to this amendment, and I
understand why he would like to limit it, but I do think this is one of
the most important issues that is going to be faced in this
legislation. And while I think there are other amendments that might be
appropriate to reach some time limit agreements on, I think this goes
to the heart of what public housing policy will be.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue
to yield, I would say to the gentleman that I am prepared to withdraw
the request. I know the gentleman wants to be heard. I respect that, I
want to encourage that, and so if he needs the time, I will withdraw
the request.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I
appreciate the gentleman doing so.
This amendment, I think, really gets to the heart of what our housing
policy is going to be in this country. Right now we have a housing
policy which indicates, and I would like to go up to the well, and can
I get that chart brought up here, this chart indicates, I think very
graphically, what will happen to public housing if H.R. 2 proceeds
through the amendment process without change.
Right now 75 percent of all the housing units in this country, both
project-based as well as in public housing combined go to people with
incomes below 30 percent of median. These are the poorest people in our
country. They are the fastest growing population in America. If we look
at any of the population tables, we will find out among who and where
our population is really, really expanding today. It is among the
poorest of the poor.
Under the proposals that have been made by the Republican side, H.R.
2, the number of lower income people that would no longer be able to
occupy public housing over the period of the next 10 years would drop
from its current 75 percent of individuals that are below 30 percent of
median income down to about 20 percent.
So what happens, Mr. Chairman, is a number of the very poor people in
this country that would be able to occupy public housing would drop so
dramatically that it would drop to just 20 percent of the units that
would be occupied across the country would be at 30 percent of median
income. Eighty percent of the units would go to people that are at 80
percent of median income. What that means is we will take people that
have incomes of $40,000 a year or more and we will put them into public
housing, and we will go to the very poor people and we will kick them
out. That is what the heart of this debate is all about.
Nobody on the Democratic side, and I guarantee my colleagues that we
will hear over and over and over again, for the next half-hour or hour
as this debate goes on, that we want to keep the status quo. Nothing
could be farther from the truth. No one is suggesting that we simply
warehouse the poorest of the poor in these housing units. Under the
Democratic proposals, we will reduce the number of very poor people to
about 50-50 over a 10-year period. What we will not do is simply go in
to the very poor and the very vulnerable; that in our rush to judgment
about why public housing has failed, what we are going to do is just
automatically throw out vast numbers of very poor people.
Now, we have cut the housing budget in America from $28 billion to
$20 billion. We cut the homeless budget in this country by about 26
percent at the same time. So what we are doing, effectively, is we will
be able to stand up at the end of passing this bill, which I am sure
ultimately this bill might very well pass out of this Chamber, but
effectively what we will have done is say we are going to revamp policy
by taking in a lot more wealthier people, not wealthy but wealthier
than the poor that exist there today, and by virtue of doing that we
will save public housing. But what we will never debate is what happens
to the very poor and the very vulnerable who will end up getting thrown
out onto the streets as a result of these proposals.
We should not make it a policy of this country to simply say that we
can look better as legislators.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, what this goes to is
whether or not we simply enact laws to make us look good before the
people of our country, by virtue of the fact that we now have sustained
public housing but we do nothing about the fact that we still have poor
people in America.
These are going to be very, very poor people that are going to have
no shelter, that are not going to have homeless programs, that are
essentially going to be thrown out on the street in order for us to
look good.
[[Page H2225]]
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we should have a better mix of working
families in public housing. The Democratic alternative will achieve a
better mix. We are not suggesting that poorly run housing authorities
should not be taken over; that well-run housing authorities that have
poorly run housing projects should not be taken away. What we are
suggesting is that we ought not to walk away from our basic commitment
to the very poor and the very vulnerable in the mix.
That is essentially what H.R. 2 will do, and I ask my colleagues in
the House to recognize our responsibilities and to protect the very,
very poor.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is really a very significant amendment. As has
been indicated by my colleague, the change in focus in terms of who is
going to be in public housing is really the heart of this bill, and it
is recognized that over the last decades that the income mix in public
housing, for a variety of reasons, because of the preferences that we
provided for entry and admission into public housing, has in fact
result in lower and lower income individuals qualifying for public
housing as a preference ahead of other families.
Clearly, only about one quarter of the families that really qualify
for public housing actually have that available because the limited
number, amount of production, and the inability to afford on a local
and State and Federal basis additional public housing. Clearly there is
a need to change that mix so that we can have a population that is more
stable and is better integrated economically, and this bill does it in
such a radical way that I think it really causes some significant
problem.
As an example, the way H.R. 2 is set up right now, nearly 12.8
million Americans, including 5 million children and 2 million elderly
and disabled which have acute housing problems, would be excluded by
virtue of the types of targeting or preferences in this bill.
What the gentleman from Massachusetts is proposing is that we not
maintain the income levels as they are today but that he would
actually, in his graph that was presented here on the House floor,
double the number; in other words, that 40 percent of the population,
or 4 out of 10 of those in public housing would have incomes below 30
percent of median income. Furthermore, he would provide that 90 percent
would have incomes of less than 60 percent of median income.
Mr. Chairman, in committee we evaluated what that median income was
and we found in any number of urban communities that median income in
those communities, 90 percent of median was in excess of $40,000 a
year. So, actually, if we change the people or the individual families
that we are serving and then suggest we can be successful only if
families have such high incomes, that really is redefining the problem
of what we are trying to deal with in the context of public and
assisted housing.
Unfortunately, most individuals that do not have income, it is not an
option that they have low income; it is a result of the fact that they
are economic casualties in terms of our society unable to earn jobs,
they are disabled, they have other problems that inhibit them from
earning higher incomes.
While we want to move and change the mix of individuals in public and
assisted housing, we do not want to, and we should not as a matter of
policy, set in place income guidelines that completely exclude those
that are among the very neediest in our society from that public
housing today and tomorrow.
We know that this could or should be accomplished over a period of
time when it is phased in, but nevertheless, the end result of the
policy path that this bill places before us is one of excluding time
and time again those families that have lower incomes that have the
greatest need in the name of social engineering in terms of trying to
build higher income individual families in those units; in other words,
rewarding work, trying to provide some law enforcement in others, in
many others to live in public housing to have a better mix.
The fact is that while those goals are good goals and goals we share,
we do not think it needs to be done to the extent that is being
portrayed in this bill. In fact, this method and this means of
accomplishing it, I think it will very quickly change the status of
public housing and our entire Federal response to public housing would
come into question, because the question would be how is it that we are
excluding so many low-income persons and at the same time maintaining
substantial types of subsidies for those that have higher incomes that
are in such public housing. I think that would lead to the demise and
the questioning of looking for different means in terms of providing
shelter for individuals. We no doubt would end up with more individuals
that would be homeless, because that has been one of the priorities.
So I urge the adoption of the Kennedy amendment. I think it makes the
necessary reforms without doing violence to the people that are
intended to be served, the poorest of the poor in this Nation.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I think this is
the construction of what this legislation is all about. Are we going to
change radically the face of those who live in public housing or are we
going to maintain public housing for those who cannot afford to live
anyplace else?
It does not make good sense to me that we try to artificially design
a mix for who should live in public housing. Let me tell my colleagues
about public housing and what it is and why, perhaps, even that income
level that we are trying to attract will not be interested in this
public housing. Most of the people who live there really cannot afford
to live anyplace else, because, if they could, they would.
We have not invested very much in our public housing. We have allowed
our public housing to become run down. We have not supported HUD and
its ability to keep this public housing up to date. And so we do have
the poorest of the poor who are living in run-down housing.
The fact of the matter is in far too many places the Government of
the United States of America is a slum lord.
{time} 1900
We are allowing people to live in housing that is not oftentimes safe
or sanitary. What is wrong with public housing? Certainly we need to
support public housing and have a place for people who cannot afford to
live anyplace else. But we have not placed in those public housing
environments the kind of support systems that would keep people in safe
environments.
For example, in many of these public housing units in our cities, we
kind of pile poor people on top of each other without services. Many of
the cities act as if the public housing is not a part of the city. And
so what happens? The local police department is not inside the public
housing, do not want to go there, do not want to take care of the
people there; and they have oftentimes their own private police forces
without the support of the local police to do the job of protecting the
people there.
In addition to that, we pile poor people on top of each other. Yes,
many of the mothers are welfare mothers. But do we have child care? Do
we have a situation where mothers would have someplace to leave these
children while they look for work, while they are in job training? No,
we do not. One would think that in every public housing situation in
America we would have child care because these are the people we say we
want to go to work, these mothers who oftentimes are not trained, who
would go into a job training program if they had someplace to leave
their children. They do not have transportation. So it is not easy to
get out, to go look for child care, to go look for jobs, to go look for
job training.
One would think that the cities and the private industry councils and
JEPTA, job employment partnership training agencies, would bring the
services where the people are. Some of these housing projects are
bigger than little towns in America. But do they have the services?
There are no employment offices oftentimes anywhere near the public
housing project. Oh, but we want the people to go to work. Beside the
fact that there are no employment agencies, we do not have the job
training, the private industry councils or the JEPTA programs inside;
we do not have the child care; we do not
[[Page H2226]]
have police departments. Many of them now are left basically to fend
for themselves without any of the services of the county government or
the city government.
One would think that the county and the city agencies would find ways
by which to say, we will not place all of the services outside of the
public housing projects; we will place them inside the housing projects
so that people could easily access the services in order to mainstream
them, to change their life-styles and their way of life.
We can come here and we can talk about ways of getting rid of them.
Get rid of them if they do not volunteer. Get rid of them instead of
having a grievance procedure.
We do not talk about how we can increase the quality of life for
people who live in these public housing projects. Do we have youth
centers in public housing projects for young people to be involved in
sports activities? I have been in many throughout America who do not
have anything for the young people of those communities. I support this
amendment because we are not going to get a mix, because who wants to
live there, given the lack of resources.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, as we proceed with the majority's rope-a-dope strategy,
I hope we can focus on the serious importance of this issue. Obviously
public housing requires great change. The question is, in what
direction? It is also important to inquire as to how it got to be a
problem.
Public housing came to be a problem in substantial part because of
inadequate resources. No one, certainly not the poor, thought it was a
good idea to take the poorest of the poor and put them in very large
buildings with no services and inadequate construction, in many cases
not near any other facilities. Society decided to provide housing but,
having decided that, decided a little later it ought to do it as
cheaply as possible. So we created public housing which was destined to
deteriorate.
But we should also remember that, as bad as the public housing is, no
one lives there by force. As bad as public housing is, people live
there voluntarily because it is the best they can get. As we denigrate
and criticize and belittle public housing, remember that, when we do
people the service of freeing them from this housing they live in
voluntarily, we send them someplace worse. Unless we think they are
totally insane, they live here voluntarily.
It is relevant to note that because the housing budget that will come
forward, in addition to what it does about public housing, will
deteriorate our alternative housing resources. So we will be critical
of public housing, we will be calling for a diminution of public
housing units, but at the same time we will be reducing any
alternatives.
Indeed, I read in the New York Times Sunday that the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means thought that one good way to raise taxes to
offset some of the tax increases in the budget deal would be to kill
the low income housing tax credit, so that it will produce even less
housing. That is the context of the amendment of the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
What the majority apparently says is this: We are not prepared to
spend even as much on housing as we have. We know spending what we have
spent has not been enough. How do we justify to ourselves spending
considerably less? The answer is we will try to do much less.
One way they are going to try to do much less is by adopting the
Lester Maddox theory of social service. Lester Maddox once said that he
could not be expected to bring about prison reform until he was given a
better class of prisoners to work with. Our Republican friends believe
that there is not much they can do with poverty stricken people unless
they get people who are not poor.
With the people who are not suffering from poverty, they are quite
confident of their success. I am also confident. I am also confident
that we will do better with people who have not been in the
circumstances of poverty. Some people are in poverty because of
circumstances; some of them, because they have got defects. There are
people who do not work hard, who have disorganized personalities. I do
not think the penalty for that ought to be homelessness. It certainly
should not be the penalty for their children.
Because when we restrict the ability of the poorest of the poor to
get into public housing, and, remember, we are cutting back in
virtually every other housing program in this, and we are about to
adopt a budget deal, I probably will not vote for it in the way it now
looks, but we are going to adopt a budget deal that is going to
restrict our ability to do housing in the future. So we are going to
improve public housing not essentially by structural improvements, not
by more resources for the poor. We are going to serve a better class of
poor people, and by serving a better class of poor people, we will have
better results.
If the end of this process was to judge how well housing authorities
did, that would be rational. If the end is to be humane and
compassionate to the poorest of the poor, it is not. This country is
too well off to victimize that small number of people who will be
victimized by this bill.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman's comments.
