[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 7, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW AMENDMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                               RON KLINK

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 6, 1997

  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the en block 
amendment offered by Chairman Lazio because it includes my simple 
community right to know amendment, which I offered with my good friend 
and neighbor, Mike Doyle.
  As a former member of the Banking Committee I would like to thank my 
colleagues, Chairman Lazio and Representative Kennedy along with their 
staffs for working with us on this efforts. I realize that more work 
will be needed in conference and I look forward to working together to 
ensure that this is included in the final bill.
  Our amendment attempts to avoid disastrous situations like the one 
that happened in our area, when HUD nearly paid $92,000 for homes 
valued at less than $50,000, almost twice the market value.
  Luckily this did not take place, because Mr. Doyle and I were able to 
bring it to HUD's attention in time for HUD to investigate, and stop 
the purchase.
  No, the purchase was not stopped because of resistance from the 
community.
  It was stopped because when HUD investigated the sale they discovered 
that the purchase did not even meet basic HUD criteria: the units were 
concentrated together; without access to public transportation, 
shopping, or employment opportunities; and the cost was above HUD's top 
purchase price.
  I submit, Mr. Speaker, that all of this would have been avoided if 
the housing authority and the locality had only worked together.
  This amendment is not meant to be divisive, nor is it driven by 
NIMBY'ism. I am a strong supporter of public housing, and believe that 
every community has a responsibility to provide shelter for our poor, 
and less fortunate residents.
  Mr. Speaker, let me explain what we are trying to do. The block grant 
section of the bill codifies the requirement that local housing 
authorities, and local governments work together. This is nothing new. 
Already, HUD requires housing authorities to go to the local 
governments in which new public housing is proposed and get them to 
sign local cooperation agreements as part of the application for 
federal dollars. Obviously, notification is implicit in that process.
  We support this process, and think that local communities and the 
housing authorities should work together.
  The problem arises when housing authorities act pursuant to a court 
order or a consent decree. That is what happened in our area. Pursuant 
to a consent decree the housing authority needed to distribute up to 23 
single family homes throughout the county.
  Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with public housing in our community. 
Nobody wants to keep people out. In fact, at both the local and the 
state level Democrats and Republicans alike want this to be a success 
and are willing to work together to ensure that it is. Our hope though, 
along with HUD, and in concurrence with the consent decree, is that we 
are able to pay a fair market value for the requisite number of homes, 
and have them disbursed throughout the community.
  Mr. Speaker, the goal of the court that recipients of public housing, 
living in homes purchased pursuant to the consent decree blend into the 
community, and that we avoid concentrated public housing communities.
  Mr. Speaker, this is our goal. Yet, Mr. Speaker, unlike every other 
application for federal public housing dollars the law is ambiguous as 
to notification requirements when it comes to consent decrees and court 
orders.
  Mr. Speaker, I fully support the provision in the bill that would 
require HUD to ``consult with units of local government'' in the 
process of negotiating a settlement to housing litigation. This goes a 
long way toward avoiding the problems we have experienced, but it still 
does not adequately address consent decrees which have been entered 
into before this bill takes affect.
  Our amendment eliminates this confusion by requiring notification. 
Regrettably, had the housing authority notified the borough, they could 
have worked together to a successful end--we would have avoided 
controversy, and saved the taxpayers thousands of dollars.
  I urge you to support the Klink/Doyle Community Right to Know 
amendment.

                          ____________________