I was going to point out that, if we look at 50 to 80 percent of
median income, only 5 percent of those renters with that type of income
have a housing problem; 95 percent do not. So obviously serving that 5
percent, they are meeting their needs but as to the others they are
not.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the
gentleman, I want to help them, but creating the war of the poor
against the very poor is public policy at its worst. To make the very
poor the enemy of the poor is a very grave mistake. What we do here is
underfund the housing authorities. We are going to be rescinding some
money.
Well, we have found that the housing department had saved more money
than people had thought and had created some reserves. So we plan to
rescind that and then we will claim that we cannot afford to help
people. By the way, we should have added, it is not simply resources. I
have heard people on the other side talk about how bad housing is.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we ought to remember that
for the 12 years before 1993, the Republicans controlled HUD, and for 8
of those years, under President Reagan, the most corrupt and
inefficient Cabinet secretary in recent memory, Secretary Pierce, was
in charge of HUD. Yes, there are serious problems there, but they are
not the fault of the poor. They are not the fault of the people who
have tried to help the poor. And the solution is not to say: You poor
people are too much trouble, and we are going to deal with a better
class of low-income people.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment to make
targeting provisions in this bill more humane. We know that we face an
affordable housing crisis in this Nation. There are 5.3 million
Americans living under worst-case housing scenario needs. That is, they
are forced to pay more than 50 percent of their income in rent or live
under deplorable conditions. H.R. 2 will exacerbate this crisis by
making public housing available to higher income residents who can pay
higher rents at the expense of thousands of low-income families.
Without a firm commitment to the principle that housing is a right
and not a privilege, we will never attain our stated objective of
adequately housing our citizens, as 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
[[Page H2227]]
never even approximated that goal, and currently the figure is slightly
more than 1.5 million new housing starts annually. As a result our
affordable housing crisis has exploded where millions of Americans live
paying entirely too much for housing or they live in unsanitary or
unsafe conditions. That, Mr. Chairman, is a national disgrace.
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 the 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 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 obviously a false debate.
Let me be clear. When we target low-income tenants as those with
incomes under 30 percent of 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 are ostensibly encouraged 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, Mr. Chairman, in our efforts to ensure that,
just at the time we are requiring the most from the most vulnerable
among us, we do not remove the stability and the security of 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. Seventy percent of the
residents of the Chicago Housing Authority receive public assistance,
and half of the 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. Chairman, without this amendment to the targeting provision of
H.R. 2, we are literally pulling the rug out from the poor and the
working class Americans. Let us not make such a tragic mistake in the
name of reform. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York, chairman of
the subcommittee, to engage me in a brief colloquy.
Is it the gentleman's expectation that working class Americans would
be willing to move under the targeting provisions of this bill into
Cabrini Green or into Robert Taylor Homes in the city of Chicago?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, it is the intent and the desire
of myself and, I think, other Members in support of the bill that
residents who are working and who are earning more are not forced to
leave Cabrini Green but can stay there and continue to be role models
in that area.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for the clarification.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to what the gentleman
said. He made a very good statement. I think the point here is that
under the preferences set up in this bill that there will be no new
applicants under 35 percent of income. They could apply but the fact is
the local housing authority will decide whether an upper income person,
admittedly 80 percent of median income, and my colleague said it was in
excess of $40,000 in Chicago. I do not know if it is that high in St.
Paul, MN, but I think it is close to it. And the fact is that others
with lower income, the housing authority could just deny them. So it is
possible that over a period of attrition, as people move out or move up
in income, that public housing would have higher and higher income
persons in it.
{time} 1915
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, let me spend a minute or two kind of putting this in
perspective for my colleagues.
First of all, they got this issue of pitting the very poor against
the working poor. If my colleagues were in the process of expanding the
number of public housing units or low-income housing units available
throughout the country, I do not think anybody could argue with a
policy that would say it would be beneficial to have an economic mix in
the new housing units. But we are not expanding public housing, we are
not expanding low-income housing under this bill, we are not giving a
dime of new public housing or low-income housing under this bill. They
have a fixed number of units that we are dealing with.
And so the question then becomes, ``Do you give that fixed number of
units to the poorest of the poor, or do you give some of those units to
the poorest of the poor and some to the working poor?'' But however we
cut this up, they are pitting the very poor against the working poor,
and so they have got an argument being made here that they can never
win. We cannot win this argument.
Sure the working poor need subsidized housing, but the very poor need
subsidized housing also, and if they do not get subsidized housing,
they do not have any alternatives but to be put out on the street.
So the question then becomes are we going to serve less of the very
poor and more of the working poor, or are we going to serve more of the
very poor to keep them from being on the street?
Now that is kind of like saying to me, look, I got a class of
students who cannot read. Sure, they will be better off if we put them
in a class with some people who can read a little bit better than them,
but for those spaces that they are giving to the kids who can read a
little bit better than those who cannot read at all, we do not have any
place for those people to go.
It is a no-win argument, and that is what this bill does. It puts us
in a no-win situation. And all the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is doing is saying, look, we buy into
the notion that it is a good thing to integrate housing economically,
to have a mix of economic incomes in this housing; that is a good
thing. But what are they going to do about those people who are forced
out of public housing or subsidized housing who do not have anywhere to
go other than homelessness? And that is what this is about.
We are in a no-win situation. We need to be allocating some more
dollars to subsidized housing. We do not have enough. The numbers said
that what are we serving; but what is the number of housing units, Mr.
Ranking Member, that we are underserving?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. There are about 16 million people that
are eligible for public housing, and there are only about 4\1/2\
million people that are actually getting served in terms of families.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. So I mean what are we arguing about here?
The question is are we going to give working poor people a little more
help and let some people go out on the street and increase
homelessness, and that is what this bill does, or are we going to cut
the equation some other way, as Mr. Kennedy's amendment would do it,
and I do not like either approach. But, Mr. Chairman, as between the
two I certainly support Mr. Kennedy's approach.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first, I must recognize with disappointment and chagrin
the
[[Page H2228]]
drastic impact that this bill will have on a nation's commitment to
providing a decent, a safe, and an affordable place to live for those
most in need. Our Republican colleagues charge that the debate should
focus only on such a commitment and how it cannot be met under their
budget and with scarcer Federal resources, yet they neglect the
essential component of the debate on housing, the unassisted American
families who have dire need for housing.
Mr. Chairman, these families are shut out of the private rental
market because of the difficulty, in some cities the economic
impossibility, for private owners to provide rental housing that is
affordable to the poor. They are single-parent families supported by
one minimum wage earner struggling to meet day care and juggling
overlapping schedules. They are two-parent families who have suffered
job displacement or trying to find a new job in order to support their
families. They are the families at the bottom of the income ladder but
who are grasping onto the ladder with two hands, struggling to reach
the next rung.
Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues and I do not rise up and support the
Kennedy amendment, we will have effectively pulled the ladder out from
under that vulnerable family because we all know that a person cannot
find employment if he or she has no home, no place of address, no
phone, and we all know that a person cannot achieve in a job if he or
she lives in unstable housing where children are in danger due to the
unsafe living conditions and where the families' health and nutrition
is suffering because their rent is eating up, literally speaking, all
of their disposable income.
Obviously, there are wise policy reasons to provide affordable
housing to those in need, but the next question to ask is, can we meet
the needs of those families by targeting our public and assisted
housing program as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]
strongly suggests? Probably not, but we can meet those needs much
better under the gentleman's amendment than under H.R. 2. The
gentleman's amendment preserves a majority of housing assistance for
those who need the most but balances that policy by also reserving
housing assistance for those at relatively higher income levels in an
effort to avoid the economic ghettoizing of the past.
Again, the need for subsidized housing is extremely great. Last year
in a study released by HUD, we learned that 70 percent of the families
at 30 percent or below the median area income has been and have
suffered severe housing needs, meaning those families are living in
substandard, unsafe, or are paying more than 50 percent of their
disposable income to rent, or both. Yet we are reducing, even with the
advances made by Mr. Kennedy's amendment, the availability of
subsidized housing for those people in the name of economic
integration. So we already will be keeping more families on the
streets, reconcentrated in homeless shelters, or doubled up in the
worst housing available.
But if this Congress fails the Kennedy amendment, the number of needy
families without housing alternatives will grow by leaps and bounds,
and all the good intentions of moving people to work and encouraging
self-sufficiency will never be realized because people need stability
in housing and sufficient disposable income to have the capability, let
alone the wherewithal, to achieve, to succeed and be always grasping
for the next rung on that ladder.
For all these reasons it is incumbent upon us to support the
amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Lazio].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] for yielding me the time,
and I want to point the Houses's attention, if I can, to this diagram
in response to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
If we look over here at this diagram, we see over time, since 1992,
how the average income in public housing has dramatically declined.
This is not unique to one city or one community around the country. It
is a generalization across the country that the median income for
people living in public housing has dropped precipitously.
We see right over here from about 1980 until today the average median
income in public housing has dropped from about 35 percent to about 17
percent, and as we see this line plummet down, so too could we track
the downward trend in many low-income communities that have public
housing around them; so too could we track the fact that basic services
have been fleeing the low-income neighborhoods.
The gentlewoman from California was bemoaning the fact that there
were not basic services. Mr. Chairman, the reason there is not basic
services is because we have forced out the working poor from these very
neighborhoods. That is why there are not enough people to support the
local grocery store, that is why there is not enough people to support
the local laundromat, that is why there is not enough people to ensure
that we have basic banking services over here.
What we are talking about in H.R. 2 is to provide maximum flexibility
to local communities while still assuring that the poorest of the poor
are taken care of, because at least 35 percent of the units must be
reserved for people at the lowest end of the economic ladder, below 30
percent of median income. But in this bill we say that no housing
authority will be asked not to dedicate all of its units, if it wanted
to, to people who are very poor, below 30 percent of median income.
What we are trying to do is match our words and our rhetoric with our
actions.
We are for mixed income, we are for keeping the working poor in
public housing; we are not for punishing them. That is why we want to
change the rent-setting rules. We are for local flexibility. This is
very much about ensuring that the working poor can stay in there.
And let me say a few examples here. In Massachusetts in eight
metropolitan counties families of four with two parents working full
time making a $1.51 more than minimum wage will have to compete for 10
percent of public housing units if this amendment is adopted.
{time} 1930
In Vermont, in 11 counties, a family of four with both parents
working, making only 26 cents greater than minimum wage, will compete
for only 10 percent. In Providence and in many counties in Rhode
Island, the same families making $1.51 more than minimum wage will have
to compete for 10 percent of the public housing units.
We are here to say that just because one is working does not mean
that one ought to be biased against, it does not mean that one ought to
be punished. We want to build that social capital capacity in public
housing. We want to ensure that there are role models. We want to make
sure that we do not force the working poor out, the people of modest
income, simply because they have a job.
Mr. Chairman, back in 1968 under the Great Society when Lyndon
Johnson was President, he signed into law a piece of legislation that
would have targeted our resources to those people not making below 80
percent of median income, which is an absolute ceiling in our bill, but
below 90 percent of median income.
However, what have we done over the years? This Congress year after
year has said that there is more wisdom in Washington and we are going
to impose more Federal preferences, and we are going to concentrate
more poverty and we are going to drive more poor working people out of
public housing and out of the inner city. So now we have doughnuts. We
have decay in some inner city neighborhoods and we have the working
poor, that would be stability, that would be the bedrocks of the
community, moving out into the suburban areas.
We are trying to get that synergy of having the working poor and the
poor live side by side because we think it is the right environment to
help the very poor, because we know there is never going to be enough
money, there will never be enough money to rebuild every building.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has
expired.
[[Page H2229]]
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an
additional 2 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Iowa?
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object--
--
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, this is about building that type of synergy.
This is about ensuring that we reconnect, reconnect people with their
civic duty, reconnect the working class with the people that are
unemployed. We are not saying that people who are unemployed are not
worthy of public housing; we are just saying where we have concentrated
the unemployed, the people of very low incomes in certain communities,
it has proven to be disastrous.
That is why virtually every public housing authority across the
country and every large public housing association that represents
housing authorities that work with these tenants are in support of more
local flexibility, are in support of our approach.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding. The gentleman was talking about all of this local flexibility
we are giving. I would ask the gentleman, where was that argument when
we were talking about the local flexibility that we were trying to give
them under the last section of the bill?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is
absolute local flexibility in terms of community work requirement. Any
tenant and any housing authority can choose any number of ways in which
they can fulfill that requirement.
This is basically about ensuring flexibility. This is putting your
money where your mouth is. We have heard a lot of talk in this city
about getting to mixed income, and when it comes down to the votes and
doing something about it, people run and hide or they demagogue.
In fact, do not take my word for it. Listen to the housing
authorities, the people who are rolling up their sleeves, who are doing
this hard work month after month, year after year. They are asking for
this. Even the best-run housing authorities in the country are finding
that they are getting swamped by the social services needs when we
concentrate, super concentrate poverty in some of our Nation's
communities.
So we find the streets in Chicago with 4\1/2\ straight miles of
public housing where virtually everybody is unemployed. What happens in
that area? How many stores are in that area? How many banks are in that
area? How many laundromats are in that area? There are none. I have
been there, and the reason is that we have forced out the working poor
that would support those basic services, that would help create the
type of environment that we want for every American child.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Lazio] has a very interesting chart, and I would
just like to bring the attention of the gentleman to the chart that we
brought.
The truth is that we believe in a lot of the rhetoric that the
gentleman has just talked about. What I would like to point out to the
gentleman from New York is that under our proposal, we are not
suggesting that we continue public housing at 17 percent of median
income. We are allowing, under the Democratic alternative, we would
allow that the amendment that is before us, over the period of 10 years
we would go to a 50-50 mix.
All I am trying to suggest is that it is not just because of the
Federal preferences, it is not just because of the directives that have
come from the Federal Government; it is because the sheer number of
very poor people in this country has grown so substantially. I just
think we have to deal with that issue.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the issue is
not just the amount of poor people, because we have quadrupled our
spending in housing since 1980. This is not just about money. This is
about basic management, about creating the right incentives, about
ensuring that we have mixed income.
If I can just finish, if I could just finish my thought to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the real controversy that
we have here is that while we say we are for mixed income, we say we
are for keeping the working poor in public housing, the net effect of
the gentleman's amendment, if it is adopted, is to condemn another
generation of residents, of young people, to live in that same area,
the same environment of super concentrations of poverty.
That is happening here in our own Nation's Capital. We do not think
we can take another year like this. We do not think we can take another
5 years, we surely do not think we can take another 10 years like this.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding. There is a long, long waiting list to get into public
housing, very poor people. What does the gentleman propose to do with
those people? The gentleman is saying that he does not want them
condemned to public housing. The alternative is to condemn them to the
streets.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are going
to spend over half of the additional spending in this budget deal on
low-income housing. In addition, we spent over $1 billion on the
homeless, which we will again.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I was just thinking that if H.R. 2 is a friend of the
working poor, then I am certain that the people in Robert Taylor, Henry
Horner and Cabrini Green, and some other places that I know, would say,
``Do not send me any enemies.''
The more I listen to the debate, the more I am firmly convinced that
no matter what the intent, no matter what the hope, no matter what the
most basic desire, I am convinced that the outcome of H.R. 2 would
become a part of the continuing attack on the poor, would become a part
of continuing to strip the poor people of this country of their last
ounce of dignity.
That is why I rise to support the Kennedy amendment, because it
attempts and it does restore some of that basic humaneness to public
housing, in the public housing act in this country. It contains the
kind of flexibility that is needed, that will allow people to work and
remain in public housing. Everybody that works does not necessarily
earn enough money not to need a subsidy. That is why we need a minimum
wage that gives people a livable wage.
So this amendment attempts to say to America that we do not
necessarily have to try and throw out the baby with the bath water
every time we attempt to correct something.
I would agree with those who suggest that public housing is in need
of reform. I would agree with those who suggest that it is laudable for
people to volunteer. As a matter of fact, I come from a history of
volunteerism, so much so that people generally do not know the
difference between what they do for work, what they do for pay, and
what they do because it needs to be done.
However, when we force people, when we take away their pride, we take
away their dignity, we take away their most basic and most human of all
instincts, and that is to make decisions for themselves.
So I would hope that after the dust settles, after all is said and
done, that we will come to our senses and realize that if America is to
ever be the one America that we talk about it being, then we have to
say to all of its citizens that no matter what their status, we will
look after their interests; no matter what their status, we believe
that they can live with dignity and they can live with pride.
So I would hope that we would vote for the Kennedy amendment, that we
would restore dignity, pride and meaning to the public housing act in
this country.
[[Page H2230]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me just take a minute
and commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis] for the powerful
words that he has spoken and for the manner in which he has spoken
them. A lot of us have been involved in this debate for 2 or 3 days
now, and some of us may be losing perspective, but the gentleman was
right on point.
I am fascinated by the argument that our chairman of the subcommittee
has used with this chart here, because as I recall, all of us supported
what we call scattered-site housing. To hear my Republican colleagues
now come back and say that by encouraging scattered-site housing and
the movement out to the suburbs, all of a sudden we have created the
problem now where we have public housing that has an over-concentration
of the very poor, is amazing to me.
We did not create this problem; the problem got created because we
have too many poor people in this country and not enough public
housing, not enough housing for people whether they are very poor or
whether they are the working poor.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Davis of Illinois was allowed to proceed for 30 additional
seconds.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
continuing to yield.
This whole notion that somehow we should just turn our backs on the
poorest people in this country and let them go to the street, then I
guess the next thing beyond this policy that is in this bill is they
will be back in here a couple of years from now saying, well, we put
all of these people on the street now, and now it is your fault because
we were all trying to do something good.
Well, all of us are trying to do something good here. All of us are
trying to do something good, and this holier than thou attitude, we
have the right bill, we have the right cause, we are wrapping ourselves
in the flag, is just ridiculous, and we should not be going through
that in this body.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important to say that we do not
believe we have all of the answers. All we have is the belief that what
we have today simply does not work. We may well come back here, despite
the chairman's best effort, next Congress and say, ``Hey, guys, this
did not do it. We're going to have to make some changes in the way
we've tried it.''
{time} 1945
It was President Roosevelt who said, ``We owe it to the American
people to do bold things and try it, and and if they fail to work, come
back, acknowledge it, and try again.''
But to stand here together tonight after quadrupling the budget for
housing four times over since 1980, I understand that the deal made in
the budget, which I was not part of, of the $70 billion in
discretionary spending, some $37 million is allocated to section 8
certificates over the next 5 years, with the effort made, honestly and
frankly, to pour money into programs.
I will give the Members one that I do know, the section 235 program
some years ago, an interest rate buydown program that allowed families
to move in with interest rate subsidies, into homes. It was a good idea
on paper. It did not work. People were taken from a poor public housing
environment and placed into home ownership responsibilities. It was a
disaster. The program was canceled because we did not do anything but
provide for money.
This is more than just providing money. These are human beings. I
listened to a Member earlier talk about the conditions in public
housing. She is right: Dirty halls, doors off apartments where single
women with children live. There was a suit at Desire Street housing
project; a kid fell out of a window from a second story, was
permanently disabled, and the window did not even have glass, did not
have a frame, there was a hole in the wall. It had been reported to the
housing authority for years.
Money spent on fire and smoke detectors; they were put in a
warehouse, kept locked up for years, and a family died, the whole
family. They have a lawsuit filed claiming damages against the housing
authority. They still have not been paid. It is an outrage. It is an
absolute outrage.
I share the frustrations some Members have on this side with our
belief that by requiring people to work, by mixing families together of
a different background and income level, that by counseling people with
these silly schemes, that all this stuff is just simply going to make
it worse. I do not believe that. I simply do not believe that.
What I know is what we have. It does not work. We need to take people
who cannot read and give them an opportunity to learn, people who do
not have job skills, and teach them how to work; people who have job
skills, we need to get them into the community and do something where
they live. There is nothing wrong with that.
But to say that we are going to allow more working poor into a public
housing unit and bring their meager paycheck, despite the fact many
call them rich, I cannot imagine raising a family of four in a city of
New York on $30,000. I am sure people do it, but it has to be tough.
We are going to say to those people, no, you cannot come in and bring
your families; and dads who go to work in the morning, and moms who
stay home and try to take care of the kids, and kids, by the way, who
go to school? You can run into individuals in public housing today,
little kids, they have given up. That is why 13-year-olds shoot other
13-year-olds for tennis shoes, my friends, because they do not believe
tomorrow will be any better than today. It is a terrible circumstance.
What I am suggesting is that taking the bold steps we take here
tonight may not be the answer, but it has got to be better than what we
have been doing for the last decade. Let us give it a try.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, I know we have now
twice heard the argument that the budget deal is going to give all this
money for section 8's. My understanding is that it is simply a renewal
of the existing section 8's. That was originally cited as an answer to
the question of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], when poor
people are excluded from this because of the retargeting, where will
they go? And the gentleman from New York said, well, we are giving all
this money to section 8's. But that is to continue the existing section
8's. That is renewal. It does not add one unit. It prevents the loss of
units. It does not add units.
I would say to the gentleman from Louisiana, I do not think there are
solutions to these problems that exclude greater resources. I do not
think you can counsel people into filling a hole in the wall.
Mr. BAKER. If I may reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, when they talk about the
budget deal, are they talking about the renewal of section 8's? And
does the gentleman really consider the renewal of section 8's new
resources for housing?
Mr. BAKER. I will respond to the gentleman on the housing
information.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Watt of North Carolina and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Baker was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me say, when we spend $37
billion additional dollars, which is over half of the increase in
discretionary spending, to meet the needs for affordable housing where
we subsidize units that does not run with the people, that means every
time somebody vacates that unit, it opens up for new people to come in
and to get the benefit of that
[[Page H2231]]
assisted housing. So it means that literally tens of thousands of
Americans, in addition to who we are serving right now, will be able to
get the benefit of that situation.
Mr. BAKER. Reclaiming my time just for a moment, I would simply make
the point the gentleman's view is that more money is the answer. My
view is more money has not been the answer. I think that is one of the
issues.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. More money is part of the answer. When we
are worried about the military, more money is the answer. When we are
worried about space, more money is the answer. Money only gets
denigrated when it is poor people who may get some.
I would also say to the gentleman from New York, first of all, we are
talking about section 8, not public housing.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Baker was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the
same number of section 8s. Yes, we are talking about renewing the
existing section 8s. I am willing to bet most people who heard the
gentleman when he talked about all this new money in the budget deal
thought he was talking about new units. We now have a big waiting list.
Maintaining the same number of units, preventing them from dropping, is
not going to eat into the waiting list.
Mr. BAKER. Reclaiming my time, I would simply like to address the
point that the question of more money has been demonstrated not
necessarily always to be the answer, whether it is defense or whether
it is any other appropriations measure. I think that is what the
balanced budget deal is all about.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let me make two quick
points. No. 1, I want to tell the gentleman how much I respect the fact
that he acknowledged he does not have the perfect solution.
Mr. BAKER. I have not heard one, either.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. We are all interested in finding a better
solution. I think one of the things we have been hearing over and over
again is this bill is so perfect we cannot do anything to it to amend
it and make it better. That is a bad, bad attitude about it.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I do believe the
chairman did agree to amendments tonight, without objection, that were
enhancements, so we are getting there.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman will continue to yield,
the second point I want to make is I understand that we try things. I
have children and I tell them, hey, do not do this, you are making a
mistake. Sometimes they have to go out and learn for themselves. But if
you know that you have all these people on the waiting list with no
housing for them----
Mr. BAKER. That is today.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. And there is no place for them to go but
either public housing or to the street; what is the answer? There is
nothing in this bill that is addressing that.
Mr. BAKER. If I could reclaim my time, what the gentleman is
suggesting, that we have people waiting today who cannot get access to
housing, that is a tragedy, I agree. What I am saying is let us create
a better environment where we do have public housing by enhancing the
conditions for those who must live there. Certainly we have an unmet
need, but let us do both.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Baker]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Baker was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify
some of the numbers utilized here this evening. First and foremost, we
hear time and time again references back to 1980. I would point out to
the gentleman from Louisiana as well as to the gentleman from New York
that this country in 1980 spent $30 billion on affordable housing, and
built over 300,000 new units of affordable housing for poor people in
that year.
Prior to 1980 in this country we did not see a lot of homelessness,
because we had a housing policy where we took care of the housing needs
of our very poor. Since 1980, since Ronald Reagan was elected
President, the housing budget in this country has been slashed and
beaten unlike any other in the entire Federal budget. That is a
decline. That is why we have the homeless.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to establish that the
idea that more money and more money and more money is the answer to
poverty is contradicted by the chart right behind the gentleman, which
shows that since 1982, as median income has been going down, operating
subsidies have been going through the roof, and we have not made a dent
in poverty. We still have slums that have been subsidized by the
Federal Government.
Mr. BAKER. I end where I began. Money is not always the answer.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think that anybody is going to say that money
is going to solve all the problems, but I understand why the housing
authorities want to have this mixed population move in. The reason they
want to have it move in is because, with the pressure on their budgets,
they simply cannot afford to run these units if they are only serving
poor people, so they have to get rid of the poor people in order to
stay within budget, so they have economic pressures to move the poor
people, the very people that these programs were designed to serve, out
of these units.
I also find it amazingly ironic when we are talking about having
mixed populations. I, along with the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt], agree that it is appropriate to have mixed populations. But I do
not think we would be having the same debate that we are having here
tonight if the mixed population debate we are talking about was moving
these poor people out in the suburbs. Then, all of a sudden, this would
not be such a great idea. But somehow, by having them move into these
housing projects, it is a different scenario altogether.
I also want to take a moment, with the indulgence of my colleagues on
the floor tonight, to address an issue that was raised earlier this
evening because it deals with a housing unit in my district; and that
is the Hillside housing unit. Earlier this evening, it was represented
to this body that the Hillside housing unit is a model for the Nation
because it has a work requirement in the lease and that is correct.
That was actually put into the lease, and this will be interesting to
my colleagues, at the request of the tenants. The tenants asked that
this be included. And it was done because there were literally millions
of dollars that were put into the Hillside housing unit in Milwaukee.
This is a wonderful housing unit. Incidentally, Oprah Winfrey at one
point lived in this housing unit, so that will give Members an
indication that it is not a terrible housing unit.
But the irony is, when I was listening to this debate this afternoon,
I called the housing unit and I said, ``What's the story? Is this a
good provision?'' And they explained to me it was put in at the request
of the tenants. And I said, ``Is this something that you are applying
to all the other housing units in Milwaukee?'' And they said, ``No, no,
no. We are opposed to this mandate.''
The reason they are opposed to this mandate is because, as the
gentleman
[[Page H2232]]
from North Carolina and the gentleman from Illinois have argued earlier
tonight, is that the bureaucratic cost of administering this without
any funds from the Federal Government makes it too onerous. So what we
have done is we have taken a project that serves 180 families,
basically, and we have extrapolated it now to national policy.
My feeling is that, if this is such a great idea, and I believe in
local laboratories of democracy we should be doing what we tried to do,
and that is give the local units, the local authorities the opportunity
to do this, or we should give the tenants themselves the opportunity to
do this. But to have this mandated by big brother in Washington I think
flies in the face of logic. So I wanted to set the record straight on
that.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
First of all, let me say to the gentleman from Louisiana and the
gentleman from New York that I appreciate their willingness to engage
in the colloquies that they have in this debate. I would just like to
come back to the fact that we are not suggesting that simply resources
alone are enough to solve this problem.
But when the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] suggests that
resources are not an answer to poverty, I would suggest that more money
really is an answer to poverty. I think that is the definition of
``poverty'' is not having enough money. But, in any event, I think that
what we are trying to suggest on our charts is that nobody wants to
perpetuate the status quo, nobody is suggesting that we continue
warehousing the very, very poor in these monstrosities where only the
very poor live.
We are trying to achieve a glide path so that the very, very poor are
not going to be simply thrown out and not have any safety net to take
care of them. All I would ask the gentleman is, if he really believes
in his heart that this is the correct policy, then how can he pursue
this policy without contributing more money to this entire program? If
he is suggesting that the answer to public housing is to get more
working families involved in public housing, then how does he justify
doing that by not taking care of the same number of very poor people
that we have in the past by simply abandoning them?
That is essentially what is going to take place under this
legislation. So I ask the gentleman from New York, what is he going to
do with those very, very poor people who are no longer going to receive
any benefit from their government and we have cut the homeless budget
at the same time?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I think what distinguishes us is
the fact that, under our program, under this bill, we are hopeful of
creating environments where poor people can actually transition out,
where we can actually make more availability. We are going to spend
more money on the homeless than we ever have in our history this year.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous
consent, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, they are going to
transition to where? The gentleman keeps saying they are going to
transition to somewhere. He said before, we are going to spend all this
money, it is just to renew the section 8, it is these same number of
units. And this notion that they are going to transition to somewhere.
Where? Oz? Fairyland?
This is out of sight, out of mind to the very poor. Of course we
should make these changes. But, essentially, what the gentleman from
Long Island [Mr. Lazio] is saying is, dealing with these very poor
people has not worked because they are too hard to deal with and let us
start ignoring them and then we can claim success and God knows what
will happen to them.
{time} 2000
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I think most of us could concede that income mix, H.R. 2's policy is
going to be successful in terms of the working poor. The question is,
at what price? At what cost? What happens? Do we have 16 million
families in 4 million units? That is the problem.
The question is, who are we going to give priority to? My colleague
is suggesting giving it to those who have upper income in this
particular category, and the fact is that gentleman from Massachusetts'
policy would be successful. We can concede that. But the fact is, how
do we do it? How do we make that particular transition? I submit that
is very important.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply point out that the point
I was making earlier is that we have miserable conditions today in two
places. We have a waiting line. And we have terrible housing. What we
are suggesting is let us try to improve the environment within the
resources we have in those housing units. We certainly have a backlog
with which we have to deal but that is there today.
My point is, are we going to simply ignore, as some perhaps think is
appropriate, the conditions that people must live in now? The answer is
no. Let us do something to improve the quality of life there. That is
my point.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Barrett of
Wisconsin was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out the fact is that
public housing is not the bleak picture that often is being portrayed
here where we have some 75 troubled projects which do comprise a
significant population of a half million or so people. There are many
others that are very successful that are working in my communities, in
the gentleman's community. In Milwaukee, public housing is among the
best housing for low-income persons. It is working in St. Paul and
Minneapolis. It is working in Milwaukee. We do have troubled housing
projects some places though. This is the point in terms of what we are
talking about here. As we change this so that it works in some of the
troubled areas, let us not in fact do it on the backs of the poor. We
are creating a class of individuals that are too poor for public
housing now.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make
the point that we have suggested that the reason for the problem that
my colleague has articulated is because of the concentration of very
poor people in public housing. When this argument shifts to the voucher
program, we will no longer have the argument that we are simply putting
all these poor people together in single projects.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous
consent, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin was allowed to proceed for 20
additional seconds.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, under the voucher program people will be allowed to
go across all city lines, go wherever they want. So whatever arguments
my colleague is making today on the project based program or on public
housing will not be appropriate to the voucher program which will come
up tomorrow.
[[Page H2233]]
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
Page 102, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 7
on page 104, and insert the following:
SEC. 225. FAMILY RENTAL PAYMENT.
(a) Rental Contribution by Resident.--A family residing in
a public housing dwelling shall pay as monthly rent for the
unit an amount, determined by the public housing agency, that
does not exceed the greatest of the following amounts
(rounded to the nearest dollar):
(A) 30 percent of the monthly adjusted income of the
family.
(B) 10 percent of the monthly income of the family.
(C) If the family is receiving payments for welfare
assistance from a public agency and a part of such payments,
adjusted in accordance with the actual housing costs of the
family, is specifically designated by such agency to meet the
housing costs of the family, the portion of such payments
that is so designated.
(b) Minimum Rental Amount.--Each public housing agency
shall require
Page 105, strike line 21 and all that follows through line
19 on page 106.
Page 107, strike ``, except that'' on line 2 and all that
follows through line 5, and insert a period.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first let me say to the
gentleman from Massachusetts, I know he has pointed out that the
rationale presented will not apply to section 8, but have no fear, they
will come up with one tomorrow night; by tomorrow, overnight, they will
come up with a new reason.
Mr. Chairman, this is a further effort to get some of the unnecessary
bureaucratic gobbledegook out of this bill.
Last year we debated at length in this bill an effort by the majority
to raise the amount of rent that tenants could be forced to pay. The
maximum is now 30 percent. The majority was determined to raise it.
I have to say to those Members on the majority side who were here
last year and a few on our side who loyally voted with the chairman and
supported him on vote after vote to raise the rents, maybe they feel a
little bit perturbed that that was all in vain because that part has
now been given up. I admire the fact that this bill no longer tries to
raise the rents of the poor.
Instead it tries to complicate them unduly and unnecessarily for the
low income people and for the housing authorities.
We agreed last year, although I must say the chairman of the
subcommittee last year was determined not to be agreed with, when we
kept agreeing with him, but we agreed that having the 30 percent be a
minimum as well as a maximum was a bad idea. Our amendment last year
said it should not be a minimum. It said it should be a maximum.
This amendment says very simply the housing authorities can charge
whatever rents they want by whatever method they want as long as that
amount does not exceed 30 percent of income.
The chairman of the subcommittee is fond of having a flat rent
charged for apartments. What this bill does, and it takes about five or
seven pages to do it, it once again orders the housing authority to
engage in a very complicated choice process. It says the housing
authority will set a flat rent for the unit, and it will have a 30-
percent maximum rent. And then it will have the tenant choose each year
which one he wants. But if the tenant has chosen the flat rent and the
tenant's income goes down, then the tenant can be given a hardship
exemption. If the tenant has chosen the 30 percent and the tenant's
income goes up, then she has an 18-month phase-in, and during the 18-
month phase-in she has a 12-month reelection period.
It is a seven-page complication, frankly, I think to save a little
bit of face because the chairman was determined to take a nick out of
the Brook amendment. And they decided last year they had taken the
wrong nick. But there are seven pages of complication.
Once again, it orders it to every housing authority. The chairman is
a fan of the flat rent method. Let the housing authorities decide. That
might be appropriate for some housing authorities. It might be too
difficult for others.
This amendment that I offer allows them to do that. It says to the
housing authorities: You do whatever you want. If you want to tie it to
income with a 30 percent cap, you can do that. If you want to give them
a choice between a flat rent and a 30 percent, you can do that.
Are we now deciding that everywhere in the United States in every
type of project there is this one method that works and that has to be
done, and it is a method where you choose either a flat rent or a
percentage of your income every year? But there is a way to get out of
one and there is a way to get out of another, and it is, once again,
piling on a complication. It is about the third or fourth additional
mandate that we put on the housing authorities.
The alternative seems to me to be very simple. It says: No, there is
no minimum. If you want to have a work incentive, you can have that. If
you want to have a flat rent, you can have that. If you want to put a
top of 20 percent, you can have that. You can do, as the housing
authority, anything you want. You might decide for different tenants
different things work.
The housing authorities might even want to experiment. My friend from
Louisiana talked about the importance of experiments. Are we the only
ones who can experiment? I do not think that is the best way to
experiment. Why not give the housing authorities flexibility and let
various housing authorities experiment with different types of rents
rather than take the pet project of the chairman, which is this very
complicated system. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that Members, before voting
on this, will have a chance to read these seven pages.
In fact maybe instead of a vote on this we should have a test. And we
will have a test on that. And if a majority of the Members can
understand it and explain it, then we will have it enacted. And if a
majority of the Members cannot, we will not have it enacted.
I have another provision that I want to suggest to my colleagues.
They said that the tenants really want the work requirement and the
tenants want the self-sufficiency.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am going to propose an
amendment later on that we have a tenants' referendum on these things.
I do not doubt the sincerity of my colleagues in insisting that the
work requirement and the self-sufficiency contract are really what the
tenants want. They should want the tenants then to have a referendum on
this because that would show how much they want it. And instead of this
extraordinarily complicated seven-page scheme, why not simply say to
the housing authorities: You can do flat rent if you want. You can do
per unit rent. You can do a rent tied to income. The only thing you
cannot do is go above 30 percent.
That is what this amendment says.
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my strong unequivocal support for the
Frank amendment. It is simple. It is fair. And it is a reasonable
compromise to the provisions of H.R. 2. It protects many of the
Nation's most vulnerable from excessive rents. The Frank amendment
caps, it does not set, income based rents at 30 percent of income. It
provides for rent reform with ceiling rents and income disallowances.
It allows the public housing authorities the flexibility to establish
flat rent subsidies and eliminate the disincentives to earn additional
income, just as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] wants. And it
requires the PHA's to establish market disciplines that are important
to managing real estate and that rightfully are important to the
chairman.
It does not permit PHA's to charge public housing residents flat
rents that are higher than 30 percent of their limited incomes, as the
Lazio provisions would permit and, along with other provisions of the
bill, would encourage.
[[Page H2234]]
I believe that the provisions of H.R. 2 would tend to encourage flat
rents set far higher than 30 percent of most of the public housing
tenants' incomes, because the rents are to reflect market rents, not
operating costs.
The Frank approach would tend to encourage rents set that were
affordable to the overwhelming majority of the public housing
residents, those whose incomes are 30 percent of median income.
I would like to remind the House of a few facts. Currently the
average monthly rent paid by all public housing residents is $185, far
less than operating costs or most market rents, and 75 percent of all
current residents have annual incomes that are less than $10,000. Most
public housing residents simply cannot afford to pay rents that equal
operating costs or the market.
So the rent choice is hollow, also administratively burdensome and
complicated. Few if any residents will choose to pay more than 30
percent of income for rent.
Finally, let me suggest that over time the rent setting methods in
H.R. 2 could end up segregating the very poor in the worst and the most
rundown developments. PHAs would direct families choosing to pay income
based rents to those properties where the public housing authorities
would lose the least money, and those who would agree to pay the higher
flat rents would be steered, that is directed to the better properties.
Although unintended, I believe that would be shameful.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. It is a fair and a sensible compromise.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GONZALEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have the
support of a man who has done more for public housing, I believe, than
any man who has served in the Congress of the United States, and for
the tenants.
I want to point that the complications here are such that some people
are going to get trapped by it, and some people are going to wind up
paying more than 30 percent of their income because there is a very
complicated set of calculations that have to be made. There is also the
possibility of coercion. So it is unnecessarily complicated, and it may
lead to periods where people will wind up paying more than 30 percent.
My amendment says again they have total flexibility but it makes that
impossible.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Economic Opportunity. We worked on this, on
a version of this amendment last year. And the chairman has, I think,
shown great leadership by changing the amendment that was offered last
year and recognizing the fact that we both have in common the desire to
take away work disincentives.
I believe that the amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Frank has offered has not only the benefit of getting rid of the
work disincentive but it also creates another perverse aspect of what
is currently contained in H.R. 2. I would appreciate it if the
gentleman from New York would explain how this concern is going to be
dealt with.
{time} 2015
Under the bill as it is currently written, it seems that there would
be an incentive by an individual who is in public housing, that has an
opportunity to move to a housing authority's building that happens to
be better than the building that they are currently in, if they have a
little bit of additional income and they can pay above 30 percent in
order to choose a better unit in another housing project, and because
of the last debate, where the gentleman indicated his desire for public
housing to have a greater mix of working families, our concern, and I
think the amendment of gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], gets
at what will in fact be a disincentive for those working families to go
to some of the worst housing projects.
If part of our solution of fixing some of these bad housing projects
is to get more working families to go there, and if we have, however,
in the bill an incentive that says, listen, if they are willing to
actually pay 35 percent of their income, and then they get to go to a
better housing project, does the gentleman not feel that we have in
fact, not intentionally, but in a sort of in a quirk of the law,
created a disincentive for the very projects that the gentleman wants
to improve?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would say firstly that the
object of H.R. 2 is to make sure there are no bad housing complexes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I was
not interested in going into a long debate on all the benefits of the
gentleman's bill. I wanted to understand how he was going to fix this
problem we are trying to deal with.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman
that it is a valid point; that we are looking to ensure that we do not
have any bad housing.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to have my
amendment say that this does not take effect until we have no bad
housing projects. Once that happens, then this could take effect.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would say to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] that I would be willing to buy
into his last comment.
I would say also, that just as in the case with poor people or the
working poor that are in nonpublic housing, those people that have the
ability to make a choice to move into another public housing unit, when
one becomes vacant, will probably exercise that choice, and that is
great.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what
we are trying to suggest is that the gentleman has created a perverse
incentive that will actually funnel people away from the housing
projects that perhaps are undesirable and leave those to the very poor,
which will make them not better but, over a period of time, will create
the warehousing effect that the gentleman has just said for the last
hour and a half he is opposed to.
So what we have here is a situation where the gentleman is saying he
is opposed to the warehousing effect, but what he is really going to do
is he is going to back door the warehouse effect by virtue of the fact
that he has created an incentive for anybody that has enough income to
pay a little bit above 30 percent where some of that money will stick
to the back pocket of the housing authority. So the housing authority
now has an incentive to get the people into the better housing
projects.
So we end up with, I think, a very perverse consequence to the
provisions the gentleman has included in this bill. And I think the
amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] gets to the
heart of that, which is we should just go back to the plain old Brooke
amendment, which the Republican Senator wrote several years ago, and it
seems to have worked very well.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman
that the other choice that somebody has who is in public housing that
does not like their unit is to leave public housing altogether, which
would serve as it does right now to continue to concentrate the poor.
The discussion is whether to retain what we have right now, which
taxes work and punishes working families, or to give them some other
options and choices.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, here
[[Page H2235]]
again we have the situation where what we say is we are going to punish
the poor and reward people that have a little bit more money. It is a
perverse way of handling and dealing with a substantive problem.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman. I rise today to express my deep concern
about the future of families living in America's public housing
developments. H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act,
represents a dramatic restructuring of public housing that will have
consequences, perhaps unintended and detrimental to the millions of
Americans the programs were intended to serve. I am especially
concerned because this bill includes a section which would repeal the
income-based rent cap of 30 percent in public housing, otherwise known
as the Brooke Amendment.
In the borough of Brooklyn, which includes the 10th Congressional
District which I represent, there are at least 33,485 public housing
units--the second largest in New York City, and one of the largest in
the Nation. A repeal of this rent cap, which has assisted families for
decades, would lead to rent increases for numerous public housing
residents and to further segregation for the poor. At a time when our
Nation is facing an affordable housing crisis in which 5.3 million
people are living under the worst housing conditions--paying more than
50 percent of their income in rent or living under substandard or
deplorable conditions, this amounts to an outright abandonment of our
commitment to adequate housing for poor and working class citizens.
Reform can be positive or negative. While I agree with my colleagues
that our public housing system is in great need of comprehensive
reform, I believe it is essential in any reform of public housing that
we keep income-based rent at a 30 percent cap. Eliminating these
provisions will exacerbate this affordable housing crisis by either
forcing families into homelessness or causing them to forego basic
human necessities such as clothing, food, and health care. About two-
thirds of the families who would be affected by this provision would be
families with children, including elderly grandparents raising their
grandchildren. I also believe that in this time of fiscal restraint,
Federal housing dollars should be targeted to those with the greatest
need. According to HUD's study released in March 1996, Rental Housing
Units at the Crossroads, 70 percent of the families below 30 percent of
the area's median income have severe housing needs. Congress should
pass a comprehensive housing reform bill that is responsive to
Americans who are in need of housing assistance. I remain hopeful that
the full House of Representatives will make further improvements to
this bill.
The long history of public housing has many successes to its credit,
and the lifting of current 30 percent rent cap will ultimately do more
harm than good. I urge the adoption of the Frank amendment which would
maintain a 30 percent rent cap.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 133, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Frank] will be postponed.
Are there further amendments to title II?
Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No.
46.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 46 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
Page 164, strike lines 1 through 4 and insert the
following:
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for grants under this section for each of
fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002--
(A) $500,000,000, which shall be available only for use for
activities under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection
(a); and
(B) such sums as may be necessary, which shall be available
only for use for activities under subsection (a)(4).
Page 173, strike lines 8 through 13 and insert the
following:
(1) Capital fund.--For the allocations from the capital
fund for grants, $3,700,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
(5) Operating fund.--For the allocations from the operating
fund for grants--
(A) $3,200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
(B) for each of fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002,
such sums as may be necessary to provide each eligible public
housing agency with the full amount determined under the
formula under section 204(c)(2) or 204(d)(1), as applicable,
for such agency to cover operating expenses for the agency.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to
the basic issue of funding. Now, we have heard an awful lot of rhetoric
this evening about how funding itself is not the major problem with
public housing, it is not the major problem with poverty, but the truth
of the matter is what we end up doing as a consequence of our
condemnation of all these terrible public housing units is to then cut
funding from almost $29 billion to just over $20 billion.
And I do not suggest for one moment that it is just the other side of
the aisle that is guilty of this reaction, the truth of the matter is
that the administration has come in with a budget that far underfunds
the necessary, I think, levels that are required if we are going to
actually deal with the issue of homelessness and shelter for our poor.
This amendment suggests that we do have the funds to achieve that in
this country. We seem unwilling to take that money from other areas of
the Government. When the Pentagon comes in last year and suggests that
they want an additional request over and above what the Joint Chiefs of
Staff requested on their behalf, we say here, here is $14 billion more
than you even requested.
But when it comes to public housing, when it comes to the housing
programs of this country, what we do is say, oh gosh, public housing is
in terrible shape. What is our reaction? We cut it. We say, gosh, if we
want to improve public housing in America, the best thing we can do is
go out and cut funding for it.
I am not trying to suggest that the answer to getting people out of
poverty at all times is to just give them money, but I would certainly
suggest if we want to deal with homeless people on the street--I was
out in California a couple of weeks ago, 2 or 3 weeks ago, and I was
driving through one of the wealthiest sections of America, down through
the streets of Beverly Hills, the most incredible palaces we have built
in the United States of America. And all the people are walking around
looking at all the stars' homes, and it is an absolutely lavish kind of
neighborhood. And yet there was something astounding; that on almost
every lawn of that neighborhood there was a homeless person lying on
the grass.
My colleagues, we have a problem in this country where we have not
built housing for the poor. Over the course of the last several years
we have seen the number of housing units that we have not built because
we have not provided funding to go to about three or four million
units. If we take the number of housing units that stopped being built
going back in 1980, which is about when we saw the rise in homelessness
in America, we will find that, if we add up all those numbers, we did
not build about three to four million housing units.
Over that same period of time, if we go to talk to the people of our
country that work with the homeless families in America, we will find
that their best estimates are that there are about three or four
million people in this country. The two are directly related.
We must not have a direct policy in our Nation of not providing
funding for the housing needs of our people, of our very poor people. I
would love to say that every poor person in America is going to be able
to go out and become a computer programmer. In my heart I do not
believe that is the case. There are going to be people that this
country has to take care of, and we have to find it within our souls,
within our own compassion to say that is worth our investment.
This will not break the budget of America. Nobody is suggesting that
the United States does not have the resources to accomplish this. We
can cut a little bit of corporate welfare that we so lavishly provide
all the big corporations of our country, that we provide to all the B-2
bombers and the F-22 and every other major weapon system that we say
are so vital to our national security even though the cold war has
ended.
What we want to suggest in this amendment is that when the public
housing authorities and HUD come in and tell us that they need $3.2
billion for their operating subsidies and we are
[[Page H2236]]
only giving them $2.9 billion, and as the gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Frank, and others have indicated, we will then load up that $2.9
billion with $65 million for this program or other millions of dollars
for that program, the truth of the matter is we are stripping away the
very capability of these housing authorities to serve the very people
we are asking them to.
So what do we do? We say to the housing authorities, well, that is
OK. Since we are not giving you the money to be able to take care of
the poor, you can just take in a few more of the richer poor people and
you can jack up the rents on those you are taking in and, therefore,
some more money will stick to your back pockets. We do not care what
happened to the poor, because now we can say, oh, gosh, look at that;
is that not a wonderfully beautiful public housing program? And, gee,
we must have done a terrific job in the Congress of the United States
because, boy, do we have great looking public housing.
We will not do a darn bit to take care of the very poor.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we will not really take
care of the poor, we are not going to take care of the homelessness. In
fact, we will cut homeless people by 26 percent, we will cut the
housing budget by 25 percent, and we will come in and nickel and dime
them and scold them a few times and tell them a few more things to do
with themselves, but we are sure as heck not going to give them any
more money.
And, boy, if somebody stands up on the House floor and suggests maybe
we should be putting enough money in to actually take care of these
people, we say, oh, they just want to throw money at all the problems,
and throwing money at poverty is not going to solve it. Well, I want to
say to the gentleman that if we want to make public housing work for
the people of this country, we ought to provide the operating subsidies
that HUD as well as the housing authorities suggest that they need in
order to be able to survive. And we should provide the capital grants
that are necessary not only to continue the existing public housing but
to improve that public housing.
If we do not put money into these projects, into these well run-down
projects and help them rebuild themselves, how the heck will they ever
actually get better? We have to put money into them. There have been
very successful programs that have rebuilt these large public housing
units, have created tenant ownership and done wonderful things. We need
to provide the operating subsidies and the capital grants.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I was upstairs in my Rules office and I was listening
to this debate while preparing a juvenile justice rule to bring to the
floor here in a few minutes, but I was disturbed when I heard where
this funding might come from, from the increases with the Kennedy
amendment.
As I read the amendment, it says the amendment to section 282 (1) and
(2) would increase authorization levels for the capital fund from $2.5
billion to $3.7 billion. Now, that is a $1.2 billion increase. And then
it would, at the same time, increase the level of funding for operating
subsidies from $2.9 billion to $3.2 billion. That is an increase of
$300 million, as I am reading here.
I would just say to my good friend from Massachusetts, I have for
years fought for the decent funding for the Department of Veterans
Affairs. It was my legislation which created it, took it from being the
Veterans Administration to a full Department of Veterans Affairs
because they were not being funded properly.
At the same time, I wanted to try to create a separate subcommittee
in the Committee on Appropriations so that the Department of Veterans
Affairs would not be funded along with HUD and other independent
agencies. The gentleman knows full well if this ever went through, a
$1.2 billion increase in the capital fund and the increased level of
funding for the operating subsidies, it would come directly out of the
hides of veterans in this country. To me that is terribly, terribly
irresponsible.
Even the veterans hospitals in Massachusetts, as they are in New
York, have been hit by a redistribution of funds, and the gentleman's
hospitals in Boston and in Albany, N.Y., and down in Dutchess County
have suffered. This would just exacerbate that problem.
So the money comes out of one kitty, one 602(b) allocation, and we
have to be very, very careful about where we take this money. This
money will not come out of the defense budget, which is grossly
underfunded. This will come directly out of Department of Veterans
Affairs, HUD and Independent Agencies.
The gentleman is not going to vote to take it out of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield
so I can explain to him where I am going to get the money?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the
gentleman understands that I am the No. 2 ranking Democrat on the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I would never stand for cutting the
veterans programs. So I want to make sure the gentleman understands
that. I have fought for them every year since I have been here.
Second, with regards to the issue of how we get these funds, there
have been no 602(b) allocation and, in fact, the 602(b) allocation is
simply a sham. I would hope the gentleman would support me in an effort
to make sure this body, as a Congress of the United States, begins to
take back control from the appropriators. And instead of being able to
not shift money from the accounts within the Veterans Affairs or the
space station or the housing agency, let us go after, and the gentleman
can join with me, and maybe we should knock a little bit of that B-2
money out. What would the gentleman say to that? Knock a little of the
F-22 out.
{time} 2030
Then we ought to knock out a little of those corporate subsidies. We
could do that if the gentleman supported me.
Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, I ask the gentleman to abide by the
rules of the House, please.
I do not know if the gentleman has gone to any recruiting offices
around the country or in Massachusetts, but I have. I will tell the
gentleman that right now, today, we are suffering because we are not
getting a good cross-section of American young men and women enlisting
in the military today. Why? Because they are worried about that career.
We are going right back to the 1970's when the military families that
we are serving were on food stamps, their pay grade was so low. We
could not keep noncommissioned officers. We could not keep commissioned
officers in the military because of what happened to our military
budget.
During the 1980's we went through something called peace through
strength and we rebuilt the military, we rebuilt the benefits for these
young men and women who are eventually going to become veterans,
whether it was from a full career or just having served 3 or 4 years.
But we are sliding back.
I can tell the gentleman right now, the money is not going to come
out of the defense budget. It is going to come out of that portion of
the pie which is set aside for the Department of Veterans Affairs, HUD
and independent agencies.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. We have got to think big, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SOLOMON. That is why we ought to defeat the Kennedy amendment on
behalf of the veterans of this Nation.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman urged my friend to abide by the rules. It
is easy to abide by the rules when one can change them at will, as the
gentleman can who is chairman of the Committee on Rules. I would also
say I am disappointed in him.
In the first place, he talked about those agencies which are grouped
with HUD once the 602(b)s are there, and he said EPA and Veterans and
HUD. Did
[[Page H2237]]
NASA slip his mind? Was that an unintentional error? I guess it must
have been. NASA is one of those agencies. The gentleman left NASA out.
Maybe he thought some people might think that a manned space shuttle is
less important.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman ought to check the voting
records. I voted to abolish NASA's Space Station program.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman may have voted to abolish
it, but that does not entitle him to abolish it in his mind and act as
if it was abolished. The fact is that the gentleman just said, if you
give more money to HUD, it must come under the 602(b) process once an
allocation is made from EPA or the Department of Veterans affairs. He
left out NASA.
Mr. SOLOMON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, I will not yield. I would say to the
gentleman, as he said to the gentleman from Massachusetts, abide by the
rules. I just heard someone say that.
I would say to the gentleman that he unintentionally, I am sure, gave
a very inaccurate picture. But even more important is this in this
diversionary effort by the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. I insist that the gentleman be good-natured and yield
briefly.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would say to the gentleman I will not.
The fact is that there has been no 602(b) allocation this year. The
fact is that the gentleman from New York comes up here on the wholly
inaccurate premise that this must come from HUD, VA, EPA or the
unstated NASA, which he has implicitly abolished, but that assumes
there has been a 602(b) allocation.
Mr. SOLOMON. My good friend must yield.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman seems to have forgotten
that his side forgot to do a budget this year. He not only forgot about
NASA, he forgot to do a budget. There has been no 602(b) allocation, so
his whole argument is nonsensical.
What the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about is more money from
HUD. The gentleman from New York said that must come from one of these
other agencies, but there has not yet been the basic decision that
allocates that money. In fact, if the gentleman's amendment were to
pass, we could then have the appropriators or the Committee on the
Budget give more money for the whole 602(b) issue. I have never seen an
issue of less substance brought forward.
I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to ask unanimous consent
that I correct my remarks and include NASA.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would have to say to the gentleman that
I only have 5 minutes.
Mr. SOLOMON. And all the other independent agencies.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have to say to the gentleman I only
have 5 minutes. I do not have enough time for the gentleman to correct
all his remarks.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to set the
precedent because I do not have enough time to entertain all the
corrections that would be entailed.
The point is this, however. Money is denigrated whenever poor people
are the recipients.
The gentleman from New York just correctly said that it would be very
unfortunate for the veterans if they lost money. I agree. One reason I
am skeptical about this budget deal is that among the items that will
be capped in the budget deal will be the discretionary money for
veterans' health, and I am unhappy with that, and I have been in a few
veterans' hospitals lately.
When we talk about the military, the gentleman says we need more
money. By the way, the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about
cutting the B-2 bomber. I do not think that is a big recruiting item.
We are told that we need more money for the Veterans Administration if
we want to do better for veterans' health, and I agree. We are told we
need more money for the military, if we think they are underfunded. I
do not.
How come it is only when we talk about benefiting the poor that money
somehow becomes irrelevant? Money is not some objectified thing in
itself. It is a claim on resources.
What we are saying is a substantial part of the problem with public
housing has been a lack of resources. The gentleman from New York said
and the gentleman from Louisiana said there are housing authorities
that are rotting; they have holes in the windows. Are we going to talk
those holes away? Are we going to just give people counseling so that
we fix heating systems?
Yes, for a lot of reasons there are serious physical deterioration
problems. We are saying to you that all of your self-sufficiency
contracts and your 8-hour-a-month work requirements, like them or not,
do nothing, nothing to deal with these ongoing serious physical
structural problems. The gentleman from Massachusetts is talking
seriously about them.
To argue that you are going to transform, in fact, people on the
majority side talk about public housing as this terrible, physically
rotting sinkhole full of social problems, but somehow more money is
irrelevant to dealing with them. It is the only context where poor
people are the potential recipients where people on the other side are
inclined to denigrate the value of money. When it comes to getting
wealthy people to work hard, they need more money. When it comes to
defending the country, we need more money. When it comes to health for
veterans, we need more money. When it comes to fixing up the admittedly
terrible conditions in much of public housing, money somehow becomes
irrelevant.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the gentleman from New York if he so desires, if
he has further clarification he would like to make.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, again my good friend from Massachusetts
had said that somehow I left out NASA but I wanted to point out that I
did in fact, when there was a vote on the floor about the space
station, that I voted to eliminate it. I do not know how the gentleman
voted, but I did so because we really did need that money for the
veterans budget, that part of the 602(b) allocations.
But there are other issues out there. We have a supplemental budget
coming up before us in an appropriation bill sometime this week or next
week, and in that is the continued funding for our troops in Bosnia.
Those funds are going to come out of not somewhere else, they are
going to come out of the defense budget. It is out of the operation and
maintenance of the defense budget and the research and development that
it gives our young men and women today the kind of state-of-the-art
equipment that, God forbid if they ever have to go into a war, they are
going to have. They are going to have night vision goggles so that they
can see the enemy and the enemy cannot see them. Those are so terribly
important. When you let the defense budget go down to what it has, you
jeopardize that.
I have got an amendment, as a matter of fact, to the supplemental
appropriations bill that is going to say instead of taking this money
out of the operation and maintenance, which means out of housing for
these young men and women and their families, we are going to try to
take it out of Nunn-Lugar. Do my colleagues know what that is? It pays
for the dismantling of defense missile systems in a lot of the former
Soviet bloc countries.
Today, for instance, in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, those two countries
have already been denuclearized, yet there is over $800 million in the
pipeline for this money to be used. We are going to try to transfer
that money from Nunn-Lugar and put it into paying for those troops in
Bosnia, instead of taking it out of the operation and maintenance
budget.
These are the kind of things that we ought to be doing. We ought to
be protecting our young men and women, we ought to be providing proper
funding so that they can depend on a good, honorable career in the
military, and there is
[[Page H2238]]
nothing more honorable. It is a lot more honorable career in the
military than it is a career in the Congress. I wish I could have had a
career in the military instead of in the Congress.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, some of us wish the
gentleman had stayed in.
Mr. SOLOMON. I tell the gentleman from Massachusetts that I will get
into that later on.
Mr. LEACH. If I could reclaim the time, I want to thank the gentleman
from New York for his very thoughtful representation to this body as
well as defense of the U.S. military and the veteran.
I would only like to make one comment, because in all of this
discussion about programmatic grouping, 601(b), 602(b), whatever it may
be, the fact of the matter is, the greater relevance is how did the
committee come up with the figure? And the figure in this budget is
precisely, dollar for dollar the recommendation of the Clinton
administration. This committee has worked vigorously and cooperatively
with the administration on this housing budget.
I make this point because the figure of the gentleman from
Massachusetts is somewhat over 50 percent greater than the majority on
the committee has recommended, which means it is 50 percent greater
than the administration has requested. There are a lot of things we
could do with more money in all sorts of Federal areas.
I, personally, think maybe housing has been a little more short-
shrifted than I would like, but the fact of the matter is we are
dealing with a budget dilemma. This committee has come up precisely
with the administration request, and I know it does not fit all on your
side of the aisle, but I would think the committee might well get some
appreciation for how closely we have worked with the administration,
how hard we have worked to defend a particular dollar level that is
their request, and instead the amendments come in calling for 50
percent increases. That makes it pretty difficult to deal with, because
it is out of the scope of budget constraints, as we all recognize, and
not just this discussion between the veterans' programs and the housing
programs.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I did not exclude the
Clinton administration from their culpability in this low number on
housing allocations. What I wonder is if the gentleman might respond to
the idea that the gentleman, as chairman of the Committee on Banking
and Financial Services, as someone who has taken a great interest in
housing policy over the years, would not in fact take the lead in
trying to suggest that the Clinton administration as well as many
others have not put enough money into this, and let us at least have
the fight on the House floor. Instead of requiring this to be held on
the Democratic side, why not come up with a budget that actually meets
the needs? Does the gentleman really believe that the housing projects
that are in such terrible shape can be brought up to code if they do
not have more money?
Mr. LEACH. First, let me respond to the gentleman. We have worked
forthrightly to come up with the maximum approach we believe that could
receive the majority's support in this body.
Second, I do believe very firmly that there are few areas of Federal
programming that have had more glaring mistakes in them than a number
of our public housing projects. And I believe that without reform, more
money is money down the proverbial difficult hole.
All I can say is that from the majority's perspective, we have worked
with the administration to come up with a credible number, with
credible reform, and as we come to the floor, each amendment calls
either for a return to the status quo or for money outside the budget
constraints that have been worked out between the executive branch and
Congress. It is in that context that I have a difficult time looking at
some of these amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have to say to my friend
with all sincerity, invoking the President is not an argument. Invoking
the President, with whom you are free to disagree and disagree
frequently, the fact that the gentleman coincide on this one, as the
gentleman understands, is not an argument. It does not go to the
merits.
Second, I have to say I am sorry to hear the gentleman talk about,
oh, it is going to be money down a rathole. In some few places, yes.
Nobody here is contesting the strengthening of HUD's ability to take
over housing projects. We are all for that. But I will tell the
gentleman that I have been to many of the housing authorities in my
district and elsewhere, and they are well run; they are not ratholes,
and giving them more money is not pouring money down a rathole. The
gentleman knows that.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I recapture my time because the gentleman
from Iowa has the time.
I would concur with the gentleman that many of these housing projects
are very well run. I would like as a Member of Congress to be able to
say ``I can double your funds.'' But the fact is we have a totality of
constraints placed in this body. Working with the administration may
not be an argument in the sense of substance but it is a process
circumstance of enormous import to this body that everybody in this
body recognizes.
{time} 2045
Mr. Chairman, what is being displayed on the floor today is an effort
by a part of their wonderful political party that is saying we want to
on this program increase substantially the resources as they argue on
many other programs, and what the majority side is saying, that somehow
there have to be limits when we are dealing with a totality of a budget
of the nature we are dealing with.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman further
yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But many of us have also talked about
substantial reductions, the space station, the B-2 bomber, areas that
we consider----
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, to recapture my time, because it is my time,
I would acknowledge to the gentleman that with the gentleman from New
York and the gentleman from Massachusetts I had the same vote on the
man orbiting laboratory issue. I also object to the B-2 bomber. And so
all of us as individual Members have different judgments, but we have
to live within the constraints of what the majority determines as well
as the constraints of the executive branch.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We are in the process, we are in the
process of trying to determine what the majority determines. The
majority, until it has voted on this, has not spoken yet. But finally I
have to say I understand the gentleman can feel beleaguered sometimes
when he says he is getting no appreciation for supporting the
administration. I think my colleagues have to adopt what Harry Truman
said with regard to friendship:
``If you want appreciation in Washington, get a dog.''
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, my belief is that we are
an authorizing committee, and as an authorizing committee it is not our
responsibility to do the appropriations committees' work. We have a
responsibility of telling the appropriators the funding levels that are
necessary in
[[Page H2239]]
order to achieve the kind of public housing policy that we believe is
the right policy. It is up to the appropriators to then come back and
tell us that they do not have enough money to do this or that or the
other thing, and we have that fight out, and that is the process that
the forefathers of this country set out in how they establish the rules
of the House.
It seems to me that what has happened here is that we have allowed
and that their side of the aisle has allowed the authorizing committees
to simply be stifled. There is no debate between authorizers and
appropriators any longer. This used to be a fight when the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] ran this committee. It was a fight, and he
put in more money, and we go to the appropriators, and every member of
this committee would go before the Committee on Appropriations and
fight for the programs that we believed in. That is not existing any
longer. It is just that they give us a number and our colleagues accept
it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Leach was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman does not accept the
statements of the gentleman from Massachusetts. The fact of the matter
is it is the responsibility of this committee to work realistically
with the budget constraints that exist. The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] knows very well, and I do not want to
reference names, but in the past, bills were introduced in our
committee with gigantic pie-in-the-sky numbers, and they never were
credibly received in the appropriations process, and they should not
have been.
This committee is an authorizing committee, is requesting
credibility. It is coming with numbers that we will be defending,
numbers that will be accepted, numbers that are supported by the
administration, numbers that have realistic relationships with other
Federal programs in a budget constraint time, and this committee also
is coming with philosophical reform.
The combination of realistic numbers and realistic reform I think
gives decent hope that public housing in America can be improved.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am having a little trouble following this debate
because it sounds like everybody is saying the same thing, which is
that we need more money. At least every once in a while I hear somebody
on the other side acknowledge that we need more money, when they are
running away from the notion that they are advancing that money will
not solve the problem. And so that kind of has my head spinning. Maybe
my head is spinning because it is so late tonight, but I keep hearing
inconsistent philosophies from my colleagues here.
We were talking about opening new slots for working people and public
housing so that working people could rotate out of public housing, and
so we went around in a circle on that issue, and then we were talking
about we always want to do what the President does, but the truth of
the matter is the President does not even support this bill and the
President has asked for additional funding for this purpose and our
authorizing committee will not even ask for additional funding, even
though we all acknowledge that we need the additional funding if we are
going to rehabilitate public housing. We were talking about more
flexibility for local housing authorities, and yet the bill keeps
dictating various requirements from the Federal Government on local
housing authorities.
So we are going around in circles that way, and now we are back here
saying, hey, we are not going to ask for any more money because we are
looking for credibility, and I do not know. What kind of credibility
are we looking for? We got 16 million people out here that need
housing, we got 4 million units, and nobody is saying we are going to
build 12 million more housing units, but surely we need some more
housing units and we need to rehabilitate the housing units that are
not in good condition. And how are we going to do that if we on the
authorizing committee do not take the fight and go to the appropriators
and say we know we have got competing demands, we know we got budget
constraints, but we need more money for housing in this country because
we got 16 million housing families that need housing and we got only 4
million units?
We have got bad housing, which all of us acknowledge, and we need to
rehabilitate it, and it seems to me that all of us on both sides have
acknowledged that, and why Mr. Kennedy's amendment would not be deemed
a reasonable and good idea in that context I simply do not understand.
Maybe it is too late at night for me to understand. Maybe I have
heard too many inconsistent rationales that I cannot understand.
Would the gentleman like for me to yield the balance of my time to
him? Maybe he can explain it to me.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentleman yielding. I think that the heart of this issue is where we
believe our resources ought to be spent in this country. I understand
that it is not popular to stand up for housing policy and for the
homeless and to suggest that, if we even suggest that we want to put
more money into homeless and housing issues, that we are going to be
castigated as saying that we are maintaining the status quo, we are not
willing to change. None of those things are true.
If anybody bothers to read our bill and recognizes that we give broad
powers to the Secretary to take back badly-run housing agencies, well-
run housing agencies that run badly run projects will also be taken
back. We give broad powers, new powers at the local level, to accept
many more working families to raise that to a 50/50 ratio over a period
of 10 years.
I think that the housing reforms that we have constituted require us
to have the faith that if we invest the money in these buildings that
we can get them up to code and provide decent and affordable housing
for the Nation's poor and vulnerable people, and I appreciate all the
work that the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] has done on this
bill. He has done yeoman's work, and I am very proud to serve in the
Congress with him.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the subcommittee chairman would yield
for a colloquy on some questions that I have with regard to this issue.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HILL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, first of all perhaps I am not the only Member
here that is a little bit confused about the issue of the 602
allocation. As I understand, the funding, if we have an increase of
funding in this area, that funding comes out of where? Would the
gentleman from New York explain that for us?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Sure. There is something called the 602(b)s,
and they are a cap on the money that each of the 13 appropriations
bills can spend. The way the rules work are that we cannot take money
from another 602(b) area to put it into a separate and distinct area.
Now if I can illustrate that, that means that if we increase funding,
in this case for a particular housing program, it must come from within
that area that is under the jurisdiction of that particular
appropriations subcommittee, and in that subcommittee we have
environmental enforcement, veterans benefits and veterans affairs, NASA
and housing; those are the main areas. And so as we increase one; for
example, if we were to adopt this amendment and the effect of it would
be to increase funding in one part of housing, the offset might be to
get rid of home ownership programs also for people of low income. The
offset might also be to deny health benefits for veterans, to
illustrate a point. It might be to eliminate a NASA program or an EPA
program. It could not be, under the rules, the budget rules that exist
in this House, we could not go out and take money away from the defense
budget. That is not the way the rules work.
[[Page H2240]]
Mr. HILL. Now as I understand it, some of these public housing
authorities have capital funds that have not been spent. Am I correct
that some of these are the public housing administrations that have
some of the poorest housing? Is that correct?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. The gentleman is absolutely correct. As a
matter of fact, last year we had in America housing authorities that
did not spend in excess of $900 million in their capital account, and
in several cases there were tens of millions of dollars that were left
unspent by the worst housing authorities in the country. So while
people were living in squalor, they were sitting on money.
The idea that money alone will fix the problem is wrong, it is not
factual, and the fact that we need to create environments where
competitive forces reign, where we demand levels of excellence in terms
of management and we begin to change and transform the community so
that working people can achieve their American dream and people who are
unemployed can also follow that American dream.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, this bill is intended to create greater
responsibility on the part of a lot of folks that are involved in
public housing. We have talked some about the work requirement, if my
colleague will, the community service requirement, which is an effort
to create greater responsibility on the part of residents, and our goal
here, as I understand it, is that by their involvement in those
communities it will strengthen those communities.
This section of the bill is intended to create greater responsibility
in terms of the public housing administrators; is that not correct?
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, in that sense we are giving more
money to the public housing administrators to administer the programs.
They can use it in many different ways, but getting back to the core
issue, if we had an unlimited amount of money, I would suggest that
virtually every Member in this Chamber would look to see if we could
increase spending in some way to ensure that we get better housing.
But not every solution to help house and provide better opportunities
for the very poor and for the working poor involves funding housing
authorities. Some of it involves exploring home ownership options, some
of it means working with not for profits like Habitat For Humanity
which we have been involved in, and when we do this in a way in which
we deal with our budget, meaning we have limited money and we have to
have offsets, we are taking from one of those areas and we are
prioritizing, and we are saying that area is not as valid in terms of
our spending increases as this one, and we are fully funding the
President's request in this case.
As a matter of fact, I would say to the gentleman, there have been
cases in which I have been on the floor to ask for amounts over and
above the President's request when the administration put forward a
budget that would reduce funding for seniors, for senior housing, or
when the administration put forward a request to cut housing for people
who are disabled. I offered the amendments, and this House followed
suit, and I am grateful to that to restore that funding.
{time} 2100
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 more
minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Montana?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would not have
objected, because everybody else has been willing, if the gentleman who
just had the time would acknowledge the fact that I am trying to get
his attention.
Mr. Chairman, I would have been happy to yield to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Hill] and given the gentleman more time, but the gentleman
would never yield to me; no matter how many times I requested the
gentleman to yield, he never yielded to me.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I was engaged in a colloquy and at the end of
that colloquy I would have been more than happy to yield to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and had the gentleman
appropriately waited until the end, I would have done so.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield
to the gentleman from Montana now.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
I have one last question.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentleman
was going to yield back to me.
In any event, let me reclaim my time briefly, Mr. Chairman, and if
the gentleman from Montana has a question of me, I will be happy to
yield to him.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, and then the gentleman will not object if I
want another minute.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. No, I will not.
Mr. Chairman, there is a very different way of thinking about this
budget than the one that was just articulated between the two Members
on the other side of the aisle. The truth of the matter is that there
is no 602(b) allocation. We are not constrained within any number at
this time. This is prior to when that entire procedure gets underway.
Right now, we can come in and request whatever numbers we want. The
appropriators are going to have to come in, and the Committee on the
Budget is going to have to come up with what they feel is appropriate
for us.
We can have fights about what we believe, whether or not the space
station ought to be built; the space station would pay for these
programs.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side, if they read their own
bill they will find, and we support the idea, that the funding that is
contained, that is not unspent by housing authorities goes back to HUD
and can be reallocated.
So yes, I am not trying to suggest that poorly run housing
authorities ought to be able to continue to get this money. What we are
trying to suggest is that we are not going to solve the problem of
badly run housing projects unless we in fact give some more money to
the people, in addition to the fact that we get a better income mix in
those buildings.
We have a basic responsibility as authorizers to tell the
appropriators that they do not just take a marching order from the
Speaker of the House when he says, listen, here is the number, so then
the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee go,
oh, OK, that is a realistic number, so therefore, we ought to take it.
I object when the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] said earlier that
we put big numbers up. Yes, there were some of us on the committee that
feel we should put a lot more money into housing. Those bills were what
I would call flagship bills. We never expected to get those bills that
put $50 billion into housing. But, my goodness, we certainly expected
to have the fight with the appropriators, and the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Gonzalez] would put in at $38 billion levels all the years that I
have served on the housing committee, since I first got here.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, first, a correction for the gentleman. We
are in a world which everyone that has a point wants to identify the
Speaker. I have not spoken to the Speaker on this issue. I have spoken
to Secretary Cuomo. We have put in the administration-requested
numbers.
The second point I would like to make, the gentleman is absolutely
right. The former chairman of this committee put in higher numbers, but
they have not gotten them. We are putting in numbers and we intend to
get them.
The chairman of the subcommittee and I have fought very vigorously
within the Republican caucus to insist that
[[Page H2241]]
public housing programs not be eliminated, and we have made a major
personal time commitment. And I would say particularly the chairman of
this subcommittee, and must tell the gentleman from Massachusetts that
the implications of his words that the majority leadership and the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services refuses to go and support
the committee, unlike prior leadership of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services, is invalid.
Beyond that, I know of no committee at any time in this body that has
not cooperated more with the department of jurisdiction on the area
under control, controlled by another political party.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would point out that the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] controls the time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me yield to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and subsequently to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The chairman of the committee, who I
have great respect for and recognize the independence that he brings to
his job, but it is also true that under the leadership that he has
served as chairman of the committee we have seen the most precipitous
drop in the history of housing. We went from $28 billion to $20 billion
overnight without a single hearing, without ever debating this issue
whatsoever, and that is what happened, and that is the real record.
I do not care to condemn my friend from Iowa, because I know that he
had very little to do with that particular policy, but that is the
record of what has occurred while the gentleman has been chairman of
this committee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield
to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], and I would also like
to yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] if the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt] would make his point.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to make my point
quick, because I made this point in committee.
I do not doubt at all that our chairman has fought within the
Republican Caucus for what we are talking about, but I do not know why
we would not as a committee go on record in support of the Kennedy
amendment that allows bipartisan support for this, both Republicans and
Democrats. The gentleman from Iowa should not be fighting this battle
in only the Republican Caucus. We should be taking this battle to the
full House, and we should be doing it together. That is what I said
earlier, everybody is saying the same thing, everybody agrees we need
this money, and both sides ought to be saying it together, not just in
a Republican Caucus.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Leach] so that he may respond.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, let me respond in context, one is the
context of restraint, the second is in the context of housing.
In the context of restraint, this committee has brought forth the
administration's proposal. This side is marching in what might be
considered surprising lockstep with the administration; the Democrat
side is not.
The second point I would like to make that I think is very important,
housing is a large issue, public housing is a subset issue. It is the
belief philosophically of the Republican side that if we can constrain
spending, reduce interest rates, we can expand housing in America. That
is occurring. A higher percentage of Americans each year now are coming
to own their own homes, putting a lower burden on the public side.
Now, we can take every single subset of Federal programs and make a
case for increasing them. When we do that, the sum total of effect is
an economy that dwindles. We on the Republican side are very conscious
of the macroeconomic dimension of the need to restrain. Based on that,
of all programs in America where the benefits become most clear-cut, it
is housing. Homeownership in this country as a percentage is going up,
and we are committed to continue to have that go up.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield
to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
point out that we have discussed the defense bill now and it sounds
like we are back to supply-side economics.
The truth of the matter is I am in favor of a balanced budget. There
is plenty of money in this budget, we just have to find out where we
have to go spend it. All I am asking, all the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Watt] is asking, all the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms.
Jackson-Lee] is asking is that we go out and fight for money for the
housing bill. Why go out and allow everybody else to grab the money? Go
out and grab it with us, and we will help.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 31.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 31 offered by Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas: Page
120, line 2, strike ``and''.
Page 120, line 23, strike the period and insert a
semicolon.
Page 120, after line 23, insert the following:
(3) in subsections (c)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(A), by striking
``make their best efforts,'' each place it appears and
inserting ``to the maximum extent that is possible and'';
(4) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by striking ``to give'' and
inserting ``give''; and
(5) in subsection (d)(1)(A), by striking ``to award'' and
inserting ``award''.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me acknowledge the
leadership of the Chairman and ranking member on a very difficult
process and a difficult piece of legislation with varying perspectives,
and I have offered my own perspective on issues involving a large
number of my constituents who are in public housing or assisted
housing. Houston is the fourth largest city in the Nation.
Interestingly enough, as a southern city, we confront many of the ills
that we see our eastern and northern counterpart cities facing.
I rise to offer an amendment that I believe can move forward in a
bipartisan manner, and that is to alter the language that would mandate
public housing authorities, their contractors and subcontractors, to be
considered or to consider employing residents on projects funded with
HUD dollars.
This will open up the widest range of job opportunities for residents
and would be advantageous to the national economy. Again, let me
emphasize that the language is to be considered, it is not a mandate to
hire.
According to the National Public Housing Authority, there are many
public housing residents who are looking for employment. This amendment
addresses the job scarcity that affects many residents of public
housing.
In fact, I was in a discussion some weeks ago where, going through my
public housing developments, their main question is, where is the work?
We would like to work. I think my counterparts throughout the Nation
have heard the very same request.
We have checked on this particular amendment and it has no CBO
impact. It is a cooperative amendment. It has the contractors, the
businesses, the housing authority, the residents, working together.
This amendment will not only provide jobs for residents of public
housing, it will increase moneys paid in rent to the housing
authorities which assess rent schedules by the annual income of the
residents. This amendment will also drive down the number of
individuals who earn salaries below the
[[Page H2242]]
average area mean. It will train young people in the housing
developments. It will get families having a sense of pride and dignity
as they work, to construct, to rehabilitate, to clean up, to landscape
the areas of their housing and where they live. This will have a
positive impact for public housing authorities, the Federal Government
and the national economy.
Might I say that in my discussions with some of the contracting
businesses, this is a positive for them. It is a positive for the
unions. In fact, I might say that the unions have offered and wanted us
to do more on job training in the housing developments so they could
get more apprenticeships and have the individuals who live there, male
and female, learn the building trades or learn landscaping.
So this is an amendment that says, let us make sure that those
individuals who want to work, who live in housing developments, are
considered for these very precious jobs.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to compliment the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] and
announce that I am going to be supporting this amendment. I want to
compliment the gentlewoman for her vision in terms of putting this
amendment forward.
This amendment really does very much speak to one of the essential
themes of this bill, which is to help recycle dollars, help to provide
new opportunities for tenants, help to build skills; help to give
people the kind of environment, even if they are of lower income, where
they can transition back into the mainstream economy.
This amendment will help do that, I believe. I believe this sends a
strong message out to public housing authorities throughout the country
that this should be part of their mission, that they ought to be paying
attention to their tenants, that they ought to be helping them build
skills and they ought to be employing them, wherever possible.
So for these reasons, I am appreciative of the gentlewoman's
amendment. I am happy to lend it my support, and I want to compliment
her for the way she has handled it.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that sometimes we get involved in
rhetorical debates. What the gentlewoman's amendment does is something
that is very close to the self-sufficiency efforts that are underway as
well, and I think it makes a great deal of common sense, as I think
self-sufficiency efforts make a great deal of common sense, but this
side does have to recognize that it is a slightly greater burden on the
public housing authorities, but it is a burden worth putting on the
public housing authorities.
{time} 2115
That was the same point we were trying to make earlier with the self-
sufficiency approaches. This tightens that up. It is complementary. It
makes great sense.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
willingness to support this. We have disagreed on the self-sufficiency,
but I really appreciate the fact that the gentleman realizes I am at a
different level, but we are on common ground. That is that this gives
dignity and self-esteem, but it also gives the ability for those
individuals to get valuable training, job skills, that may be parlayed
even beyond these contracts. I appreciate the housing authorities being
willing to at least let those applicants, those residents, get to those
potential employers and see what happens.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a
substitute for amendment No. 50.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Page 152,
line 2, strike ``and''.
Page 152, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 152, after line 6, insert the following:
(7) how the agency will comply with the requirement under
subsection (k)(3), if applicable.
Page 153, after line 15, insert the following:
(3) Replacement requirement for pha's in areas with public
housing shortages.--
(A) In general.--In the case only of public housing
agencies described in subparagraph (B), such an agency may
demolish or dispose of a public housing development (or
portion of a development) only if the agency provides to the
maximum extent that is possible an additional safe, clean,
healthy, and affordable dwelling unit for each public housing
dwelling unit to be demolished or disposed of. Such
additional dwelling units may be provided for through
acquisition or development of additional public housing
dwelling units or as provided under paragraph (1).
(B) Covered pha's.--A public housing agency described in
this subparagraph is an agency whose jurisdiction includes
any area within a metropolitan statistical area for which--
(i) the number of public housing dwelling units is less
than 5,000 dwelling units.
Mr. LAZIO of New York (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me, as I am presenting
this amendment, say to the ranking member, I thank him for the
discussions that we have had on this very important issue. If I may, to
the ranking member, just for a moment, I am not going to ask him to
comment right now, but I would like to lay this out. We have had some
very good discussions, and I would like to lay this amendment out and
enter subsequently into a colloquy on this issue dealing with a very
special problem that I have seen not only in communities like Houston,
but in communities around the Nation, if I might.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that for a long period of time the
leadership dealing with the housing issues have looked at this question
called one-for-one replacement. I recognize that many of our major
cities with large public housing agencies, with dwelling units over the
10,000, 25,000, 50,000 level, have faced consternation regarding the
question of lack of flexibility in reevaluating how best to serve those
who need public housing.
Let me highlight that Houston and communities that have a small
number of public housing dwelling units face a dissimilar problem or a
problem that is very distinct and unique. That is, for example, Houston
is a city with over 1.5 million, comparable to other cities around the
Nation, but also equal to some of the problems that our rural
communities have with respect to housing. In many instances, they have
not had the necessity to demolish large numbers of units, or have the
situation where they have units over 10,000.
In our community in particular, we had a certain housing structure
that became the symbol for what happens when individuals believe that
we cannot demolish and be constructive and go forward. It happens that
Allen Parkway Village now has been partly demolished. There is an
effort to rehabilitate a certain number of units and an effort now to
replace a certain number of units.
The amendment that I offered was really a discretionary amendment. It
simply said that if a particular community had less than 5,000 units
and was planning on demolishing, they should make every maximum effort
to provide healthy, clean, affordable public housing dwelling units,
recognizing that this might help many of our rural communities, give
them an incentive, if you will, to replace the housing units for those
who most need it.
In my community we are presently looking at trying to replace the
units for Allen Parkway Village. The difficulty is that now all of a
sudden the properties around Allen Parkway Village have become
lucrative for developers, and there is a falling back, if you will, a
reneging, on the replacing of housing for my constituents and
constituents who need it.
What I would simply offer to say, Mr. Chairman, is that I would hope,
both with the ranking member and of course with the chairman, that we
could work through this issue and determine that what we need most in
the U.S. Congress is to assure affordable, clean, healthy housing for
those who need public housing. Where there is a demolishing, if we can
have a discussion that
[[Page H2243]]
makes sure that we do not go backward, but we go forward; that we
enable, if you will, the individuals who need public housing to have
good, clean public housing.
I would like to yield to the gentleman, because I am offering to
withdraw this particular amendment, even as it has been softened, to be
able to work further on the generic problem, and the generic problem is
trying to get housing in communities that do not have 50,000 units,
25,000 units, 10,000 units or 5,000 units, but have under that, and
through demolishing have lost the ability to serve those communities
and individuals in those communities.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
Texas. I appreciate the spirit with which we have been entering into
discussions on the part of the gentlewoman. She has offered, and I
appreciate that, to continue speaking with me and with members of my
staff, the committee staff, rather, to ensure that we try and meet the
needs of low-income people in terms of housing in rural areas. I
understand that there is an equal need for housing in rural areas, and
that we need to look to new tools to try and enhance what we have right
now.
With respect to the gentlewoman's particular amendment, we are going
to take a look at it, because we have no hearing record. I want to make
sure that I understand the implications and consequences of the
amendment, and then I hope we will have several different discussions
about this, to see if we can explore some ways of trying to meet on
mutual concerns to try and deliver more and better housing for low-
income people in rural areas.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas was allowed to
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I was
hoping we could work in tandem and look at this issue so it could be
represented in conference that there is a problem, not only with rural
areas, I mentioned that, but cities that are not cities that have
larger than 5,000 units.
In my instance, Houston is probably representative of some other
cities that have less than that, or 2,500 units, who may have some
problems on the replacement, and need to have that incentive to do so
for those individuals.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
following Members be permitted to offer their amendments to title II,
even after the reading has progressed beyond that title. That would be
Mr. MORAN, printed amendment No. 51; the gentlewoman from New York,
[Ms. Velazquez], printed amendment No. 43. That would preserve their
rights to offer their amendments tomorrow.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment of the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. DeLay], also be protected,
which is a correlary or related to the amendment of Mr. Moran, and that
he be permitted to offer his amendment to title II even after the
reading has progressed beyond that title.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, the Klink-Doyle amendment will provide the
general public with a simple practical protection from overzealous
bureaucratic decisionmaking. It amends the local cooperation provision
of section 202 of the bill to ensure that public housing authorities
notify and consult with potentially impacted local governments when
initiating new public housing programs, including those which stem from
an order, judgment, or decree of any court.
Current law does contain limited notification requirements, and H.R.
2 improves on these stipulations. Some might assume that such
provisions are adequate to guarantee that communities receive expedient
notification and consultation. However, based on experiences in
Allegheny County, PA and in cities across the country, we feel that the
clarification provided by this amendment is essential.
For 2 years now, the citizens of Allegheny County have been working
to comply with the provisions of a consent decree designed to
redistribute public housing throughout the county. As HUD and the
housing authority began to implement the decree, towns and boroughs
were often treated as if their interests and input were unnecessary and
unwanted. Thousands of citizens and numerous councils of government
were outraged by their nearly total exclusion from any part of the
decisionmaking process.
To address this situation, I brought local officials in Allegheny
County together into an intermunicipal working group. This group has
come to stand together and demand the notification that the people
deserve. Many citizens and elected officials in this group have worked
tirelessly and have had some success in bringing more openness to the
implementation process. Unfortunately, our extraordinary efforts have
not been enough. The people need the force of law to guarantee that, at
a bare minimum, public housing authorities will keep them apprised of
their activities.
Usually, when a housing authority seeks funding from HUD for a new
public housing initiative, they must gain some degree of local
approval. However, because funding for compliance with a consent decree
does not come through normal HUD channels, notification requirements do
not have to be adhered to. In other words, housing authorities can and
do legally turn a blind eye to local interests. Mr. Chairman, I believe
that this is clearly a loophole which needs to be closed.
Regardless if a public housing initiative is the result of a
bureaucratic decision or a judicial decree, the public should have the
right to review proposals which will affect their communities. A
judicial mandate should not provide a license to ignore the rights of
citizens, or be used as a justification to avoid public scrutiny. We
must insist these decisions and debates are taking place in the light
of day, not behind closed doors, and this amendment does simply that.
It guarantees the public's right to know. I thank the Committee for
agreeing to include Amendment No. 47 in the en bloc amendment which was
earlier today approved by voice vote.
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.
Jenkins) 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.
____________________